Two questions for NAQT

• From: stipenn
• Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 11:57:39 -0800
• Message-ID: <000T9O1LJ.0015CULD6.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

(1) After last year (where Illinois had to win
two games in the finals despite having beaten Chicago
in two out of three previous matches), it was stated
that such a situation would be prevented this year.
How?

(2) According to your previous statements, in the
power matching rounds, the 'performance index' you use
to rank teams is:

PI = (sum of opponent W/L
records) - # of losses

You then set matchups to
minimize differences in PI and to ensure that there are no
repeat matchups.

This leads to an almost
paradoxical result: a team that plays stronger opponents will
have an inflated PI, while their opponents are
*punished* by being saddled with the weaker team's *actual*
record. 

Basically, this seems like trying to have
it both ways--you're determining the matchups on one
set of calculations, and scoring them on another. The
net result is that teams are punished for something
over which they have no control. 

[As an
example, at last year's ICT, Caltech, with a 9-2 record,
started ladder play 7th, while Princeton, with a 7-3
record, started 6th, partly because Caltech's record
included a match against George Mason (2-9) because GMU's
Friday night opponents included Michigan A *and*
Illinois A.]

The main reason I bring this up is
because of the rather severe burden that even a
one-position shift can have: a team that starts the ladder at
1 or 2 need only win two matches to reach the
finals; 3 or 4 requires three wins; 5 or 6 requires a
team to win all four of its matches; and for 7 and
below, any hope of winning is gone.

--STI