Formula = P/20 + (FS * WLR * max(P/20)), where max(P/20) is the greatest number of P/20 across all sectionals. [This means that an undefeated team in the strongest field will earn as many "rating points" as the team with the most points per 20 tossups.] This does lead to the conclusion that under a different weighting system, Maryland would have received an automatic bid, and my school (MIT), would have been placed second on the wait list--the same results that you have. Williams (third place in our region, ahead of MIT) would have then essentially received MIT's bid. [Again, however, because of the small number of games in the NE round robin, I think teams were penalized somewhat more than in the MA.] Note that while Maryland is now ahead of Princeton and GW, they are still behind Penn, which finished a game behind you. This, however, is a natural outcome of the fact that the margin which Penn outscored Maryland (294 P/20 to 238 P/20) is much greater than the difference in records (.615 to .692, in Maryland's favor). One would have to weight win-loss record twice as much as per-tossup statistics in order to justify Maryland's moving ahead of Penn. So what is the point of all of this? Basically, it says that win-loss record alone cannot solely work as a criterion, as Mr. Hillemann has pointed out, account for the rankings, because it is too insensitive to the structure of tournaments, and because it does not allow for easy comparison between regions. But, combining them with per-tossup statistics does allow teams that lost one close match to move ahead in the rankings--reflecting the notion that teams should not be punished for a small "statistical fluke." --AEI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST