My biggest problem with RPI is that it blindly rewards a team for having a tough schedule (the 0.50 of opponent's record) regardless of whether they actually win any of the games versus tough opponents. That's a big flaw, IMO, unless each conference, and each team in each conference, plays the same kind of schedule (same number of games, same number of inter-conference games). With unbalanced schedules, "weak" teams in "strong" conferences benefit from the interconference success of their "strong" conference-mates. Plus, that "weak" team could play a *very* weak interconference schedule and look even better. I don't agree, however, that all losses are alike. Losing to a team that _ultimately_ has a record much better than your _ultimate_ record shouldn't hurt as much as losing to a team that ultimately has a record much worse than your ultimate record. Similarly, all wins and all ties shouldn't be alike (and they aren't in HEAL, which is good). Just food for thought. Steve G HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.