Thanks for putting this together, Steven - it's a really helpful way of quickly seeing the balancing results! I noticed that the winning alliance (and score) are bolded for each match... while that can be noticed, perhaps a more noticeable way of highlighting the winning alliance/score would be good? Italicizing might stand out more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikeairmancurry
It's something I've noticed a lot in watching webcasts, that the Michigan District teams have put a lot more work into the co-op bridge then other teams at other events. Not sure if it is a byproduct of the quaility of teams or if the district model promoted it much more, because of the need to seed higher for points.
|
Yeah, it is clear that most of the events this weekend haven't made significant use of the co-op bridges. The two Michigan Districts and the Connecticut Regional seem to be the distinct outliers. I would be more likely to attribute that to having a competition with a deep, well-practiced field, rather than the district model. As you can see, the week 3 MI events had substantially fewer co-op balances (although still more than most other events). All of those competing in MI this weekend have played in one event already, if not two... that seems like a big leg-up on the balancing... Similarly, many of those competing in Connecticut have already attended one event. These teams also have had more practice balancing and likely more fully realize the importance of co-op balances.