Deron wrote, in part.. >Here's an opinion, does anyone else think that everything, power-ratings, >winning percentage, division finish and head to head competition should ALL >be taken into effect by the NCAA? I realize winning % is included in the >power-ratings, but what about these other factors? ... Let's ignore my contention (shared by a *few* others) that RPI uses an incorrect and indefensible formula ... The question becomes how do choose and seed the teams. The NCAA has done an admirable job, IMHO, in that opinion and prejudice have nearly been eliminated from the process! So let's not beat ourselves to death by dumping on a process that is very good (unless you have an alternative that is somehow measurably better). The NCAA has said that league regular season champ and tournament champ get into the tournament. It doesn't say where they will be seeded. It uses the RPI (similar to RPICH we see on HOCKEY-L), until the differences in RPI ratings are "small" (0.01 or less). The 0.01 is defensible, but IMHO another value might be used. RPI includes winning% as well as a measure of the strength of opponents. Why should division finish mean anything to RPI or any ranking? Maybe because it measures an ability to play "in a big game" (but this is implied in RPI). Maybe because a tournament win shows an improving or peaking team (this is not part of RPI, but is part of the tie-breaking procedures used when RPI rankings are close). So that leaves head-to-head. If the RPI rankings are close, then the NCAA procedures will use head-to-head as part of the tie-breaking process. Should it be used before then? I don't think so. If RPI is a good measure of a team's success relative all other teams, then if significant differences exist in RPI, how can we call the head-to-head team better if lower in the rankings? better against that one team, but not necessarily better overall (now there's a concept for you!). Of course, I've just muddied the waters. RPICH, TCHCR, KRACH, YAM2, CHODR and HEAL are all approaches with some validity but different characteristics. The authors of each have given us glimpses into their characteristics over the past few years. RPI has seemingly had the most analysis done on it and has the advantage of being used in several sports. I liked TCHCR better than all others, but it was so complicated people may have dismissed it for that. I dislike CHODR because it *seems* to prefer high scoring teams to low scoring teams "that win the close ones". CC fans should like HEAL, for it would have placed them 8th last year :-) Should consistency count? Should a team be "burdened" by a weak schedule? Right now it appears Maine falls into this latter category. But the season isn't over yet. Both Maine and BU play relatively lowly ranked teams between now and tournament time, except that Maine and UNH plays twice. IMHO, the Maine/UNH series will be huge in all the rankings. Ignoring other games that will be played, a sweep by UNH would place Maine and UNH in a virtual tie for (HEAL) 2nd in the East. (I haven't done the all-important RPI calculation). Yours in college hockey, Wayne Smith The College Hockey Discussion List administrator Systems Group - CAPS BITNET/CREN: wts@maine University of Maine System internet: [log in to unmask]