Quote:
Originally Posted by rwodonnell
I'd be interested in your method. I of course am hoping the number for NE drops to at least 69 (team 2876's total)! :-)
It surprised me that when you found there were more teams in NE than in your earlier projection, that the number went up. I would have thought that, with more teams to chew up points, it might go down from your initial estimate.
Also, are you factoring in the teams that are competing in multiple events, along with those coming in from outside the district? I realize that's a bit of work, but just curious.
|
Let's see... When you add more teams to a district, a lower percentage go to the DCMP. So the cutoff moved higher up the list, increasing the score. You can see for Indiana, decreasing the number of teams makes it easier to get to the DCMP, so the cutoff moves down, decreasing the score.
So basically what I do is apply the percentage of teams that make it to the DCMP to the number of teams that have competed, and the team at that rank in the standings becomes the "cutoff". I then adjust the cutoff up one spot for each spot taken up by a Chairman's winner below the cutoff. If the team at the adjusted cutoff has played 2 events, their score becomes the point cutoff I reported. If they have only played one, I assume they will get the same score at their next event(big assumption, probably the biggest flaw), and add that to their score to get the cutoff.
Extra plays don't go into the standings, so I don't have to worry about that. Interdistrict plays aren't being handled correctly by the ranking system last time I checked, so for example 316 is incorrectly included in the New England standings. Now that I'm on spring break, I'll have time to correct for that.