<<[1] Power-matching is fundamentally incompatible with packet submission. For a tournament where all questions are written in-house, it can be done. But for your standard invitational (e.g., MIT, BU, Penn Bowl), or even a tournament like ACF Regionals, it's not terribly easy to do.>> It could even be done with invitationals. You preassign the byes -- and then match the rest of the field up. (Using n rounds to match round n+2 avoids having long waits between rounds.) For tournaments with one bracket only, I think round-robin is just as good. I understand that this might not be popular, but it *could* be done. Matched record don't have to be exact, just close so that so aren't playing a 10-1 v 2-9 records match when that doesn't help differentiate the top of the field. << [2] Ladder play is extraordinarily inefficient: as someone has pointed out, it's basically a bubble sort. I suspect most people resent it at NAQT precisely because it creates essentially *meaningless* repeat games (unless, for example, there were significant amounts of money involved, I don't see how a 13th v. 14th place game could be considered significant).>> Would you prefer they send you home? Perhaps have you play a team you are terribly mismatched against? I think the most common complaint that I hear is that there are four rounds at ICT. I liked when Terrapin followed a round-robin up with two rounds of ladder play this year. Yes, some teams can only advance one spot. The real point is that you get more games against teams in the field that you are close to in ability. Bill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST