Predictions, Scored

The two calls made before the 2026–27 U13 season started, and how each one did: which A2/A3 team each BWC tryout skater would make, and which PCAHA flight every U13 A team would start in.

Built 8 November 2026 70 teams into flights 30 tryout skaters
Prediction:

PCAHA published the 2026–27 U13 flights on 7 November. This is how the forecast of 6 November 2026, as it stood when placement ended, did against them: 70 teams from 8 placement groups into 7 flights. The PCEHL hubs are Flight 0; everything here is Flight 1 and below.

77%
most-likely flight right (54 of 70)
100%
within one flight
70%
average chance given to the flight a team got
77%
PCAHA’s usual rule on the final tables, true flight sizes (88% over five past seasons)
33%
group number = flight number

The verdict

The forecast did what its backtest promised: log loss 0.560 against 0.558 expected, every team within one flight. It got fewer exactly right than the 81–86% the backtest suggested, because the committee departed from its usual rule more than in any recent season. The rule alone, given the real flight sizes, gets the same 77%. The misses are committee calls, not tables the model read wrong.

  • Flight 1 took the top five of Groups 1 and 2 alike. The rule had Group 1 seven deep; Chilliwack A1 and Aldergrove A1 (4th and 5th in Group 2) went up instead of Semiahmoo A2 and Abbotsford A1 (6th and 7th in Group 1).
  • Groups 4 and 5 overlapped. Group 4’s bottom three (Coquitlam A2, NSWC A2, North Vancouver A2, goal difference −21 to −37) dropped to Flight 5. Group 5 winner North Delta A1 (+52) jumped to Flight 3, and three more Group 5 teams went up to Flight 4.
  • South Delta was lifted twice: the A2 (Group 7 winner) to Flight 5, the A3 (2nd in Group 8) to Flight 6.
  • Goal difference sided with most of these moves, but adding it to the rule doesn’t improve this season’s fit, so one season isn’t enough to change the model.

The Flights

As PCAHA published them, in placement-group order. The percentage is the chance the forecast gave each team of the flight it got; red marks a team whose most likely flight was different.

Flight 1 · 8/10

  1. Semiahmoo A1G199%
  2. VT A1G199%
  3. BWC A1G199%
  4. Langley A1G198%
  5. Ridge Meadows A1G195%
  6. Hollyburn A1G292%
  7. Cloverdale A1G281%
  8. Sno-King A1G260%
  9. Chilliwack A1said F2G212%
  10. Aldergrove Assocation A1said F2G29%

Flight 2 · 8/10

  1. Semiahmoo A2said F1G110%
  2. Abbotsford A1said F1G129%
  3. NSWC A1G168%
  4. Coquitlam A1G184%
  5. Mission A1G291%
  6. Van A1G280%
  7. Richmond Jets A1G268%
  8. South Delta A1G391%
  9. Cloverdale A2G387%
  10. BWC A2G365%

Flight 3 · 8/11

  1. North Van A1G280%
  2. PoCo A1G369%
  3. Squamish A1G387%
  4. West Van A1G391%
  5. VT A2G387%
  6. Arbutus Club A1G492%
  7. PoMo A1G491%
  8. Sunshine Coast A1G482%
  9. Langley A2said F4G446%
  10. BMHA A1said F4G422%
  11. North Delta A1said F4G510%

Flight 4 · 5/9

  1. Ridge Meadows A2said F3G321%
  2. Semiahmoo A3G361%
  3. Richmond Jets A2G489%
  4. EYH A1G591%
  5. Surrey A1G586%
  6. New Westminster A1G574%
  7. Cloverdale A3said F5G532%
  8. Langley A3said F5G59%
  9. SJHA A1said F5G54%

Flight 5 · 7/11

  1. Coquitlam A2said F4G47%
  2. NSWC A2said F4G415%
  3. North Van A2said F4G430%
  4. Chilliwack A2G591%
  5. Semiahmoo A4G583%
  6. Ridge Meadows A3G685%
  7. VT A3G690%
  8. Abbotsford A2G690%
  9. Van A2G674%
  10. Mission A2G657%
  11. South Delta A2said F6G726%

Flight 6 · 9/10

  1. Langley A4G679%
  2. PoCo A2G691%
  3. Richmond Jets A3G692%
  4. North Van A3G689%
  5. NSWC A3G787%
  6. BMHA A2G791%
  7. Cloverdale A4G788%
  8. WCAHA AG771%
  9. Coquitlam A3G856%
  10. South Delta A3said F7G814%

Flight 7 · 9/9

  1. BWC A3G769%
  2. Ridge Meadows A4G788%
  3. Chilliwack A3G794%
  4. Hollyburn A2G797%
  5. Abbotsford A3G895%
  6. PoMo A2G897%
  7. West Van A2G899%
  8. EYH A2G899%
  9. Surrey A2G899%

Placement Group 1

9 teams, 7 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
Semiahmoo A187-1-0721+2.0F1F1991
BWC A185-3-0616+1.8F1F1991
VT A186-1-1720+1.0F1F1991
Langley A184-2-2515+0.9F1F1982
Ridge Meadows A184-3-1413+0.0F1F1954
Semiahmoo A283-5-0612−0.9F1F28910
NSWC A181-6-158−1.0F2F231681
Abbotsford A182-5-1712−1.6F1F27129
Coquitlam A181-7-046−2.2F2F215841

Placement Group 2

9 teams, 7 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
Hollyburn A188-0-0521+3.0F1F1927
Cloverdale A186-2-0618+2.1F1F18119
Aldergrove Assocation A185-3-0818+1.0F2F19882
Chilliwack A185-2-1516+0.8F2F112862
Sno-King A1US85-2-1516+0.5F1F160401
Mission A183-5-017−0.3F2F24915
Richmond Jets A181-6-1710−1.6F2F216831
Van A181-6-1710−1.9F2F218018
North Van A180-8-077−3.6F3F319801

Placement Group 3

9 teams, 8 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
South Delta A187-1-0620+2.2F2F24915
Cloverdale A285-1-2517+1.3F2F228710
BWC A285-1-2517+0.8F2F216533
PoCo A184-4-0715+0.5F3F3129691
VT A282-3-3613+0.0F3F338710
Squamish A183-3-2715−0.2F3F311872
West Van A183-4-1613−0.8F3F34915
Ridge Meadows A281-6-169−1.1F3F417821
Semiahmoo A380-7-178−2.8F4F438611

Placement Group 4

9 teams, 4 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
Arbutus Club A188-0-0824+2.4F3F34924
PoMo A187-1-0620+2.1F3F33916
Sunshine Coast A185-2-1617+1.3F3F328216
BMHA A184-3-1716+0.9F4F322761
Langley A284-2-2818+0.5F4F314652
Richmond Jets A282-5-1813−0.5F4F48892
NSWC A281-6-169−1.7F4F528315
Coquitlam A282-6-059−1.8F4F53907
North Van A280-8-077−3.2F4F516930

Placement Group 5

9 teams, 5 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
North Delta A187-0-1722+2.6F4F310882
Surrey A185-1-2820+1.3F4F428611
EYH A1US86-2-0315+1.3F4F43915
New Westminster A184-3-1615+1.2F4F427424
Cloverdale A384-4-0816+0.2F5F432671
Langley A384-4-0715−0.6F5F49882
SJHA A1US82-5-1611−0.6F5F44924
Chilliwack A281-6-158−1.4F5F54915
Semiahmoo A480-8-044−4.0F5F518316

Placement Group 6

9 teams, 9 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
Ridge Meadows A387-0-1722+2.3F5F513852
VT A385-1-2820+2.2F5F56904
Abbotsford A284-2-2616+1.1F5F54906
Mission A283-2-3514+0.7F5F5157421
Langley A483-4-1714−0.2F6F620791
Van A284-3-1817−0.4F5F517424
Richmond Jets A382-6-0711−1.3F6F64925
PoCo A282-6-0711−1.4F6F66913
North Van A381-7-079−3.1F6F62899

Placement Group 7

9 teams, 8 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
South Delta A287-1-0216+2.3F6F526731
NSWC A386-2-0719+1.3F6F612872
BMHA A284-3-1817+0.3F6F63915
Cloverdale A484-4-0715+0.0F6F628810
WCAHA AUS83-3-2816−0.1F6F627128
BWC A383-3-2715−0.3F7F713169
Ridge Meadows A482-3-3512−0.6F7F71188
Chilliwack A382-4-2713−1.0F7F7694
Hollyburn A280-8-077−1.9F7F7397

Placement Group 8

7 teams, 6 placed as forecast

TeamGPW-L-TSPPtsRatingLikelyGotF1F2F3F4F5F6F7
Coquitlam A387-1-0822+2.7F6F615643
South Delta A386-2-0820+1.5F7F61485
Abbotsford A385-2-1516+1.4F7F7595
PoMo A284-3-1817+0.7F7F7297
EYH A2US81-6-158−1.7F7F7199
Surrey A281-6-1811−2.2F7F7199
West Van A282-6-0711−2.3F7F799

Calibration

Every team’s chance of every flight, binned: how often a stated chance came true. The 85–95% calls were too confident this year.

Stated chanceCalls Average statedCame true
0%–5%364.00%0%
5%–15%30.09%23%
15%–30%16.022%38%
30%–50%10.037%20%
50%–70%12.063%75%
70%–85%15.078%67%
85%–95%33.090%76%
95%–100%10.098%100%

Reading the tables. Each row is one team in its placement group, sorted by the forecast’s rating; click any column heading to re-sort. GP, W-L-T, SP and Pts are Play’s official table. Rating is how many goals a game better (+) or worse (−) than an average team in the group the forecast rated a team. The shaded columns are the forecast’s chance of each flight; the outlined cell is the flight the team got, and Got is in red when the forecast’s most likely flight was different. Rows marked ▸ are Burnaby Winter Club.

How the forecast worked. Measured on five seasons (378 teams): rank every team by group + 1.75 × its finish within the group, then fill the flights in that order. That reproduced 88% of flights exactly and 100% within one. The forecast simulated each group’s remaining games 4,000 times from roster reads and results, then the committee’s habits: keeping same-group neighbours with close goal difference together, some blur near the cut lines, and the odd one-flight move (2%). Sportsmanship points were left out; they don’t move teams between flights.

Backtest (past rounds replayed as if part-way through; parameters refitted with each season left out):

Games playedExact, flight count known Exact, count guessedWithin one
062%59%98%
271%66%98%
479%74%100%
683%78%100%
885%81%100%

Flights re-sort once at the December break (6–12 teams a season move one flight); this scores the November start only.

The BWC U13 A2/A3 tryout board as it stood before the teams were picked, scored against the rosters. Landed is where each skater was rostered: ✓ where the call held, ✗ where it didn’t. A Bubble call holds either way.

81%
firm calls right (17 of 21; Bubble isn’t a call)
75%
Likely A2 made A2 (12 of 16)
100%
Likely A3 went A3 (5 of 5)
1–8
Bubble split, A2–A3
100%
Morgan’s own firm reads (13 of 13)

The verdict

All 30 skaters were rostered on A2 or A3. The blend made 21 firm calls and got 17 right. Where Morgan had a read the firm calls went 13 of 16; where the data stood alone, 4 of 5. All 4 misses were Likely A2 calls that went to A3. Morgan had no firm read on any of them: 3 were his bubble players and 1 he hadn’t called, so the data lifted them a band too far. Morgan’s firm reads, scored alone, went 13 of 13.

BWC U13 A2/A3 tryouts

30 skaters over two scrimmage groups. The call blends Morgan's read (33%) with prior-season standing, graded call-ups, same-tier scoring and trajectory, cut against A2's roster capacity

PlayerBornStatusPredictionLandedMorganGroup2024-252025-26Call-upsPts/G
Forwards
Jaylin Paul2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyKindelBwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A2 APBwc U11 A2, Bwc U13 A4 AP141.50/19
Halen Thind2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyBarzalLangley U11 A2Bwc U11 A2, Bwc U13 A4 AP100.58/19
Joseph Kenney2014PendingLikely A2*✓ A2UnknownKindelBwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A2 APBwc U13 A360.58/9
Kayden Chahal2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyKindelBwc U11 A5, Bwc U11 A4 APBwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A2 AP61.34/5
Hudson Kellins2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyKindelBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 APBwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A1 AP, Bwc U11 A2 AP41.54/8
Owen Mackay2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyBarzalBwc U11 A3Bwc U11 A2, Bwc U13 A4 AP30.51/19
Oliver Nordin2015PendingLikely A2✗ A3BubbleBarzalBwc U11 A5, Bwc U11 A4 APBwc U11 A3, Bwc U13 A4 AP70.70/8
Wyatt Macleod2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2BubbleBarzalBwc U11 A3Bwc U11 A2, Bwc U13 A4 AP40.76/19
Lincoln Findlay2015PendingLikely A2✗ A3BubbleKindelBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 APBwc U11 A3, Bwc U13 A4 AP40.87/8
Richard Nguyen2014PendingBubble*✓ A3UnknownBarzalBwc U11 A3Bwc U13 A3—0.16/9
Luke Stiby2014PendingBubble*✓ A3UnknownBarzalBwc U11 A5, Bwc U11 A4 APBwc U13 A410.21/8
Rylee Bremner2014PendingBubble*✓ A3UnknownKindel—Bwc U13 A4—0.24/8
Paraag Sidhu2014PendingBubble*✓ A3UnknownBarzalBwc U11 A3Bwc U13 A4—0.11/8
Elias Yang2015PendingBubble✓ A3A3 likelyBarzalBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 APBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 AP—0.85/10
Ben Torres2014PendingLikely A3*✓ A3UnknownBarzal—Bwc U13 A4—0.03/8
Isaac Chan2014PendingLikely A3✓ A3A3 likelyKindelBwc U11 A4Bwc U13 A4—0.13/8
Noah Gray2015PendingLikely A3✓ A3A3 likelyKindelBwc U11 A5Bwc U11 A410.49/10
Defence
Luca Paul2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyKindelBwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A2 APBwc U11 A2, Bwc U13 A4 AP140.60/10
Udham Kahlon2014PendingLikely A2*✓ A2UnknownKindelBwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A2 APBwc U13 A3, Bwc U13 A2 AP80.17/4
Yulin He2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyKindel—Bwc U11 A1, Bwc U13 A4 AP20.11/21
Brenner Robb-Popadiuk2015PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyBarzalBwc U11 A4Bwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A2 AP10.50/5
Zaiden Khunkhun2014PendingLikely A2*✗ A3UnknownBarzal—Bwc U13 A4, Bwc U13 A3 AP20.20/3
Maximus Sam2014PendingBubble✓ A3BubbleBarzalBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 APBwc U13 A3—0.09/4
Aaron Xiong2014PendingBubble*✓ A3UnknownBarzalBwc U11 A5, Bwc U11 A4 APBwc U13 A310.10/4
Kiefer Lee2015PendingBubble✓ A2BubbleKindelBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 APBwc U11 A3, Bwc U11 A2 AP—0.39/5
Jake Sheng2015PendingLikely A3*✓ A3UnknownBarzalBwc U11 A5, Bwc U11 A4 APBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 AP10.12/3
Ella Krog2015PendingLikely A3✓ A3A3 likelyKindelBwc U11 A5Bwc U11 A410.25/10
Goaltenders
Parker Chan2014PendingLikely A2✓ A2Most likelyKindelBwc U11 A4, Bwc U11 A3 APBwc U13 A3——
Soren Grue2015PendingLikely A2✗ A3BubbleBarzal—Poco U11 C35—
Baz Mosuk2015PendingBubble✓ A3BubbleBarzalBwc U11 A5, Bwc U11 A4 APBwc U11 A2, Bwc U13 A3 AP——

Prediction blends Morgan's read (33% where he made a call) with prior-season standing in the club, call-ups graded by the quality of the team that made them, and trajectory. Bands are cut against A2's roster capacity — 9 F, 5 D, 2 G — because 30 skaters are competing for about 30 spots across two teams, so this predicts which team, not whether a player makes one. An asterisk marks a player Morgan did not call, whose share is redistributed across the data. Call-ups counts league games dressed as an affiliate; a call-up to a weak team is graded down, since every one of BWC’s U11-to-U13 call-ups last season went to its bottom two teams. Status is the 2026-27 registration state, and sits beside the prediction so the call can be read straight against where a player actually lands. Pts/G is last season’s scoring rate, and the model ranks it only against skaters at the same tier and position — scoring runs higher at lower tiers, so a raw rate would rank this list close to upside down. The figure after the slash is how many peers that ranking had; small cells are pulled toward neutral rather than trusted.

Reading the history: the 2014s were already at U13 last season, so their 2025-26 tier is directly comparable to what they are trying out for. The 2015s were at U11, a different ladder — and every BWC tier shifts down one for 2026-27, so a 2025-26 A2 is this year's A1. AP marks an affiliation, which only ever runs upward: a player carrying one was pulled up by a higher team.