Actually, the Div II format, though elegant and relatively easy-to-run, couldn't be used for DI, as it can only be sure to rank the top two teams fairly. For example, consider a hypothetical scenario in which the three best teams all end up in the same bracket (because of roster changes, host bids, etc, that might disrupt seeding). The third team, though it might be the third best in the tournament, wouold get relegated to the next bracket and a maximum 9th place finish. This, of course, could screw up the Undergraduate championship, where the top team is likely to place around there in the overall standings. I have less of a problem for using this in Div II or Penn Bowl, of coourse, since there is less at stake for a precise deliniation between middle-of-the-road teams. Someone mentioned (I forgot who) at the ICT that Swiss pairs might be a better option... I'm not too knowledgeable about them, so if someone could explain them and note if they would be feasible, that might help... -Chris --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, grapesmoker <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > > What would your ideal format for the ICT be? > > I thought that the DII format was pretty fairly devised. I like the > idea of seeding rounds with better teams winding up in harder > brackets and playing each other while the medium-level teams play > each other and so on down the line. That's the way Penn Bowl did > their brackets this year, and I thought it worked well there. That > way you avoid the problem of a team numerically finishing higher > than a better team by playing against weaker opposition (no slight > intended to Maryland) since all the best teams play each other. You > do often run into tiebreaker difficulties (in one bracket there was > a 5-way tiebreaker to see who would get into the "Wooden" top > playoff bracket), but from watching at least a couple of the > tiebreakers, they seemed to turn out mostly with the better team > going through. > > Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST