David's kudos are as good an opportunity as any for me to share some thoughts. Given the length I'll split into two posts, one on format and one on the protest that came up. I'll correct some glaring errata from my Saturday posts: First, as Joon mentioned, Chris Sewell did indeed play for Stanford A (not B). Second and far more importantly, the correct order of finish was Chicago; Berkeley A; Maryland; Michigan A; etc. For those who didn't hear, NAQT 2003 ICT Division I used a format almost but not quite identical to the Division I format of previous years (through 2001): Friday night pre-set matches for rounds 1 through 6; Saturday morning power-matching for rounds 7 through 11; Saturday afternoon... not ladder play, but rather a four-round, seeded schedule devised by R. Robert Hentzel. In that seeded schedule, most teams played two opponents a little bit above them in seeding and two opponents a little bit below them. Obvious exceptions were at the top of the bracket (and the bottom of the bracket) where, for example, the #1 seed played the #5, #4, #3, & #2 in that order. If a team went 4-0 it "moved 6.5 places up" If a team went 3-1 it "moved 2.25 places up" If a team goes 2-2 it "stayed in the same place" If a team goes 1-3 it "moved 2.25 places down" If a team goes 0-4 it "moved 6.5 places down" Scare quotes there because, for example, Chicago (who started out with the #1 seed and went 4-0) didn't literally finish in "negative 5.5"th place, nor did Berkeley A (#2 seed, then 3-1) literally finish in "negative .25"th place, nor did any #50 seed go 0-4 and finish in "56.5"th place. I hope you get the general idea. (What happens here sounds far more complicated than it actually is. *Why* it happens that way -- e.g. why 6.5 or 2.25 -- the best possible explanation would come from R. The short version is that, in pre-simulations, those numbers seemed to provide the best balance between giving the top teams an appropriate level of championship contention and giving all teams a reasonable final order.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST