Mr. Hilleman, I have examined your statements and the results of the Northeast Div. 2 tournament, which did "diverge wildly" from the tournament's order of finish. Yale C and MIT both finished below Dartmouth and my team, Rutgers, yet received bids. I would like to preface the following statements by saying that I don't really care about going to nationals; Rutgers would have to scrounge to get enough money anyways and we might as well save our Div. 2 eligibility for next year. But I do believe there is a problem with your methodology as you explained it in your post, at least regarding the Northeast sectionals. My major problem with your method is that it doesn't account for the Division I packets that we played on the last 2 (3 in MIT's case) rounds. In the first 15 rounds we played on Div. 2 packets, and the average score (by my calculations) was 545 points per round among 2 teams. In the last 3 (including the final round, which consisted of a Harvard-MIT game), the average score was 352 points per round. Both MIT and Yale only played one game on the Div. 1 packets, as both had byes or were scheduled against nonexistent MIT teams. Both Dartmouth Tech and Rutgers played 2 games in these rounds. This almost certainly decreased our points per tossup heard in comparison to MIT and Yale. When they did play on Div. 1 packets, neither scored over 115 points. What makes me wonder about your method of deciding the bids is that it doesn't take into account at all head-to-head matchups. Here I feel sorry for Dartmouth Tech, who defeated both MIT and Yale C. Perhaps I misunderstood your explanation, or am not taking into account a factor that I missed. Please clarify if so. In any case, I don't expect you to change the bids and will stop argument here. I just hope that you look to stop such problems (or at least the ability of fools like me to complain about them) in the future. David Hayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST