A lot's been said about Mass-Lowell's placement in the polls, and a few
digs at RPI and the ECAC have been made.  So, I'd like to toss in my opinion
and (of course) defend the performance of my favorite team.  Woof woof.  :-)
 
We're not supposed to put any stock in the RPI/Lowell game because Lowell
had been on break?  RPI had not played for eighteen days, played one
game against a much weaker Canadian team, and then the next night blew
Lowell out, 11-3.  You can "believe" what you want about who is better,
but the only concrete connection between these teams is an apparent
mismatch. (If it comes to a "bubble" situation at tournament time, don't
think the NC** will write this off.  Head-to-head record is very important.)
RPI also travelled to Boston University and beat the Terriers, won the
Dexter Classic when BGSU and Maine were "considered" much tougher,
and beat Harvard.  They are riding a 7-0-2 run since Christmas.
Unfortunately, their strength of schedule has taken a nose-dive, having
faced off recently against the ECAC's, um, non-elite.  Nevertheless, the
only surprises of 1994 (if we believe ratings systems and predictions) are
a tie at Cornell and a tie at Vermont (which isn't too much of a surprise
since the Catamounts play tough at home).  Otherwise RPI has performed
as expected - having strong nights winning by several goals, and having
weaker nights when they still manage to pull off a victory.  They're doing
very well, although their ratings haven't changed much.
 
>The RPICH ratings
>counter-balance these natural inclinations with some good hard numbers.
(stuff deleted)
>Oh, and it can go the other way. How about those ECAC teams?
 
>>16  RPI                 19   12- 5- 2   .6842   .4600   .4852   .5149
>>19  Harvard             16   11- 3- 2   .7500   .4310   .4791   .5140
 
>What is the lowest Harvard's been rated in the polls? About 7?
 
Whoa there!  It's R-P-I-C-H, not B-I-B-L-E!  "Good hard numbers?"
An oxymoron.  :-)
 
I believe that the computer rating systems like TCHCR and RPICH take
two things into account: your overall performance and the quality of
your competition.  It does not directly take into account how you perform
against which team.  For instance, RPI beat BU but lost to Princeton.
If RPI instead beat Princeton but lost to BU, RPI's record is still the
same, and although the "Opponents' Winning Percentage" will change
slightly, my understanding is that it will not cause a dramatic shift in
RPI's total index.
 
Pollsters, however, seem to take into account how RPI has performed
against the toughest competition it's faced, while putting less stock in
its losses.  I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just different.  (It's just
what Lowell fans would like, isn't it?  ;-) )  RPI had several strong games
in their 6-5 start and have run that record up to 13-5-2; they're
certainly no schleps.  I think this is why RPI has a stronger showing in the
polls than it does in most computer ratings.  By contrast, CHODR is based
solely on offensive and defensive showings - where scoring several goals
and allowing few against tougher teams gains you a higher ranking, and
RPI landed at #6 there this week.
 
Now for a few questions of my own (anybody still with me?) -- to what
extent do people think the lack of parity in the ECAC is due to gross talent
level imbalances between teams, as opposed to the scheduling format?
Does playing the same team for two nights improve the underdog's chance
of success?  What chance does a weaker team have, trying to prepare for
two different opponents every week?
 
Also, what's up with Yale?  How attributable is the loss of their head coach
(to the Olympics) to their dismal performance this year?  And how much has
 the same thing affected Maine - they don't seem to be the same team
since the suspension of Walsh, even though he's back now.
 
Just some lunchtime thoughts...
Ross
Go RPI!
"I'm sorry this letter is so long; I didn't have time to write a shorter one."
      - Mark Twain