<We do not do the complex statistical comparisons and careful adjustments for strength of schedule out of a love of complexity, but because we are trying to be absolutely as fair as possible in comparing all teams SCT performances, and in reducing the effects of teams playing in tournaments of differing field strength.> Field strength is a variable that cannot be adjusted for via statistical means. Hypothetically, if each of the top 10 teams in the country are in one region, the 10th best team will NOT have stats sufficient enough for a nationals entry bid. Similarly, certain regions will have more difficult competition (NOT necessarily more points scored or more questions answered, the values of which are reflected in statistics). The method for adjusting this is, as Shawn Pickrell astutely points out, is allowing for a set number of teams from each region. In last year's ICT, there were _nine_ teams from the Mid-Atl region, including six in the top 20. Yet this year, we only qualify six. Why? Because the stats don't measure up. Give me a break. <This is nothing new; teams know going into NAQT SCTs that--unless they are title winners--what is going to be crucial to rankings for ICT invitation purposes is statistical comparisons of teams' point-scoring across entire tournaments.> And where are teams supposed to glean this magical information? If NAQT wants to be legitimate, it would be wise to have a more straightforward system in place rather than relying on the all-knowing "damn lies". -Shaun
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST