Difference between revisions of "2003 ICT"
(update link) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | [[Subash Maddipoti|Subash]] [ | + | [[Subash Maddipoti|Subash]] [https://www.naqt.com/ict/2003/ really destroyed] everyone. |
| − | This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games | + | This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games and didn't defeat any team ranked higher than eighth being awarded the third-place finish, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004; since then, all ICT formats have been based on [[round robins]]. |
Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II. | Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==External Links== | ||
| + | *[https://www.naqt.com/stats/tournament-teams.jsp?tournament_id=1403 Full Results] | ||
{{Browse box|Tournament = 2003 [[ICT|NAQT ICT]] | {{Browse box|Tournament = 2003 [[ICT|NAQT ICT]] | ||
Latest revision as of 17:53, 10 December 2020
Subash really destroyed everyone.
This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games and didn't defeat any team ranked higher than eighth being awarded the third-place finish, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of mathturbation, the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004; since then, all ICT formats have been based on round robins.
Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by Berkeley, whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by Subash Maddipoti for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player Jerry Vinokurov in Division II.
External Links
| ||
| | ||