Welcome to our new members since the last post to the list!

Here is a topic on which I am interested in peoples' oppinions. It seems
to me that the the court of public oppinion, computer rating systems get
low marks because people don't tliek the results. My contention is tha
tlooking at the results is exactly the wrong way to judge computer ratings
systems. Rather, I prefer to look at the rating criteria - and decide if
the criteria are fair. Trying to adjust the criteria in order to get
better results seems to be completely backwards to me. (Of course, this
is exactly what the BCS did this past summer when the eliminaterd margin
of victory from the computer data . . .presumably because they felt oregon
got unduely screwed over . . . what they failed to consider was that is
was the average strength of schedule in the pac-10 tha tpulled oregon down
. . but that's beside the point.)

What do you all think? Are the results more important than the method?
What sorts of methods (criteria) are most important?

- Pat

-- Patrick E. Fleming
-- Department of Chemistry
-- San Jose State University
-- pfleming@...