My view: I prefer polls and ratings that list all teams from top to
bottom. Since it is probable that the distributions of number of
teams to the rating will be a normal pdf (probability distribution
function ... the bell curve for non-RPI grads :-) ), it may be
somewhat meaniless to state that a difference between a #22 and
a #23 (or a #15 and a #30) team due to the clustering about the
mean team capabilities. Clearly the difference between #1 and #5
and between #44 and #39 are greater than in the middle section of
the bell curve. Yet I like to see the movements week to week to
evaluate team growth. It also gives teams lower on the list an
approachable target to shoot for.
 
Example: MTU is currently rated/polled about #15. I doubt that next
week we would be #1. Yet, a reasonable target would be to move
ahead of Lake State to #12 by Thanksgiving by beating Minnesota.
If the team is good enough to break into the top ten by Christmas,
a small jump now would be a good incremental target and sets an
achievable milestone. Of course losing to a higher ranked team
might also indicate that that we need to work harder.
 
Rating all teams seems to me the best way of seeing progress. Of course,
polls and ratings mean nothing: it is performance on the ice that
counts. To be more specific, one needs to be good enough to get into
the NCAA playoffs and then perform extremely well to really count.
 
Walt Olson
MTU
 
(USMA '73, RPI '84, '88)