Chief Delphi
Page 6 of 6 < 12345 6
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Inter-District Play in 2017 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=152239)

Peyton Yeung 12-21-2016 11:11 PM
Re: Inter-District Play in 2017
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1622749)
I was more referring to the various posts in this thread regardless in-event strategy. Specifically the posts saying teams considered not picking Michigan teams or strategizing so that Michigan teams would not be as effective in their event. These strategies are actively harmful to your own ranking efforts.
So far I only see one person from Indiana that's against having Michigan teams at Indiana events. Strategically it makes sense to pick a Michigan team over an Indiana team assuming it doesn't hurt how far you get in the bracket.

Of the Michigan teams at IN district events last year, they accounted for 174 points out of 2948 qualifying points (6%) and 174 points out of the 5735 total number of point for the state (3%).

SoftwareBug2.0 12-22-2016 02:08 AM
Re: Inter-District Play in 2017
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung (Post 1622865)
Of the Michigan teams at IN district events last year, they accounted for 174 points out of 2948 qualifying points (6%) ...
To expand on this a bit, by my calculation that would have been enough to put four different teams above where the point cutoff for the Indiana district championship was last year. That's ~7% of the teams in the district.

Have there been any other situations with such a large portion of the field not earning points? You get the similar incentives for avoiding certain picks when you have teams on their third event. The most third plays that I know of offhand was at the 2016 Philomath event, where I believe there were 4 teams out of 30 not eligible to earn points. (1318, 1983, 2907, 5803)

Unusual strategic effects would have been blunted somewhat by the fact that there were half the number of teams not earning points and it was in a district that was 3x the size.

Peyton Yeung 12-22-2016 02:30 AM
Re: Inter-District Play in 2017
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoftwareBug2.0 (Post 1622889)
To expand on this a bit, by my calculation that would have been enough to put four different teams above where the point cutoff for the Indiana district championship was last year. That's ~7% of the teams in the district.

Have there been any other situations with such a large portion of the field not earning points? You get the similar incentives for avoiding certain picks when you have teams on their third event. The most third plays that I know of offhand was at the 2016 Philomath event, where I believe there were 4 teams out of 30 not eligible to earn points. (1318, 1983, 2907, 5803)

Unusual strategic effects would have been blunted somewhat by the fact that there were half the number of teams not earning points and it was in a district that was 3x the size.
If we're talking about lost points, a large number of points were essentially lost at the Perry Meridian event last year as the event winners included the 2 highest point holders in the state (also at their third event) and an original and sustaining team who automatically qualifies for worlds without points. That's 174 points (132 not including 45).

Theseusgoats 12-22-2016 12:41 PM
Re: Inter-District Play in 2017
 
Wait, I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding but I never would have suggested that IN teams should avoid picking MI teams. I think it sort of ruins the idea of FIRST to not pick the best team possible, for your alliance, and rather put your focus on avoiding teams.

GaryVoshol 12-22-2016 09:29 PM
Re: Inter-District Play in 2017
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by efoote868 (Post 1622746)
In the future, I think it would be neat to have districts setup with overhead for more inter-district play, I.E. we'll allocate an extra 10-20% for empty spots in a competition with the expectation that other districts do the same. Maybe an extra week 1 event?

I have no idea how that could work or the type of horse trading required, it also assumes teams in the district wanting 3rd plays are sated. Maybe teams signing up for their 3rd event between districts could trade events?

Just a thought.
In MI, that would mean putting on 3 to 5 more EVENTS to get a 10-20% vacancy rate. Not gonna happen.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04 PM.
Page 6 of 6 < 12345 6
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi