Before we get into the weekend scores,  etc.,  I want to make a
comment on some remarks I've seen lately regarding ratings.
 
        The fact that the fluctuations in ratings damp out with time over the
course of a season has nothing to do with the efficacy of the various
methods.   It is simply an intrinsic property of the averaging process as
more results are added to the averages.   It is a misinterpretation of our
criticism of the RPI to say that ... "yeah,  but all this bouncing around
in the ratings will settle out in the end."   That's not the point.
 
        Sure,  we know that the RPI individual ratings will converge to
stable values.   But,  will the RPI give "equitable" converged results??
Any system which rewards a team for going to Maine and losing two is not
trying to measure accomplishment.   What it is doing is simply social
engineering.   And,  as I've pointed out before,  that may be needed in
basketball but it isn't in college hockey.
 
        Secondly,  Mike and (I think) Wayne were curious about the origins
of the 0.01 rule.   To some of us it is intrinsicly obvious.   The originator
was an engineer,  who,  never lacking an opinion,  applied the right hand
rule.   He stood erect,  facing east,  extended the right arm straight out
horizontally from the front of his body,   curled the fingers of his right
hand and extended his thumb upward.   He (I'm assuming it was a he but it
might have been a she) then closed his left eye,  keeping the right one open,
and,  sighting over the tip of the thumb into the distance,  intoned (basso
voce),  "variations smaller than 0.01 in the RPI are within the measurement
accuracy of the system and thus insignificant".
 
        Just thought you'd like to know.   Btw,  you have to have a substantial
amount of experience in an engineering organization before the above becomes
obvious.
 
        -- Dick Tuthill