Kenny Peskin wrote: "And under the circumstances, I can't really blame him." I'm going to try to clarify things without being inflammatory. I apologize if I step on anyone's toes. The tiebreaker system at BBIV was, as it has been at every GW tournament I can remember, and as is as far as I know common practice: 1) Overall record 2) Head-to-head victory 3) TOTAL points scored We chose not to have anything to do with derived figures such as average opposition points, opposition scored points, points created -- after three years I'm still not sure what that is -- or bonus conversion. The goal within a round-robin is to rank the teams from 1 to n by comparing them against one another in n rounds, making the assumption that teams will perform, of themselves, equally well in each round and that each round is of equal difficulty. Therefore, the system of ranking listed above represents the best means -- I remind people here that I'm not a mathematician -- of comparing n teams over n-1 games. Of course, n-1 games to determine absolute rank isn't statistically really that valid anyway. I should say in my own defense that although the tiebreaking system wasn't shouted out at the opening meeting, it was also by no means a secret. I simply assumed that the method described above was now effectively universal, as is "the winning team shall be the most points." With that out of the way, the exact nature of the error was a fairly minute one: In copying scores from the scoresheets to the master board of results, I transposed "210-240" into "240-210" in -- I think it was the Georgetown-Cornell round in the Darva bracket. The mistake was entirely my fault, and I take full responsibility for its ramifications. Fortunately, however, it was caught by players' vigilance quickly enough; no game in progress was affected (unless something happened that nobody told me). Of course, to those persons inconvenienced, I do most sincerely apologize. Edmund
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST