Matt Bruce wrote: "In addition to the points Eric made, one problem with teams moving up and down quickly at the end is that it becomes harder to determine the best all-undergraduate team from within Division 1." Anthony deJesus then noted: "Yes, interesting how, if I understand correctly, it is theoretically possible to win the undergrad title without playing any of the other top all-undergrad teams." Indeed, I think it possible, which would lead me to this question. If the six teams at the top are the only ones that have a legitimate shot at the title one we reach the ladder play stages of the tournament, couldn't then the best six undergraduate teams be seperated out into their own ladder to vie for what seems to be a title of some great importance. I realize the havoc this would cause in the ladder as a whole, as well as the distinct possibility of an all-undergraduate team being one of those top six teams (but IIRC, as long as NAQT has been handing out the UG title, no UG team has been in a position to take the ICT title when the ladder began.) but I know that if I were on the second or third best UG team and due to various factors, the # 1 UG team was a couple of spaces ahead of us on the ladder, I would rather play the UG team for the chance to defeat them for the title that both sides are vying for rather than work my way through other teams that are trying to firm up their final spot on the ladder. Again, this should not be taken as a criticism of NAQT in anyway, merely a question, or point for discussion. Craig Barker, speaking only for himself in this matter, as is the case always, unless you happen to agree with him, but he really didn't know that at the start.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST