--- In quizbowl_at_y..., cooterchekov <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > That doesn't make any sense, though...we already had our match > against Georgia. > > Edmund R. announced the policy in the opening meeting, so at the very least the handling of the issue was consistent with what was announced. I didn't fully understand it when I was half-listening at the rules meeting, but later we were in the same situation as Edmund, having beaten Florida in the round robin but losing to UF in the tiebreaker for the #3 spot in our bracket. At the time I thought it was silly for us to play UF again, since it would merely affect the order in which we faced our mutual opponents, but in retrospect the loss meant that we ended up 10th instead of in an 8th-place tie with UF and Harvard. But my initial point, for what it's worth, is that the policy was carried out as announced in the opening rules meeting -- in the event of tied records, the two teams would play a match (or half-match, I guess) to decide who would go into the playoff with a 1-0 record. Records took priority over head-to-head. I don't know if the situation arose, but if Team A was 7-4 in 5th spot, and Team B was 6-5 in 6th spot, and B had beaten A in the round robin, I believe A would still have gone into the playoffs with a 1-0 record (and B with an 0-1 record) because of the RR records -- I think that's how it was set up [but please correct me if I'm wrong]. Whether or not it's a good policy is the point Edmund brings up, I suppose. I think it's kind of neutral -- it's hard to call it unfair, and it didn't delay the tournament because of the ongoing circle-of-death tiebreakers at the time, but I don't know that it provides a great advantage over using the RR head-to-head result as the tiebreak. I liked it because it meant getting in another match, even though we lost. The biggest drawback seemed merely to be the delay in getting to lunch. --Raj Dhuwalia, Florida Atlantic
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST