--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, mikewormdog <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > > That is, until we beat Michigan and Rochester. We played rather > poorly in the prelims, but we assumed that we could make up for that > since we qualified for the playoffs as the 2 seed in our bracket. > The fact whether we "deserved" to be in the final four was rendered > moot--we won all the games we played from the power matches through > to the end. We couldn't play some of the teams ranked higher than > us--it simply was not scheduled as such until the single elimination > finals. Is there any way a team that beats the number one and two > seeds head to head does not "deserve" to be in the top 4? > Right. I'm not blaming Yale A for the system's faults. Mike, I congratulate you and your team for pulling off an impressive back-to- back over Rochester and Michigan in the single-elim bracket. And once you made it, you certainly deserved to win because you beat the top two seeds. But then we had just as much a claim to the top four _prior to the single elim phase_ as you did. We won our three playoff power- matching games as well. We defeated a team that you lost to in the prelims. I honestly believe that we could not have accomplished what you did in the single-elim phase, but it would have been nice to have had a shot. And Chicago A essentially was "penalized" for going undefeated in the prelims, while both of our teams benefitted from dropping a pair. I would have to think that Yale A's bonus conversion in its first 14 games did rank among the top four teams (you can't rely to some extent on the other stats, due to varying quality of opponents). Still, if you are going to power-match opponents like that, then strength-of-schedule should count for something. (of course, given the time it would have taken to figure that out, we would have had our first three-day Penn Bowl :)) -Adam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST