Steve Chopelas writes:
>I am getting annoyed with the number of different postings of
>all different ratings and rankings...  They all seem to place
>the top 5 teams similarly but change drastically after that...
>Do we need all these different ranking systems and postings?
>Just a question...
 
I think there is a lot of value in the different ratings and although those
doing them know I support them, I just want to reiterate my feelings and
perhaps offer another point of view.
 
It can get a little confusing trying to distinguish among the polls and
ratings posted to hockey-l; we go back to 1989-90 when other than the media
polls, the only rating posted was Keith's (then called "BBRank").  However,
the process of developing a rating is ongoing and BBRank/TCHCR has
undergone many changes throughout the years (boy, with next year being the
five-year anniversary of hockey-l, we are really getting up there).  One of
the great results of TCHCR is that it has spurred discussion and resulted
in others developing other systems that work differently.  All have their
advantages and disadvantages, and I think Steve's idea to compile a listing
of the ratings and how they work is superb - it will especially be helpful
to new readers who aren't as familiar with the ratings.
 
Anyway, different points of view on how ratings should be developed has
resulted in the development of different systems, and this can only be a
positive thing.
 
Another value I see in having different ratings is that it drives home the
point that a single rating in and of itself isn't perfect.  I think perhaps
people were putting too heavy of an emphasis on BBRank/TCHCR when it came
out and quoting it as THE way to rank teams.  I know Keith would not
suggest that it is perfect, and the fact that he has continued to make
changes based on readers' suggestions and his own experimentation shows
this to be true.  Having different ratings shows us that depending on how
you look at things, different rankings of teams can still be developed.
The idea of the ratings is to produce an unbiased ranking of teams, to
counteract the media polls, but the way different criteria are considered
and weighed can result in different "unbiased" rankings.  With the ratings
being posted here, we can all see them and offer comments and suggestions as
well as ask questions that may help our understanding of them.
 
Finally, since the ratings are produced for all DivI teams (eligible for
the DivI tourney), they allow people to see where everyone stands according
to the rating's criteria.  This is in contrast to media polls which only
contain the top 10-20 teams.  It's still interesting to see where other
teams may stand, particularly for fans of those teams.
 
So while I would obviously encourage the continuation of the work being
done on these polls (and the people doing them are in constant contact wth
each other, developing ideas, so it is more of a joint effort rather than a
competing one), I also encourage people to try to understand the thinking
behind them and the differences, and so I think Steve's listing will be a
very useful one and I applaud his volunteering to compile the listing.
---
Mike Machnik    [log in to unmask]   Color Voice of the Merrimack Warriors
(Any opinions expressed above are strictly those of the poster.)    *HMN*