Re: NAQT ICT Picks

• From: Samer Ismail <stipenn_at_stipenn.yahoo.invalid> <stipenn_at_stipenn.yahoo.invalid>
• Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:18:07 -0000
• Message-ID: <b2edmf+aj7h_at_...>

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, lampdwellr <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> I'm sure I'm allowed to do this without offending anyone, but here 
> are my picks purely based on statistical criteria I KNOW to be part 
> of the S-value calculation, for the Div I NAQT ICT.  I included 
> automatic bids, though I know at least a few teams will decline.
> 
> Please don't be offended.  All I'm doing here is crunching numbers, 
> but feel free to disagree!
> 
> -Steve Bahnaman, Emory
> 
> Here they are!
> (Undergrad champs get *, autobids get **)

> Berkeley C
> Berkeley D
> UCLA (Host of ICT, so...?)

The ICT host does *not* receive an automatic invite to compete.

Also, one interesting note: Michigan A, Yale A, and Berkeley C all 
managed 420-430 points/20 TUs heard (the next highest team, Illinois 
A, was in the 370s). Michigan A had the highest bonus conversion 
(just over 75%), Berkeley C had the highest TU points per TU heard 
(7.21), and Yale A converted a higher percentage of TUs than any 
other team (just under 70%). [Of course, it is rather frightening to 
note that what Michigan and Yale did with four players, Berkeley did 
with three....]

Clearly, any proposal for ranking teams must have those three teams 1-
2-3 in some order.

--STI