For Ahmed's first part, it wouldn't hurt having actual tournament data handy from the last two ICT's to see whether there is any way one could be completely screwed up after 11 rounds of play. As for Ahmed's second item (reason for the top- ranked and bottom-ranked team to suffer through playing only half the number of games compared to everyone else in ladder play)... the last couple of years' data with Chicago clearly earning the "bye" would be a good argument. I have to remember whether ladder play started with teams ranked 1 and n getting byes first or second. I think they got byes in the even-numbered ladder rounds. Of course, I'd also be intrigued if NAQT would consider running ladder-play qualification for their HSCT this coming June. Get those kids used to both the questions and the format for ICT when they get up to this level. Of course, I await Eric Bell's response to that. Last point which interests me to ask Rob and Eric Hilleman: how is schedule difficulty taken into account? I think last year you just went with combined losses of opponents played against after the first pre-determined-opponent matches. I'm just wondering if it made any difference last year and how it was factored into first-round power-matching considerations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST