Re: NAQT ICT Picks

• From: jpaikman <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 05:41:36 -0000
• Message-ID: <b2fb6g+kh27_at_...>

> Jason, it's an interesting formula... but I think your Heartland 
> Sectional calculations are a bit flawed.  For one thing, thoseteams 
> should not get credit for the forfeit win vs. Wichita State (it 
> should be completely taken out of the equation).  Also, wasn't the 
> Heartland sectional the one where they played random extra games in 
> addition to the round robin, because the 13th team didn't show up?  
> That being the case, a strength of schedule adjustment may be 
> needed.

Point taken.  It's impossible to predict the effect of random games 
in addition to the round robin, and I'd think that NAQT will also 
have that same problem.  None of us have access to standings before 
those two random matches.

> Also, I think that the winning percentage factor may be a bithigh.  
> Whether or not it _should_ be that high is another issue, but as a 
> long-time MAQT fan, I remember a 9-4 Maryland team that did not 
> advance to the ICT (while a 6-7 team from another school did).  In 
> other words, I'm not so sure that Truman State A, for example, is a 
> shoo-in to make the field.

I originally didn't want to include an adjustment for winning 
percentage, and just base the ranking on bonus conversion and power 
tossups.  These are the only two equalities amongst all sectionals - 
in fact, disregarding those two random matches above, using an 
opponent-blind statistic such as bonus conversion and power tossups 
gives out the same teams on top.  In general, better teams win.

In any case, winning percentage for Division II teams counts for 
about 50% [definitely high], but counts for about 33% in Division I, 
which is more appropriate in the NAQT scheme.

Moreover, under recalculation where the winning percentage adjustment 
is cut in half, the top 24 teams still remain the same, with changes 
in ordering.

***However, the goal of this experiment is to predict finish at the 
ICT.***

> Finally, this year NAQT is taking 24 four-year and 8 two-year teams 
> for the ICT, right?

I'm not aware of this.  I'm sort of out of the loop.  If that's true, 
then its obvious what adjustments have to be made.

===================

MIT B
Harvard B *
Columbia
Brandeis Parasite *
Williams B

Florida C *
Georgia B
Florida B
[UTC may use its autobid here.]

North Carolina A
Princeton B
Virginia
Swarthmore A *

Michigan D *

Rice A *
Tulane A

Chicago *
Carleton B

Arkansas B
Iowa State B *
WashU B
Oklahoma C

Cal-Berkeley *
Caltech

British Columbia B *

===================

Thank you for your criticism.

Jason Paik
QB Ronin (TM)