"Tossup statistics are computed per tossup heard (and bonus statistics per bonus heard), so there is no benefit to running up the score by trying to rush through a huge number of tossups near the end of a game." i'm not quite sure this is the case. it *could* be the case, but the clause after "so" doesn't quite follow from the clause preceding it. in particular, if the formula does not correct for opponent strength on a game-by-game (or even question-by-question) basis rather than just overall, then it could benefit your team to hear more tossups against bad teams than good ones, in which case rushing through questions when you have a big lead may actually help you. if this is accounted for in the "S-value" then that fact should probably be advertised so that teams don't resort to this (rather ugly) practice; if it isn't accounted for, it probably should be, though it might require keeping more detailed stats than is currently necessary. actually i'm beginning to think that *regardless* of whether it is accounted for, somebody from naqt should say something like, "oh yes, that's accounted for. don't do it." i'm also idly wondering whether any of this will matter, or whether the widespread grumpiness about ICT being on the west coast will dissuade enough teams from coming that wild-card bids will be extended to anyone who wants them. i certainly hope this isn't the case, but it doesn't seem all that far-fetched to me. joon guiltily fondest qb memory: scoring 765 points in a game, against a good team, at the 2000 SCT in boston. not even trying to run up the score; just a fast moderator and a very good packet for us. (later followed by a loss to jeff johnson playing solo at the same tournament. ah well.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST