[Dominick Ferone]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Technically correct. I'd argue that it SHOULDN'T be correct but certain policies based on political correctness force it to be correct.

A point earned at a crappy event shouldn't equal a point earned at an event where you're competing with 67/254 caliber teams. By having heavily modal distribution of teams attending events (read as very little intermingling of the teams) you are actually hurting teams in the more competitive grouping. Simple example:

I'm going to assign each team a triple, it consists of number, points earned, overall skill relative to district. (blah blah, teams are just who I pulled as teams from the region at a quick glance, numbers are random)

Group A (call it upstate NY):
(20 146 1)
(2971 110 3)
(1507 109 2)
(340 109 9)
(1126 98 7)

Group B (downstate):
(263 130 4)
(334 120 6)
(694 108 5)


So, if I take my top 5 (mostly because I got tired of coming up with teams, this expands to top 24/40/60/N) by points I get:

20, 263, 334, 2971, 1507

But if I were to take them based on actual skill (how they SHOULD rank approximately)
20, 1507, 2971, 263, 694

Notice that there's very different teams? That's because the two groups scores aren't linked in any way. This is what happens when you have low intermingling, because a top group actually hurts itself by competing against themselves.

Basically, a point is a point but it shouldn't be that way.

Button for red dots is in the top corner.

To build on this maybe after an event do a multiplier to the district points they earn based on the overall opr divided by the number of teams or something like that. Some regionals when the top 2 teams banned together, the winner is already know at this point. Where other regionals have the upsets come from a lower alliance like FLR had the 7th seed win.