The thread about the RPI index used by the NC$$ to help decide who will make the tournament has come up for the first time since tournament selection time last spring. Mike posted an interesting thought namely that the NC$$ regards the winning percentage as something that should be considered in determining bids (no argument from me here :-) ) and also the strength of schedule should be considered.. Clearly opponents' winning percentage is a reflection of strength of schedule and I can see how opponents' opponents' winning percentage can also be important. The question which has not received any answer is why .25R0 + .5R1 + .25R2 where R0 is winning percentage, etc. Let us forget the R2 term as it will needlessly complicate this discussion. One can combine R0 and R1 in the following manner: aR0 + (1-a)R1 where a is a constant that has to be chosen. Note that calling the first multiplier "a" and the second "1-a" just makes the sum 1 -- it is only for normalization. In order for the constants both to be nonnegative "a" must be between 0 and 1. (I think that everyone will agree that if either constant were negative, it would not make sense.) Let us look at the two extremes. If a = 1 then we are ignoring R1 and teams will be rewarded for playing poorer teams where they are almost guaranteed to win. If a = 0, then only R1 appears and teams will be rewarded for whom they play, not for how they do. Some choice of "a" between these extremes is the optimum choice. (Of course one can easily argue that the whole idea of the RPI system makes no sense, but that's not what I am discussing here.) The NC$$ is now choosing a = 1/3, that is .333 R0 + .667 R1. (Note again that I am ignoring R2, the crucial thing is that the NC$$ is counting R1 twice as heavily in its current formula .25R0+.5R1+.25R2, thus my use of a=.333.) Two years ago, "a" was chosen somewhat lower (I forget what). What should be the effect of increasing "a"? The effect would be that teams would not be penalized nearly as much for losing to good teams as in the past. Thus teams are encouraged to play better teams because the loses in R0 due to scheduling and losing to good teams is offset by an increase in R1. I am under the impression that this same RPI formula is used in b-ball. The effect there seems to me that good teams have been scheduling other good teams more frequently in their out-of-conference schedule than in the past. (At least that is the way it seems to me here in Washington where Georgetown didn't play St. Leo's for the first time in years.) From the fans' point of view it is good to see quality teams playing each other more freqently. The problem in Hockey is that most of the leagues play so many games in conference that there is little room for scheduling outside of confernce. After a couple of games against traditional rivals, there is not much room left for attempting to increase R1. Ralph Baer Stephen van Rensselaer University '68, '70, '74 :-)