(This ignores YAM, for the time being, but comments more on RPI .. wts)
 
>        Finally,  the fatal flaw in RPI is that a team can play a tough
>schedule,  win *NO* games,  and yet get a pretty good rating simply because
>strength of schedule is 75% weight and *additive* to win%.   A good example
>of this sort of thing (although less dramatic) is Harvard's ranking in
>the latest RPI.   I'm sorry,  but I have a REAL problem with a 0.500 team
>in the national top ten.   I think 14th place (just out of the tournament)
>is a much more appropriate ranking for Harvard at this point in time.
 
Yet what is important is what can happen at the end of the season, not
the first (1/3?) part.  With few games, I think it will always be able
to come up with a circumstance where the calculation does not yield what
is expected/wanted ...  no matter the calculation.
 
In Division I college hockey, the vast majority of games are within a
conference and so variations from opponents or opponents-opponents are
minor ...  most being around .500.  Even though winning% is 1/4 of
RPI/RPICH, the variation there allows winning% to be predominant, once
conference schedules are complete!
 
cheers,
 
Wayne Smith
The College Hockey Discussion List administrator
Systems Group - CAPS              BITNET/CREN:  wts@maine
University of Maine System        internet:     [log in to unmask]
 
+------------------------Clip and save---------------------------------+
LISTSERV Gem: Signing off the mailing list.  (SIGNOFF)
  If you are leaving for vacation and wish to stop receiving HOCKEY-L
mail for that time, or are signing off of HOCKEY-L for the off-season,
send this command to the e-mail address "[log in to unmask]":
        SIGNOFF HOCKEY-L
For more information, send the command HELP to [log in to unmask]
 
If SIGNOFF does not work, contact the administrator, [log in to unmask];
please do *not* post to the list.
+------------------------Clip and save---------------------------------+