Ken - I'm having problems interpreting that last table.  Can you explain it a little fuller?

Thanks.  And thanks for the analysis - it is indeed interesting.

Tom Rowe                            UWSP dept of Psych
=============================
Home of Division III National Champion Pointers
89, 90, 91 & 93 and National Runners-up 92 & 98
===================================


>
> In the final list, "predicted" is really the wrong word, since we're
> looking at the past. I've taken all the games between
> tournament-eligible teams and thrown out the ties, leaving 411 games.
> Then, for each rating system, I've counted up how many times the
> higher-rated team won. The bigger the better here -- after all, you'd
> want a rating system to have some consistency with the game results!
> I've separated things out by conference:
>
>
> Observed results "predicted" by system and conference
>
>            n KRACH CHODR   RPI  HEAL RHEAL
> cc        66    51    53    51    53    53
> ch        13     9     6     7     8     8
> ec        43    35    33    34    32    30
> he        34    28    24    27    28    28
> ma        46    37    30    37    31    33
> nc       166   140   130   134   127   136
> wc        43    36    33    36    36    36
> all      411   336   309   326   315   324
>
>
> Any half-decent rating system should do a good job within a
> conference,
> because there are so many conference games (perhaps not yet,
> but by the
> end of the season). The real test is with the non-conference
> games. RPI
> is actually doing quite well here; also, RHEAL's improvement over HEAL
> is entirely down to the non-conference games.
>
> (It's perhaps unfair to include CHODR here because this is not what it
> does. CHODR's aim is to predict goalscoring, which it does as
> accurately
> as possible.)
>
> Anyhow, a little late-night food for thought.
>
> Cheers,
> Ken.
>
>
> --
> Ken Butler
> At home in Canterbury, England
>