Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan Malik
I forgot just how bad 8 matches is at sorting... add in the 40ish extra teams and its even worse... Smaller divisions are a must in the future.
For those who are way better at statistics than I am, would doubling the number of divisions, but halving the teams in each division result in better sorting? Same number of matches (more would be helpful) but a smaller group to sort...
You could keep the same number of fields; heck there could be two "pools" per field and have the winners of the pool elims play each other to determine the field champion. The field champion would then represent the field on Einstein.
|
Hmmm... this sounds like it could be one of those statistical traps, but I've thought it over a couple of different ways and I can't think of any way that would improve the variability. Not to mention that, even if it did, it would still weaken the eliminations alliances...
When I was in the TBA chat, we talked about what I thought was a really cool idea: Have 6 divisions, with the same number of teams (I think there's room in the dome for 2 more fields, don't you?) That would dramatically increase the number of matches, and make for a more regional-like environment. But what do you do with the 6 division winners at Einstein, you ask? This was the really good idea someone suggested: have a round-robin to decide the 2 alliances for the finals. Yes, it would take more time - 13-15 matches before the Einstein finals, instead of 4-6. But if you cut down on the hour before Einstein and all the speeches, you could almost fit them without expanding the schedule at all... not to mention that, with the smaller divisions, you could start eliminations earlier. Any feedback? I think a round-robin would be really fun...