John Deetjen writes: >I think it's interesting how Maine ranked as low as sixth on one of the polls, >while BU, whom Maine is 2-0-1 against, is ranked second on the same poll. >Or is it the computer ranking? I'm not sure, but Maine obviously has proven >themselves against the Terriers this season. Maine is rated sixth not in the polls, but in CHODR. It helps to understand the ratings to see why teams are ranked where they are. CHODR, unlike RPICH, takes into account game scores. The fact that Maine has won many close games hurts them in CHODR in comparison with other highly ranked teams. This is because a team's CHODR rating is the difference of its offensive and defensive ratings (as I understand it). Maine's defensive rating is the best, but because the difference of its offensive and defensive ratings is less than five other teams, including BU, Maine is ranked sixth by CHODR. Perhaps this could be considered a limitation of CHODR, that it gives more credit to teams who win fewer games but do win by large margins, as opposed to teams that win more consistently but do not tend to blow out opponents. But that depends on what you expect to get from CHODR. I don't believe CHODR is intended to specifically rate the teams from 1 to 44, at least I have not gotten that impression. Rather, I look at it as an indication of how teams have fared overall in the offensive and defensive aspects of the game. CHODR's predictions tend to be correct more than they are incorrect, but the fact that they are incorrect a reasonable percentage of the time shows that like any other system, it is not infallible. The CHODR ratings may often translate into wins, but not always. >This is why I personally don't put much faith in polls, which are based mainly >on opinions, and not always the type of schedule a team plays. It's my feeling >that if Maine and BU each had to play a steady diet of teams like Michigan, >Colorado College, Minnesota, etc., they wouldn't be ranked as high as they are, >mainly because they probably wouldn't do quite as well against these teams. I don't know what basis you have for making this claim. By RPICH, both Maine and BU have strength of schedules that compare to the other teams you mentioned. That is a big part of the reason that they are ranked as high as they are not only in the polls, but also in "the only poll/rating that matters", RPICH. There is no evidence to dispute the counterclaim that Maine and BU *would* fare just as well if they had played the competition you mentioned. I agree with your lack of faith in the polls, but I also feel that many people's criticism of polls is as unfounded as the polls they criticize. For example, some have lambasted Chaz Scoggins' poll that was posted earlier by SteveW. But their criticism is based on one or two minor factors - BG should not be three spots behind MSU because BG beat MSU last week, Clarkson should not be behind UNH because UNH beat Clarkson twice earlier in the year, etc. Meanwhile, in games played more recently than the last Clarkson-UNH game, UNH has gone 3-3-0 to Clarkson's 5-1-0 - and in that stretch, Clarkson has wins over two teams that people regard well, Brown and Vermont (despite Vermont's apparent underachievement). I can see why Scoggins might rank Clarkson one spot higher, although I don't necessarily agree with it. (then again, maybe I do.) It is very easy to take only the evidence that supports one's claim and ignore all of the evidence against it. That doesn't erase the fact that that counter-evidence still exists. >When you only get to play certain teams once or twice a year, you don't tend to >get a huge idea of how well you can do against them, or the teams they have to >play. This is probably one reason why Maine was undefeated for so long this >year... On the other hand, as you said earlier, Maine played BU four times and went 2-0-2. >...and why a seemingly harmless Princeton team, who I believe lost to Colby >(a Div. III Maine school) earlier this year, could defeat Maine on Maine's >home ice. Actually, Colby tied Princeton. But still, I believe you are making the same selective choice of evidence here. No team is as good as their greatest win, or as bad as their worst defeat. Otherwise, the same claim could be made for BU's loss to Merrimack. Both Merrimack and Princeton had to play near-perfect games to post those wins. It doesn't mean that Maine and BU are undeserving of their status as two of the highest ranked teams in the nation. It just means that like everyone else, they are not invincible. >Essentially, the polls don't mean much, and I think should almost be thrown >out. All it is based on is opinion, which opens the whole system up for bias. This is true and is why it is a good thing that the polls do not determine the seeds. But similarly, all too often our own bias creeps into our criticism of the polls. >I don't think Maine is #1, and I'm one of the biggest fans of the Black Bears. >I think Michigan is #1, especially since they play a much tougher schedule. Again, the strength of schedule of both of these teams are remarkably similar. >Hockey East is getting stronger, so teams like Maine and BU may not be getting >wins as easily as in the past. However, unlike the western conferences, >especially the CCHA, many tend to forget the teams in the lower half of >Hockey East and the ECAC. I don't think this is the case. As well, out West, both of the conferences there tend to have teams that are struggling on the same scale as the lower half of the Eastern conferences. HE has UMA; the CCHA has OSU. And, I would submit there aren't any more consistent powers in the West than in the East. Several of the teams you mentioned - Minnesota, Michigan, MSU - have their equals in consistent Eastern powers (over the last few years), such as Maine, BU, Clarkson, and Harvard. Several of the other teams, like Denver and CC, are schools that have just begun to shine again after years of struggling, like Brown, Mass Lowell, and Northeastern in the East. (well, until NU began struggling again themselves.) Plus, whatever you have done in the past doesn't really matter this year. Sure, tradition can help programs who have become accustomed to winning to a certain degree, but if you don't win this year, you aren't going to the show. It is as simple as that. LSSU is a good example. They could still make it, but it is going to take a fantastic finish. Right now, they are a middle of the pack team at best. I know that in the East, there is perceived to be a bias in the polls from the West against Eastern teams. But from talking to people, some who vote in these polls, I think there is as much of an Eastern bias regarding Western teams. And it takes two forms. Some voters will rank teams from their own region more highly than voters from the other region because of a bias towards their region's teams. On the other hand, sometimes the same voters will rank teams from the other region higher because of the tradition you mentioned - for example, if I see TeamA a lot and think they're not as good as some of the established programs from the other region that I know about. Meanwhile, the people from the other region only see TeamA's scores and record and think hey, this team has to be pretty good, even better than the teams I see everyday (who likewise don't seem as good when you see them as often). The fact that all of these things take place is really why I don't put any stock in the polls. Voters are ranking teams they rarely if ever see. But again, fortunately it has no bearing on the NC$$ seedings. So because of that, I just don't think it's worth getting worked up over anything you see in the polls. It is just the collective opinion of a group of people, an opinion that may or may not represent the way things really are. --- --- Mike Machnik [log in to unmask] Cabletron Systems, Inc. *HMM* 11/13/93