Some posters on this discussion are much more sophisticated about rating systems than I am. But I'd like to make two points. First of all, ratings are not just about seeding -- in the minds of most fencers C and under, who are the majority of our fencers. Ratings motivate them. We should not pretend that this is not the case. Second, it would be relatively easy to evaluate any proposed rating system (existing, ELO-like, ELO-with-a-floor, or whatever) using the very extensive amount of available data--AskFred and USFA reporting. (And for that matter, the FIE system.) Does the present system predict first-found results in a NAC, a nationals? Does it predict first-found results in a local open? How about DE's? Would an ELO (or any other) system be more predictive? It's like asking whether the seedings for the NCAA DivI Basketball Championship are more or less accurate than the Vegas odds, or the RPI, or some other index, or the indices combined. Could we be doing better than we are doing? The data is (or, Inq, are) there.