Why we have divisions in the first place

• From: Solter, John A <john_solter_at_smackdoodle2000.yahoo.invalid>
• Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:32:18 -0600
• Message-ID: <20D16CA4F079C44EAC33BBD110E70CA22FDB79_at_...>

Accepting everything said so far, the current bid system seems to put the squeeze on D1 UG teams, especially those in smaller sectionals.
 
I'm not saying we should have some sort of affirmative action program for weaker teams; I want to see the best tournament possible with the best teams.
 
The reason we have divisions in the first place is that we know before they even play that different classes of teams are far separated in skill level.
 
A DII team that qualifies for the ICT is only being compared to other DII teams that have the same eligibility rules.  If a team qualifies for the ICT then they get sent up to DI UG the next year because they have demonstrated that they are at the top of the DII field.
 
When a team gets to DI UG status it is thrown in with what the NAQT eligibility rules call open teams.    
I understand why the UG and open teams play each other at the SCTs.  Usually every region has so few of each that separate divisions would not be feasible.
 
Since the open teams have no reason not to be more powerful than UG teams, NAQT has decided to give an automatic bid to the winner of the DI field.  A winner is also declared among UG teams, but there is no autobid if there are not 4 or more UG teams.  Why do they have this rule?  Teams can do nothing about the size of the field, and just because a UG team does not beat all the open teams, that does not mean the UG team is bad.
Unless they are expecting UG teams to sneak around looking for SCTs with small, weak fields, what is the purpose of this rule?  The bid process lets in many more teams than just the autobids, so some teams may get to the ICT by virtue of beating a weak field, but they will not be many.  
 
Aside from the autobids, the rest of the bid determination presents a significant difficulty to UG teams. 
UG and open teams are not separated at the SCT level for reasons of feasibility, but this should present no fundamental problem at the ICT.  There are enough open and UG teams to run large round robins for both divisions, as are done for DI and DII.  
 
The UG teams should be compared against each other, not against the open teams.  This is the reason for divisions in the first place.  But as I understand it, the S-value system is applied to all DI teams, not UG and open teams separately.  If a UG team has not qualified by beating all the other UG teams and having 4 or more UG teams at the SCT or by beating all the open teams, they are unlikely to qualify based on the S-value.  Even if UG teams were compared directly to each other as a basis for bids, the S-value is still problematic.  As it has been detailed to me, all the S-value components except bonus conversion are highly dependent upon field strength.  Generally, the more powerful the field, the lower the S-value.  Having a large number of UG teams in an SCT will also tend to lower field strength.  As the rules stand now, an identical UG team placed in all the different SCTs will tend to obtain bids in the lower field-strength SCTs.  This produces a weaker field of UG teams for the ICT than might otherwise be obtained.          
   
 
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]