Random thoughts ... 1. I think that Shaun may have a better point in questioning why a school decides to attend a tournament that means nothing in one location and one that qualifies for Nationals in another. This is not about IFT performance, but rather about trying to avoid a (perceived) tougher field. Let's say that Harvard is hosting NE SCT. BU decides to go to another SCT in another region because they think they have a better shot. This doesn't seem right - particularly since better-funded programs can do this and poorer programs can't. 2. I see nothing wrong with ranking every school at a given regional. Many lower division college sports pursue such a ranking system based on the fact that the members in a certain region play each other. If almost all of NAQT's criteria factor in the SCT, this would appear dead logical. Does this have to be done by record at the SCT? No, although a focus on this does seem like a good idea. At the end, take the highest-finisher that hasn't qualified yet from each regional and rank 'em. Winner qualifies and the next-highest finished takes their spot and you do it until all the wild cards are finished. 3. Bonus conversion is, to a degree, a function of tossups answered. If I'm in an easy region and thwack six or seven schools, I'll have more tossups to establish bonus conversion ratios. If a good team gets eight tossups a game in one regional, that's eighty-eight tossups. If a good team gets eleven tossups a game in another regional, that's 111 tossups. If the logic is that good teams always get higher bonus conversion than weaker ones - which is debatable - more bonuses should avoid lower scores. Teams in harder regionals may also be forced with more "time-based" situations - situations where scoring on bonuses is lowered due to catch-up techniques. Hayden
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST