Re: ACF Fall Midwest Stats/Results



 My primary justification for allowing Carleton A to play as a Div. 
II team was that another team in the tournament, that has played in 
roughly five tournaments total, fell in the same situation.  That is 
they were in their fourth semester of playing but their "third 
year."  I felt it better to let them play Div. II and out of 
fairness I also had to let Carleton A play Div II.  Perhaps this was 
a bad judgement call on either my part or on Kelly's part.  However, 
any distinction one makes between an experienced "Div I" and an 
inexperienced "Div II" player or team is bound to be arbitrary.

A few further notes.  First, I wish to acknowledge that Chicago C 
played tremendously especially in that this was their first 
tournament.

Second, I agree with both Susan and Eric that ACF has to make a more 
specified distinction between Div I and Div II as "first or second 
year" can lead to different interpretations.  Also (unless I missed 
it) ACF doesn't have any criteria for distinction between Div I and 
Div II written into their rules or their eligibility requirements 
which is also problematic.


Matt Cvijanovich
Tournament Director: ACF Fall Midwest.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST