I just look at TCHR right now as a general barometer of how teams are doing.
There are still too many teams that have played too few games (Cornell has only
played 10) for the ranking to be very accurate at this point in the season.  I
think that the TU writer is guilty of extreme bias and ignorance in his
article.  His teams are unfairly ranked ( he believes, although I don't know
where else he would rank Union but at the bottom) and he just attacks the
system without trying to understand it.  If I understand correctly, the more
games that are played, the more accurate the ranking becomes.  With fewer
games, there is less of a basis for team comparisons, connections between teams
are very distant, and one or two contests against very good or very weak teams
can cause drastic changes in schedule strength or other factors.  By the end of
the season however, the number of games played should allow for more direct
comparisons and thus, much smaller changes in a team's ranking due to any one
particular weekend of results (unless the team gets pummelled.)  For now, we
need to understand (and so does the media if it is to use TCHCR) that the
system's accuracy will be questinable until there are more games played.
 
Besides, as someone else posted, it is interesting as a different way of
looking at the teams.  As for RPI, come on guys, lighten up!  It's not like
TCHCR determines NCAA tourney bids.  (What can you expect from a city that
charges 50cents for an overall mediocre daily paper anyway)
 
Dave [log in to unmask]
Cornell '91 OSU Med '95
Let's Go Red!