>Times Union Article, January 8th, 1992, Pg D-3, bottom left corner.
>
>COMPUTER RANKINGS RANK LOW WITH RPI'S PLAYERS
...
>   A man of infamy to the Engineers, and as I explain further, surely to the
>Union College players.
 
Interesting that the RPI and Union fans who read this list and are
KNOWLEDGEABLE about the workings of TCHCR, don't seem to have the same
feelings.
 
>    Or as this guy from Bowling Green refers to them:  The College Hockey
>Computer Rating.  "TCHCR for short," says Hejna, who found the ratings on a
>PC message service to which he subscribes.
 
Isn't this unprofessional, to refer to Keith as "this guy from Bowling Green"?
Is "this guy from the Times Union" just upset because TCHCR conflicts with
his poll?
 
I don't know where else than hockey-l that TCHCR is available, but if Tony
Hejna has been reading hockey-l for any significant length of time, he should
be aware of the real and legitimate reasons that RPI is ranked where they
are in TCHCR.  RPI has played some very weak teams this season and overall
has not had an impressive season.
 
>    What caused so much discussion was the fact that RPI was down two spots
>this week to 36th in the nation, rated behind such national titans as No. 34
>Alaska-Fairbanks (6-8), the University of Denver (5-14-1) at No. 29, and even
>No. 30 Boston College (7-9-1), a team RPI beat on the road.
 
Why the result of one game should dictate which team should be ranked above
another, I don't know.  RPI gained points for beating BC on the road.  It
wasn't enough to overcome the points lost for performances in other games,
nor was it enough to overcome points gained by BC in other games.
 
>    What's worse, according to TCHCR, there are only 11 teams in the nation
>worse than the Engineers, who entered Tuesday night's game against New
>Hampshire with a 7-8 record.
 
No, TCHCR does not say that there are 11 teams worse than RPI.  There may be
more.  There may be fewer.  As I have said many, many times, TCHCR shows
 
*** How you have performed in the games you have played relative to the ***
*** other teams and their performances thus far in Division I.          ***
 
It says nothing about how good your team is.  Mr Croce is simply displaying
his ignorance about the system with this comment.
 
>    "That's (fill in the blank with your own nasty noun)," was the most
>common comment as RPI players reviewed the Engineers' rating Monday.
 
As I've said before as well, if it makes your team look good, you tend to
like it, and if it makes your team look bad, you hate it.  No difference
here.
 
Interesting that I distribute TCHCR at Merrimack, to coaches, players, the
SID, and other people around the team, and I've never heard this kind of
response.  Merrimack is #37 this week and has a better record than RPI.
 
Maybe it's because *they* actually know what's going on.  I take the time
to tell them.  I also have explained it to a certain extent on the air,
making sure to talk about the point I made above (for the nth time).  I'm sure
my listeners have a more complete view of TCHCR than Mr Croce and his readers.
 
>    Of course, Instone's system, which takes into account strength of
>schedule, strength of conference and margin of victory among other things,
>also comes in direct conflict with our own Times Union Top 10.
 
It should be noted that this "strength of conference" is not written into
the system.  It is inherent in the output because of the simple fact that
the ECAC has fared poorly as a whole against outside competition.
 
>    Michigan State, Western Michigan, Anchorage and North Dakota didn't even
>make the TU Top 10.  Meanwhile, Maine (14-2) has been ranked No. 1 in our poll
>the past seven weeks.
 
Is it time to bring back the ceramic dalmatian line? :-)  Nuff said here.
 
>   What hurts RPI and Union, and more noticeable Clarkson (No. 13 TCHCR, No. 7
>TU) and St. Lawrence (No. 11 TCHCR, No. 6 TU), is Instone's system deems the
>Eastern College Athletic Conference the weakest of the four leagues.
>
>    The ECAC's winning percentage against all the rest is .402, while the
>CCHA is .667, Hockey East .694 and WCHA .620.
 
I like this!  He says that TCHCR deems the ECAC the weakest conference (again,
just inherent), then he goes ahead and backs it up!
 
He also notes earlier in the article that Maine dropped from 1 to 6 in
TCHCR - but its bias is supposed to be against the *ECAC*.  Go figure.
 
>    Instone's system is far from perfect, but his scientific approach to
>college hockey has, if nothing else, caused some trouble.
 
As someone else said, Mr Croce and the RPI players should lighten up.  It's
just another way of looking at things and it doesn't count for anything at
the end of the season.
 
Still, it distresses me when a writer for as large a publication as the Times
Union does such an unprofessional job as Mr Croce has done here.  He clearly
never sought out explanations from Keith as to why certain trends in TCHCR
occur, he published several blatant untruths in his article, his article was
completely biased towards the local teams without any consideration of the
fact that both are not having good seasons, and worst of all, he gave his
readers the impression of Keith being some crackpot who hates the ECAC and
the glorious hockey teams at RPI and Union.  Not to mention that he perpetuates
the idea that college hockey polls - his, in particular - are the be-all and
end-all of ranking teams despite their documented biases which are worse than
TCHCR.
 
Can someone post the address for the Times Union and perhaps the phone number,
too?  I think I'll be sending Mr Croce a letter.  I'm sure Keith will be in
touch with him, too - but I bet the Times Union readers never get to hear the
other side of the story.  That wouldn't make for good reading, nor would it
sell papers.  Hopefully I'll be proved wrong.
 
I also plan to put the details of this on the air Friday night.
 
 
- mike