Thanks Keeper for your insightful explanations and taking the high road where other defenders of the GPI have not. I'm a number-cruncher and enjoy reviewing all the components of the GPI and also like to evaluate the polls vs. the GPI vs. Sagarin-type ratings - especially as the playoffs approach.

The GPI has been proactive to attempt to add as many different ratings as possible to its rankings. The GPI has also been wise to wait until mid-season to release its first rankings. Some of the components look questionable to date but there are still games left in the season for that to change. After the season, I'm sure that all (ie - which ratings to include and how the individual ratings are calculated) will be re-evaluated before next year. It has been changed each year which is to the credit of the GPI. Typically though, ratings don't change much in the latter part of the existing year unless you lose your way out. For instance, I don't see San Diego dropping much before the end of the season.

Ultimately, I'm glad the GPI is around as long as we remember that it's simply another resource to predict at-large playoff teams and compare teams and conferences. It's not the "end all" to playoff selections nor should it be ignored. With manipulation (ie - dropping 4 loss teams), the GPI has regularly picked 7 of 8 at-large playoff teams similar to the success of the polls or predictions of individuals. No system can factor in that human or political factor! Thanks again Keeper for your input.