Another clarification: 4A. Unfortunately, Samer misses the entire point of my argument by attempting to break such a complex subject into simplified terms. Last year for NAQT sectionals, we fielded a team of Dave Hamilton, John Nam, and Mark Tervakoski, which won the Mid-Atlantic region. The team that went to ICT was John Nam and three other players of lesser abilities. (We finished 9th, but that's completely irrelevant.) When two players back out for other reasons, it is only natural to supplant with bench reserves, and continue to compete at the ICT. However, to qualify a team for DI and then use the players from that team instead to support a weaker DII team dilutes the field of DI at the expense of DII. 4B. The stats detailing the different region performances have more to do with a statement Pickrell made concerning this year's performances reflected in a set number of teams, per region, qualifying for the national tournament next year. Although I don't personally agree with such a system, the adherents to that school were also clamoring back in February, and as such they can do with the data what they wish. In each of these cases, I think we can all agree that the end goal is to have the strongest field possible for the national tournament. Whether that means the strongest teams able to compete to perform well or the strongest teams able to compete to win is, of course, the root of this dilemma and others before it. Back to the debate, Shaun (with a U)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST