<<NAQT *could* make ICT invitations in such a way as to *guarantee* that a lower-ranked team would not be invited before a higher-ranked team from the same SCT. From the comments above (proposing merely to "adjust procedures to decrease the likelihood ... unless the statistical difference is simply overwhelming"), it appears that NAQT has already decided explicitly to *reject* this idea out of hand. Why?>> False assumption, that NAQT has already decided explictly to reject that idea out of hand. We have made no decision at all, yet. It is possible that we may adjust procedures to decrease the likelihood of making invitations out of order of final finish within an SCT all the way down to zero. This would be a big change, though, and complicated by the great variety of formats used at the different sectionals. For instance, we have had many instances over the years where final official standings and overall winning percentages are quite different things, due to playoff systems and "upsets" therein. Look at what might have happened in Div. 2 of the NE SCT this year. After a round-robin, NYU was 10-0 and ranked 1st, while Yeshiva was 4-6 and ranked 8th. They went to playoffs, with #1 playing #8 in the quarterfinals, needing to win two of three. Yeshiva played NYU very close, winning the middle game before losing the deciding one by 70. A 70 point swing can be made on a single tossup/bonus sequence going the other way. Suppose that Yeshiva had won that final game. At that point NYU, now 11-2, and still statistically the dominant team in the field, is eliminated in playoff quarterfinals, and could place no higher than 5th in official standings. Yeshiva, now 6-7, is guaranteed a spot in the top four. Maybe that's OK--it certainly respects the results of the SCT as set up--but the best order of invitation for that SCT would be at least debatable, assuming our goal to be selection of the strongest possible ICT field. The thing is, when the basic approach was set up years ago to order invitations following the automatics for winning titles, it was seen as highly desirable to minimize so far as possible the positive or negative effects of competing in different tournaments of greatly differing field strengths. Winning percentages are of little if any help in comparing teams across tournaments; hence the appeal of comparisons based upon points-based statistics, with adjustments for computed strength of schedule that are also point-based computations. That gives us a nice objective basis (imperfect, as anything would be, but objective) for comparing teams from different sectionals. Theoretically, apart from winning automatic invitations via overall or undergrad titles, a given team will wind up rating about the same regardless of what SCT they happen to play in, thanks to the strength of schedule adjustment to the tossup points scored per tossups heard statistic. (Bonus conversion averages are assumed to be unaffected by the strength of one's opponents, so that factor is left unadjusted.) However, the resulting power ratings based on points do not in fact always align teams from the same tournaments in the same order that actual winning percentages do. This is clearly an anomaly of concern. A further adjustment was therefore added to also make winning percentage a factor. That adjustment was not large; it did not this year keep a relatively high-scoring 6-7 team from being ranked ahead of two lower-scoring 9-4 teams from the same field. That is a result that has alarmed many, out of NAQT and in NAQT. I would guess that the chances of our now making some sort of alteration in the direction of placing far greater weight on the importance of winning percentage within particular tournaments is now approaching 100%. No specific alteration has been either decided upon or ruled out out of hand. Eric H. of NAQT, though the statement is my own
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST