> 3. In my opinion, Emory B should have been ranked 6th in the final > standings, not 4th. After the initial RR, the order was UF, Emory A, > Georgia A, FSU, USF, UNF, Emory B, Furman, and Clemson, after which > the top 5 played a lesser RR and the bottom 4 played a lesser RR. > Clearly it made a big difference in Georgia's record to have faced > teams like UF, Emory A, and USF, while Emory B faced less experienced > teams from Clemson and Furman. Regardless of whether the NAQT > guidelines included a specific dictate on rankings, the structure of > the RRs should (in my opinion) have automatically dictated that Emory > B be no higher than 6th and Georgia A no lower than 5th. But as > Charlie noted, the order really doesn't matter in terms of NAQT bids. > Also, I believe Emory B qualified for the ICT regardless of placing > 4th or 6th by being the top undergrad team. The assignment of trophies and overall finish is not dictated by NAQT, but our S-value calculations make it impossible for a team from a lower playoff bracket to be invited ahead of a team from an upper playoff bracket since the difference in quality of opponents faced is usually considerable. UTC violated none of NAQT's hosting guidelines, but the order of invitation to the ICT will reflect the division of the playoff brackets. Also, NAQT's records do not indicate that there were four undergraduate teams competing at the Midsouth SCT so Emory B is not guaranteed a bid on that account. If our information is incorrect, please let us know immediately. -- R. Robert Hentzel President and Chief Technical Officer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST