2021 Intercollegiate Championship Tournament
| Date: |
Saturday, April 10, 2021 |
Division I Pool E
Teams are ordered within each pool based on their performance. The order of finish within each pool may depend on tiebreaker games not shown. Ranks for the tournament as a whole are displayed on the Standings tab.
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
Columbia A | 2–1 | 66.7% | 805 | 60 | 8 |
21 |
9 | 17.93 | 268.33 |
|---|
|
Texas A | 2–1 | 66.7% | 770 | 63 | 7 |
24 |
5 | 15.52 | 244.44 |
|---|
|
Chicago A | 1–2 | 33.3% | 820 | 63 | 5 |
24 |
9 | 19.64 | 260.32 |
|---|
|
Ohio State | 1–2 | 33.3% | 730 | 60 | 6 |
21 |
6 | 17.04 | 243.33 |
|---|
Pool F
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
Illinois A | 3–0 | 100.0% | 1175 | 60 | 14 |
26 |
7 | 18.50 | 391.67 |
|---|
|
Stanford | 2–1 | 66.7% | 1035 | 60 | 7 |
27 |
6 | 20.29 | 345.00 |
|---|
|
Florida A | 1–2 | 33.3% | 570 | 60 | 3 |
17 |
5 | 19.00 | 190.00 |
|---|
|
Harvard A | 0–3 | 0.0% | 650 | 60 | 4 |
19 |
8 | 19.13 | 216.67 |
|---|
Pool G
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
UC Berkeley A | 3–0 | 100.0% | 1040 | 60 | 7 |
28 |
7 | 19.71 | 346.67 |
|---|
|
Brown | 1–2 | 33.3% | 650 | 60 | 6 |
22 |
8 | 13.57 | 216.67 |
|---|
|
MIT A | 1–2 | 33.3% | 585 | 60 | 6 |
19 |
7 | 13.60 | 195.00 |
|---|
|
Princeton | 1–2 | 33.3% | 535 | 60 | 6 |
14 |
3 | 16.00 | 178.33 |
|---|
Pool H
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
Maryland A | 2–1 | 66.7% | 895 | 60 | 6 |
27 |
9 | 17.58 | 298.33 |
|---|
|
Yale | 2–1 | 66.7% | 850 | 60 | 3 |
28 |
11 | 18.71 | 283.33 |
|---|
|
Cambridge | 2–1 | 66.7% | 770 | 60 | 4 |
25 |
4 | 16.55 | 256.67 |
|---|
|
Georgia Tech A | 0–3 | 0.0% | 575 | 60 | 2 |
22 |
11 | 15.83 | 191.67 |
|---|
Pool I
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
WUSTL A | 3–0 | 100.0% | 870 | 60 | 6 |
29 |
6 | 14.86 | 290.00 |
|---|
|
Penn State | 1–2 | 33.3% | 555 | 60 | 5 |
18 |
6 | 14.35 | 185.00 |
|---|
|
Chicago B | 1–2 | 33.3% | 500 | 60 | 1 |
19 |
7 | 16.50 | 166.67 |
|---|
|
Texas B | 1–2 | 33.3% | 465 | 60 | 1 |
22 |
8 | 11.74 | 155.00 |
|---|
Pool K
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
UC Davis | 2–1 | 66.7% | 710 | 60 | 8 |
22 |
10 | 14.00 | 236.67 |
|---|
|
Indiana | 2–1 | 66.7% | 575 | 60 | 1 |
25 |
2 | 12.31 | 191.67 |
|---|
|
Minnesota A | 1–2 | 33.3% | 530 | 60 | 1 |
23 |
3 | 12.50 | 176.67 |
|---|
|
Florida B | 1–2 | 33.3% | 420 | 60 | 1 |
19 |
3 | 11.50 | 140.00 |
|---|
Pool L
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
Rutgers A | 3–0 | 100.0% | 1070 | 60 | 6 |
33 |
4 | 17.18 | 356.67 |
|---|
|
Michigan A | 2–1 | 66.7% | 560 | 60 | 5 |
20 |
5 | 12.40 | 186.67 |
|---|
|
Illinois B | 1–2 | 33.3% | 380 | 60 | 1 |
17 |
3 | 11.67 | 126.67 |
|---|
|
Oregon | 0–3 | 0.0% | 395 | 60 | 3 |
16 |
6 | 11.58 | 131.67 |
|---|
Division II Pool EE
Teams are ordered within each pool based on their performance. The order of finish within each pool may depend on tiebreaker games not shown. Ranks for the tournament as a whole are displayed on the Standings tab.
Pool GG
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
MIT B | 2–1 | 66.7% | 980 | 60 | 12 |
22 |
6 | 17.94 | 326.67 |
|---|
|
Northwestern B | 2–1 | 66.7% | 825 | 60 | 3 |
27 |
4 | 17.67 | 275.00 |
|---|
|
Florida C | 2–1 | 66.7% | 680 | 60 | 6 |
21 |
2 | 14.44 | 226.67 |
|---|
|
Tufts | 0–3 | 0.0% | 480 | 60 | 2 |
18 |
8 | 15.50 | 160.00 |
|---|
Pool II
| Team | W–L | % | Points | TUH | P | TU | I | PPB | PP20TUH |
|---|
|
Georgia Tech B | 3–0 | 100.0% | 920 | 60 | 4 |
27 |
4 | 19.68 | 306.67 |
|---|
|
Iowa | 1–2 | 33.3% | 680 | 60 | 5 |
23 |
9 | 15.00 | 226.67 |
|---|
|
Michigan B | 1–2 | 33.3% | 550 | 60 | 1 |
22 |
5 | 14.78 | 183.33 |
|---|
|
WUSTL C | 1–2 | 33.3% | 420 | 60 | 1 |
17 |
1 | 13.33 | 140.00 |
|---|
Explanation of Statistics
Confused about all these statistics? We’ve prepared an overview.
Read
