<<If NAQT must insist on using IFT results in its calculating procedure, teams should NOT be allowed to change regions between IFTs and SCTs. Notice that in the mid-Atlantic region, certain teams journeyed to the weaker Northeast for the IFT and backdoored their way in to nationals, despite finishing in the middle of the pack at the Mid-Atlantic SCT.>> First off, this statement is utterly untrue. Following the process outlined in earlier messages, there is only one team receiving an ICT Div. 1 invitation now on the basis of ICT results: BGSU, which got their invitation by virtue of being an IFT undergraduate champion not yet invited when we got to that stage of the process. (They would otherwise have been 10th on the waitlist, based on SCT performance.) Every other IFT champion, overall or undergraduate, had already earned an invitation on the basis of SCT performance by the time we got to the "Stage 2" point where IFT placement could have any role. On the waitlist, Florida State's spot at #6 is as a result of their IFT 2nd place position. That is two teams out of 46 announced for which IFT results affected their ICT invitations or waitlist positioning, and neither of those teams played in the Northeast. The Northeast IFT overall champion and undergraduate champion was Princeton, which obviously had already received an ICT invitation for also being an SCT champion. 2nd place in that IFT went to Princeton B -- but a second Princeton team had also already secured a spot on the ICT waitlist before we got to the stage of looking at IFT 2nd place teams. No results other than these from IFTs have any relevance at all in the ICT invitations process, as explained in previous postings, so the statement that "certain teams journeyed to the weaker Northeast for the IFT and backdoored their way in to nationals, despite finishing in the middle of the pack at the Mid-Atlantic SCT" is entirely groundless. I presume the comment is directed at Penn, which received an ICT invitation (easily), while Maryland was waitlisted (highly). Penn did play in the Northeast IFT, where their 3rd place finish was utterly irrelevant to ICT invitations. Penn did finish with an 8-5 record at the SCT compared with Maryland's 9-4. However, given that NAQT's comparisons for invitation ranking purposes depends far more heavily upon point-based statistical measures than on small differences in won-loss records, and that head-to-head results have no bearing whatsoever on anything--they couldn't possibly, without a quick descent into madness, given all of the intertwining circles of death that would quickly emerge in tournaments across the country--given that, a look at the statistics will make it clear why--given the system we use--Penn would receive the higher ranking. [continued next message]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST