Let me preface this by saying that I have absolutely no intention of playing at the ICT if the University of Houston does somehow qualify. I understand the motivation for these requirements ... really, I do. In fact, I wouldn't even bother questioning them if the four- team minimum rule had been limited to the Undergraduate Champion invitation, as this is better kept as a designated award at the ICT than anything else. However, I'm struck by the same four-team minimum requirement for the overall D1 & D2 champions, in what basically amounts to penalizing a team for its geographic placement. True, this will not affect most regions in the least bit, but it will affect the SCT at Texas A&M this weekend. Of the 12 teams scheduled to appear, only two will classify as Division I -- UT-Austin and UH. Our schedule, thus, will consist of an 11-game round robin, with only one game against another Division I opponent. Obviously, this situation is the fault of no one; it is pure happenstance that this region is bereft of D1 teams. Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that one of the teams breezes through the entire RR, going 11-0 to capture the D1 crown. However, they are by no means assured of an ICT bid. You might say, "Eric, how can that be? Sure there's no codified guarantee, but they went undefeated!" We mustn't forget NAQT's "S- value" system which, "combines statistical measures of tossup performance and bonus performance and includes corrections for opponent strength." The key words in there are the last two -- opponent strength. History has shown that in the few past sectionals where D1&D2 competed together, NAQT's rating system seriously de-values a D1 vs. D2 game. Getting back to our example, let's further say that our winning team's performance against the D2 teams in the field was fairly consistent, though not overly dominating. We'll also say that the D2 teams have a normal distribution of skill -- 1 good, 1 poor, and 8 average. I think it would be fair to say that such a profile, before we take into account the single D1 game this team has, would probably not meet the S-value bid threshold. Everything, then, is dependent on the one D1 game. If the other D1 team had a similar run through the D2 field and is soundly beaten by our champions, it would probably be enough to nudge them to invitee status. On the other hand, the other D1 team could be extremely inexperienced, made D1 by the presence of a novice graduate player, and it might have a mediocre record in the D2 field, like 5-5. Even a strong victory over this team is unlikely to register much in the S-value. Again, to restate, our hypothetical, undefeated team at this weekend's sectionals, through no fault of its own, would not only (A) not have an automatic invitation to the ICT, but it also (B) would be left, at best, "on the bubble" for a bid. This team's situation becomes even worse with a single loss, particularly if it is to the other D1 team. If I'm dramatically overstating the ramifications of the S-value system, I'd love for someone to correct me. But, as it is right now, I see a situation where a good team which could easily qualify in another, more populous region would get a raw deal. I would encourage NAQT to rethink this policy. It's tantamount to telling Gonzaga that the NCAA tournament's not going to take them, since the rest of the West Coast Conference stinks. -- eps
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST