>Cornell lost by ten points in the championship >game. Queen's also lost once to MIT. This was on >Canadiana questions. MIT was therefore better >or equal) on Canadian questions than Queen's >was, and the Big Red were only slightly worse. It looks like Queen's beat Cornell once in the round-robin, once in the quarter-finals and once in the finals. Queen's and MIT split their two games, as did MIT and Cornell. Cornell had 1340 RR points and Queen's 1870. That's a pretty big difference. MIT had Canadian expert Peter McCorquodale on their team. >Queen's has finished 15th (!) at 1998 NAQT >Sectionals, 9th at Princeton, 2nd at Cornell, >and 7th at 1997 NAQT Sectionals. They were >ranked 53rd by NAQT. It looks like most of those teams were made of up first-year players. The 1998 NAQT team was probably eligible for division II. >They've also continually lost games at CBI to >non-active programs (Rochester, SUNY-Albany, >Alfred). Even oweing to the fact that CBI >heavily favors pop culture, this still seems not >to indicate a great team. Incorrect. The Queen's page says that: 1. They haven't played Alfred since 1997, when they beat them. Alfred used to be odds-on to beat Cornell. 2. They beat Albany 4 straight games since 1997. 3. They played Rochester twice since 1997, losing in 1999 with what looks like a team of mostly first-time players. >How then does one explain such low finishes, >particularly at NAQT Sectionals, if Queen's is a >legitimate Top 25 team? Delaware has had similar >finishes at tournaments, and I don't think that >it has deserved any votes in the past. 'Splain this to me: Pre-season 1998-99, George Washington U (not picking on them, their tournament results are just right next to the polls) was ranked 23rd, listed on 25 of 36 ballots. In the previous semester, they went 35-29 (27-27 w/o CBI). They did not beat any of the teams ranked above them. They also did not beat Pitt (ranked behind them, listed on 10), Cornell (ranked behind them, listed on 14), Penn (ranked behind them, listed on 20) or Penn State (ranked behind them, listed on 5). They beat (or at least split with) Yale, Johns Hopkins, CMU, Kentucky and Williams, who are all ranked behind them. Vs. team ranked 1-22: no wins against an A team Vs. teams ranked 24-35: slightly less than even-split And yet 25 people listed GWU as top 25, and fewer than 20 people listed the teams that beat them as top 25. >Queen's seems like a good team. Queen's' results >over the past years, however, do not seem to >merit approaching Top 25 status. Overall, it looks like they are not a top 25 team (question distribution notwithstanding) but the teams that seem to be on the same level as them got way more votes.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST