----- Original Message -----
From: John Whelan <[log in to unmask]>
 
 
> This is true, although I agree with the NCAA policy of considering
> won-lost-tied outcomes and not margin of victory for several reasons:
> first, I'm leery of a situation where a team would be encouraged to
> run up the score for tournament selection purposes (just look what
> happens in international competitions where net goals are used as a
> tiebreaker); second, in hockey some two-goal games are actually
> one-goal games with an empty-netter at the end, and that goal really
> shouldn't be given the same significance as a gamewinning goal; third,
> team sports are as a rule quantized into individual games, and there
> is something philosphically appealing about a win being a win no
> matter what the score.
 
I agree on most of this and that's why I would almost certainly never
advocate CCHP for selecting teams for a tournament unless only the win-loss
component was used.  It's useful and been quite accurate over the years but
it is better for giving you a look at relative strengths or predicting the
outcomes of the games.  St, Cloud was pretty far up before they turned their
season around which mystified some people at the time.  And it might show
you where some team can spring an "upset" too.  Margin of victory has value
in comparing teams but ultimately whether you win or lose counts more in
either selecting a top 10 or especially selecting teams for the tournament.
That's part of why I added the other component last season.
 
>
> > CCHP
> > does have a separate rating using only wins and losses instead of scores
> > otherwise using the exact calculation method.
>
> Do you post that anywhere?  It would be useful to have another system
> for comparison that used the same input as RPI (and KRACH, HEAL and
> RHEAL).  Having skimmed the definition of CCHP, I suspect that the
> system would be like KRACH and RPI in ranking teams in the same order
> as winning percentage if they've all played balanced schedules.
>
 
It's in the far right at
http://www.ptialaska.net/~carlsonj/uafhockey/hratings.html.  I only put the
winning percentage calculated if each team was to play all the others
infinitely.  That seemed to be the easiest way to present the information.
 
I'm a little less convinced about Mankato than you are via Krach ratings,
although they'd be right there nearly deadlocked with Minnesota and with
Niagara right behind.  I think there's room for disagreement about the last
spot and I think there always will be some potential for it if only one
system is selected.  However, it's better to have one system and stick to it
whether it's the current one or not than be making subjective evaluations
and then going outside it as is done now.
 
This is the other CCHP rating from right before the NCAA tournament started.
 
                              WIN
TEAM                          PCT
Wisconsin (31-8-1)           .843  1
North Dakota (28-8-5)        .823  2
Maine (26-7-5)               .816  3
New Hampshire (23-8-6)       .794  4
Boston College (26-11-1)     .790  5
Boston University (24-9-7)   .773  6
St Lawrence (26-7-2)         .767  7
Colgate (24-8-2)             .719  8
St Cloud (23-13-3)           .718  9
Michigan (26-9-4)            .706 10
Michigan State (27-10-4)     .695 11
Minnesota (20-19-2)          .692 12
MSU-Mankato (21-14-4)        .679 13
Niagara (29-7-4)             .640 14
Colorado College (18-18-3)   .638 15
Rensselaer (22-13-2)         .632 16
Providence (18-18-2)         .615 17
Northern Michigan (22-13-4)  .603 18
Ferris State (21-16-2)       .591 19
Clarkson (17-15-3)           .578 20
Northeastern (12-19-5)       .574 21
Cornell (16-14-2)            .569 22
Alaska-Anchorage (15-18-3)   .567 23
Lake Superior (18-16-2)      .549 24
Merrimack (11-19-6)          .547 25
Minnesota-Duluth (15-22-0)   .530 26
Denver (16-23-2)             .527 27
Mass Amherst (11-20-5)       .513 28
Nebraska-Omaha (16-19-7)     .512 29
Notre Dame (16-18-8)         .499 30
Bowling Green (17-19-1)      .493 31
Princeton (10-16-4)          .476 32
Miami (13-20-3)              .475 33
Harvard (11-17-2)            .471 34
Mass Lowell (9-22-3)         .453 35
Vermont (5-9-3)              .448 36
Western Michigan (12-21-3)   .439 37
Ohio State (13-19-4)         .435 38
Yale (9-16-5)                .433 39
Dartmouth (9-17-4)           .427 40
Quinnipiac (27-6-3)          .378 41
Brown (6-19-3)               .346 42
Union (8-24-1)               .325 43
Air Force (19-18-2)          .308 44
Michigan Tech (4-34-0)       .282 45
Alaska-Fairbanks (6-25-3)    .258 46
Canisius (21-10-4)           .222 47
Sacred Heart (16-15-3)       .197 48
Iona (17-17-3)               .197 49
Connecticut (19-16-1)        .145 50
Army (13-17-2)               .143 51
Holy Cross (8-24-3)          .075 52
American Int'l (7-20-3)      .054 53
Fairfield (3-28-3)           .021 54
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.