What I would be interested in seeing is how many of those whatever percentage of tossups answered were answered by only a small number of people. Is that a possible analysis? --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "ZAMM_Phaedrus <ard_at_p...>" <ard_at_p...> wrote: > Since people are talking about this stuff, they might as well try > citing some actual numbers. > > Percentage of tossups answered at the following April 2002 tournaments: > > ACF Nationals: 78% > NAQT ICT: 80% > TRASHionals 81% > > A couple of caveats: > -The ACF data is only for rounds 1-9, the prelim divisional round > robin. Thus, it excludes playoff games featuring top teams vs. top > teams and bottom teams vs. bottom teams. This may or may not affect > percentage of tossups answered. > -Time may run out in the middle of a tossup in NAQT, causing it to be > unanswered. This may depress the percentage of ICT tossups answered by > a non-negligible factor. > -I would have calculated bonus conversion if not for the fact that ACF > results were less comprehensible than the long-term strategy of the > Tampa Bay Devil Rays. This is also why ACF Nats data only covers thse > rounds for which individual stats were given. > -Field strength varies. TRASHionals has masters and bastard teams, > although more than 2/3 of the field was composed of college teams, and > several other teams had at least one college student. ACF Nationals > takes anyone eligible who wants to play, but there may be a bias in > that more knowledgeable teams are more likely to want to play. The ICT > invites teams based on merit, but SCT hosts get invites regardless of > playing ability.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST