Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:07:48 -0600
From: Mark Hopkins <whopkins@alpha.csd.uwm.edu>
Subject: Massey & Howell retro rankings.

I've had a chance to look at some of your critiques of the other 2
systems you've examined.

Right away I can see problems.  Not with Massey or Howell, but with your
critiques.

Take 1956.  Oklahoma is rated #1 by the polls, but #9 by Massey.

They played only one good team the entire year and played, essentially,
a schedule as weak as today's Division I-AA.

You seem to be indicating that this is a problem with Massey's ratings
because it is in serious disagreement with the AP that year.

OK.  That's fair.  But now look at 1984.

Howell's rankings which did the same thing for Brigham Young in 1984 as
the AP did for Oklahoma in 1956.

And now this is a problem?

If Howell's handling of 1984 was wrong, then Massey's handling of 1956
is -- for that very reason -- correct and your assessment if it is
equally wrong.

And vice versa.  If Massey's handling of 1956 was right, then -- for
that very reason -- your criticism of Howell is simply wrong.

You can't have it both ways.