<<Also agreed - in the case of UPenn, we
statistically may have been the inferior team, but I still
think when we beat UPenn, we have shown we are the
better team.>>
You showed you were the
better team *on that set of questions.* IMO, though, you
can't generalize that to say that Maryland is therefore
better than Penn.
<<I assume NAQT wants the
best teams in their field, not the highest scoring -
they are NOT the same.>>
And how would
you go about determining who the best teams are in a
fair and *objective* manner?
There are two
important lessons I have learned from all my experiences
running tournaments:
(1) The cost of gaining the
ability to make fine distinctions is increased
complexity.
(2) ICT bid selection--much like playoff
determination--by definition has winners and losers. Giving an
advantage to one set of teams means that other teams are
perforce at a disadvantage.
While I'll have more to
say later, let me just say that many of the arguments
I've seen so far--on both sides of the
issue(!)--either (a) have non sequiturs in their arguments, (b)
trade one set of inequities for another, or
both.
--STI