Steve G writes... >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... But that makes very little difference in the RPI value relative to a team's actual winning percentage. I used to feel like Steve, but I have "seen the light." Looking at last season's OppWinPct entering the tournament, the highest among the 42 conference teams was Minnesota's 55.76% (or .5576). The lowest was Union's 46.52%, a difference of 9.24%. Multiply that by the .5 factor/weight and WIDEST RPI margin that can be attributed to OppWinPct is .0462. Most teams will have an OppWinPct in the .4800-.5200 range. ASIDE: The same argument can be made for OppOppWinPct, where the distribution of values is much tighter and the weight applied (formerly .25, now .15) is considerably lower. Last season, the high and low among the 42 conference teams was Denver at 51.72% and Alaska Fairbanks at 48.81%. All other components being equal, that would lead to an RPI difference of .007275 given a weight of .25, even less this season. If you're not winning these games, the fact that your OppWinPct and OppOppWinPct is higher than other teams isn't going to help you. I do agree with Steve that balanced conference schedules is HIGHLY DESIRABLE. The imbalance in the CCHA is about as far as I would deviate. (Three games versus every team, which means the site of the games isn't balanced.) The imbalance in the WCHA is something I personally would like to see changed. Especially if the conference schedule were reduced to 30 games or less, thus allowing for more non- conference action with WCHA clubs. John H ([log in to unmask]) HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey; send information to [log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.