Ken Butler wrote:
 
>First of all, I think it is a mistake to criticize "computer rating systems"
>generically on the basis of perceived or (IMO) real flaws in the RPI.
 
My criticism was not with the computer rating systems but with the
committee's total reliance on the computer rating system. Adding to
the problem is their total reliance on ONE computer rating system.
 
>There are other ways to do it (which is why CHODR, TCHCR and KRACH hang
>out around these parts) which might be a quite acceptable way to go for
>such things as tournament selection and seeding. Certainly, I would much
>rather have these things settled by an impartial (even if flawed)
>rating system than by a human committee. The workings of a rating system
>can be set out for all to see, and the reasons for a team making it, or
>failing to do so, are right there in the numbers. Of course, you can still
>disagree with *the rating system as a whole*, but once you accept that
>the system is doing (or trying to do) the right thing, you have to
>accept its findings.
 
Perhaps. I'd like to see a combonation of ratings. Maybe use a combo
of RPI, CHODR, TCHCR and KRACH. But not just total reliance on one.
 
I personally don;t like RPI because it's only a measure of wins and
losses. If I understand it correctly, a 4-3 home win is the same,
for RPI's purposes, as a 13-1 road win. The other ratings, at least
CHODR and TCHCR, take margin of victory and/or site into account.
 
>As to the RPI: my biggest problem with it is that it is not really a
>measure *of* anything -- it's just three numbers thrown together for
>each team, with weights that may (or may not) be the most appropriate.
 
Agreed.
 
>On the other hand, CHODR, TCHCR and KRACH are all trying to rate the
>teams so as to correspond as closely as possible to the results that
>have actually happened
 
CHODR, KRACH and TCHCR recognize that a result does not end at win-loss.
Margin of victory and site are and should be factors in those ratings.
 
[...]
>All that aside, a problem faced by all rating systems is in comparing
>the various conferences. There simply aren't very many inter-conference
>matchups, and using what there is in order to estimate the relative
>strengths of the conferences is rather like making bricks out of straw.
>Or, to look at it another way, the interconference games are all very
>influential in determining the ratings, much more so than one of
>the plentiful conference games would be. So, add my voice to the call
>for more interconference games!
 
That has been one of my problems with sole reliance on the computer,
in general. With few inter-conference games, there is an element of
circularity involved that's hard to avoid.
 
On another note, has there been any formal announcement (eg press conference)
of Mike Milbury taking over at BC?
 
***************************************************************************
Bri Farenell                                     Clarkson '95
[log in to unmask]                 Glens Falls High '91
AHL and NCAA contact for rec.sport.hockey        Go Erin Whitten (GFH '89)!
Bri's (pre-tournament) Hoops Finals Pick: Arizona over Florida
Bri's (pre-tournament) Hockey Finals Pick: Lake Superior St. over BU
U OF A!   ARIZONA ALL THE WAY!   RIP THE RAZORBACKS!  (Aaron Ward sucks)