Keith Instone writes: > If you want to read the paper where the original algorithm (for TCHR) was written up, I'll gladly give you the reference. I would like the reference. I'm skeptical that any system, no matter how well thought-out, can overcome the simple lack of statistical significance consequent of there being so few interconference games. There is no good way to compare teams between conferences. If I may advance a modest proposal - just pick three teams from each conference and let them thrash it out in the NCAAs -the truth will out. As for the latter idea, I'd like to pose a heretical question - why insist on choosing the best twelve teams to go to the tournament, anyway? (Gasp!) The mindless selection of three teams from each conference (seeded 1, 2, 3 in a conference-specific bracket) would eliminate everybody's claims of regional or conference bias and ensure a field with equal regional interest, and a little creative scheduling could guarantee that conference rivalries would not be replayed until the NCAA semi-final. And hey, in the *very* worst case, if the best twelve teams in the country were in a twelve-team conference, the best three would still make the tourny :-) Yeah, I know, there would still be some controversy over picking (and ranking) the three teams from a conference (look at Cornell-SLU last year). But there would be a *much* better chance of doing the right thing when comparing teams, with at least two (and probably more) head-to-head games and many games vs. common opponents. Anyway, who's thinking about Albany? I'm thinking about Princeton and Yale. Greg Boston Let's Go Red!