My biggest problem with RPI is that it blindly rewards a team for having a
tough schedule (the 0.50 of opponent's record) regardless of whether they
actually win any of the games versus tough opponents.  That's a big flaw,
IMO, unless each conference, and each team in each conference, plays the
same kind of schedule (same number of games, same number of inter-conference
games).  With unbalanced schedules, "weak" teams in "strong" conferences
benefit from the interconference success of their "strong" conference-mates.
 Plus, that "weak" team could play a *very* weak interconference schedule
and look even better.
 
I don't agree, however, that all losses are alike.  Losing to a team that
_ultimately_ has a record much better than your _ultimate_ record shouldn't
hurt as much as losing to a team that ultimately has a record much worse
than your ultimate record.  Similarly, all wins and all ties shouldn't be
alike (and they aren't in HEAL, which is good).
 
Just food for thought.
 
Steve G
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.