John Whelan wrote:
 
>So by extension this means that since BC beat Wisconsin, they were
>CLEARLY in the top four in the nation and Wisconsnin was not.  That
>means every system for seeding the tourmanent which ranks BC below
>Wisconsin needs adjustement?
 
Aha!  CCHP did rate BC (#2) above Wisconsin (#3) before the tournament, so
it clearly doesn't need adjustment!
 
The point is most of the rating systems all bring something to the table
worth looking at.  I doubt if I'd ever advocate solely using the main CCHP
ratings--and perhaps not any single system--to pick a tournament field even
though I'm very partial to it.  But CCHP will often show you something that
the systems based only on wins and losses instead of scores cannot.  CCHP
does have a separate rating using only wins and losses instead of scores
otherwise using the exact calculation method.  By that method I think it
matched 11 of the 12 tournament teams.  Niagara may have been the one it
didn't match, but they were very, very close.
 
The problem is there is a very big flaw in the way the RPI and PWR systems
are defined and work.  The NCAA sees it but they are having to use
subjective evaluations of conference strength even if they have numbers for
that to overrule their own system.  What they are doing subjectively can be
put into a better system.  It's not a question of whether it can be done or
not, it already has been several times.
 
Eric Carlson
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.