Re: ICT qualifications

Eric Steinhauser <esteinhauser_at_e_steinhauser.yahoo.invalid> <*esteinhauser_at_e_steinhauser.yahoo.invalid*> · Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:10:26 -0000

> Because of this, you 
> are right to point out that defeating a Division II team is worth 
> less in the eyes of the NAQT Invitation Committee than defeating 
an 
> average Division I team.

First question:  Is this an a priori judgement, or is it contingent 
on the absolute power rating of the D2 team.  In the past, it had 
been explained to me as being similarly devalued regardless of 
opponent.

Second question:  If the situations were reversed, and there were a 
handful of Division 2 teams playing against an otherwise D1 field, 
would their performances against those teams be similarly up-valued?

> However, a Division I team playing Division II teams should be 
able 
> to answer a higher fraction of tossups than a Division I team 
playing 
> another Division I team and its bonus conversion should be 
unaffected 
> by their opponent.  

I will obviously grant bonus conversion, though I'm interested to 
see just how much NAQT thinks tossup performance should increase 
against a given D2 team.  Ten percent?  Twenty-five percent?

> This is not the complete story--what matters is how well the team 
> plays against that weak schedule.  Does the team answer 45% of the 
> tossups?  65%?  85%?  By no means does everything depend on the 
one 
> Division I game.  Everything depends on consistently answering 
> tossups and converting bonuses in every game.

> Answering 75% of the tossups and converting 60% of the bonus 
points 
> even over a weak team will definitely register.

So, let me get this straight.  Our hypothetical team should convert 
at least 75% of tossups and 60% on bonuses against D2 teams, in 
addition to merely winning all of its games, in order to have a 
decent shot at an invitation.  This sounds like you're encouraging 
them to, if not actually run up the score, get in that vicinity.

But in your reply to Joon, you state that, "running up the score 
against a weak opponent is not indicative of great competitive power 
and we are confident that our ranking formula does not reward that 
behavior."

Frankly, I'm somewhat confused.  You're placing a significantly 
different burden on teams in one region to qualify that you do not 
on others.  Other teams merely have to win outright to get their 
bid.  Why not our hypothetical team?  They've won all their games 
and done what would ordinarily be asked of them in another region, 
yet because of the relative youth of that region, they may well be 
denied the just desserts of their performance.

To reiterate my position, I think the outright D1 and D2 champions 
from each SCT should receive automatic bids, regardless of the 
quality or size of their fields.  I don't care about the 
undergraduate championship, since they nominally haven't actually 
*won* anything.

If overall field strength is the primary concern in this rule, then 
why give host schools an automatic bid?  They haven't proven 
anything, either.  I can't imagine that this rule affects more than 
2 or 3 SCT divisional competitions.  Are the last invited teams in 
D1 or D2 going to bring that much more power and strength to the ICT 
field?  I say no, and it makes infinitely more sense to reward a 
team that went 11-0 and won its sectional outright than a team in a 
more competitve SCT that went 7-5 to finish 5th.

(out of order, but makes more sense here)
> The idea behind the S-value is to cancel these 
> factors out so that it doesn't matter where a team plays:  If they 
> choose to play at a weak Sectional they will score more points but 
> lose position because of the weakness of their opponents.

> One of the goals of the S-value is to make the choice of Sectional 
to 
> attend irrelevant to qualification.

But obviously, for a situation like the A&M SCT, it does.  For at-
large bids, I see no real problems.  

However, I'm struck at the use of the word "choose" here.  If we are 
to assume that NAQT's wish is that teams play in the SCT closest to 
them, why should the performance requirements for an automatic bid 
be any different from the other sectionals?  Must a team like UT-
Austin actively seek out a site that will give them a better chance 
to qualify?  I can't imagine cherrypicking of sectionals fits NAQT's 
vision.

(I'll leave out the Dreaded Sports Analogy stuff, since those of us 
who follow NCAA bracket methodologies probably understand where I'm 
coming from already, while those who don't would require too much 
explanation.)

-- eps