Quote:
Originally Posted by ThunderChief
Also, my predictions were 100% accurate for the Saturday matches involving the top ranked teams so we knew in advance which teams to talk to that we wanted to pick us.
|
Kinda funny- we predicted one match incorrectly, and that completely messed up our plan for the final divisional standings in Archimedes.
It certainly changed things.
One match put a team that (according to our data) was supposed to rank #2 above 33. Imagine now if another team had picked 469 instead of 33. Einstein would have looked a LOT different.
I imagine that could be a part of the reason my friend Brennon posted this thread.
I like your method (and your username!) Thunderchief, in that it accounts for teams getting better, but by what criteria did you account for a team getting better? Was it
"I've heard of this team, they probably got better."
Or was it: "This team has been to three regionals, they continuously improved by about 6 points, therefore they'll improve by another 6 for CMP"
A little more info on the exact criteria you used to differentiate between teams would be helpful.