RE: NAQT Bids (2 of 3)

That system can certainly be faulted if you like.
And you do like:

<<I would urge NAQT to
consider strength of region and head-to-head victories for
future at-large invitations. Statistics as one of the
few comparative methods across regions, but stats
should NOT be used to accept lesser-placed teams in the
same region.>>

Stength of region is
absolutely _crucial_ to the comparisons that we do make.
Head-to-head victories are meaningless for us, a decision we
have made that you may dislike, but I honestly see
little possibility of a workable system which would make
that a possibility for us. Nor do I agree with that as
even a philosophical goal -- I would not want to see a
head to head victory on a particular packet, possibly
by 5 points, or a similarly small margin, outweigh
in consideration other overall wins and losses, or
large differences in scoring average across all the
packets of an entire tournament. Yes, within the context
of a single tournament, it is the wins, however
narrow, that matter for the standings, not who is
statistically dominant. But for ranking teams for another
purpose, that is not necessarily the means to the best
result.

That last statement, though, that "stats should NOT be
used to accept lesser-placed teams in the same region"
is very much a possible conclusion for us. Certainly
it goes against the grain to have invitations not
follow the order of final finish within a tournament.
But rankings that are based on point-scoring
statistics are the only means we have of fairly comparing
teams across different tournaments, where won-loss
record comparisons become meaningless due to differing
formats and field strengths.

If our approach was
to be that we would compare teams across tournaments
by statistical methods, but refuse to issue
invitations out of order of final finish within individual
tournaments, how would we handle the teams whose statistical
performances are markedly better or worse than their numerical
placements would have suggested?

[continued again -
man I hate these message size limitations when you
have a lot to say.]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST