Quote:
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.
|
It seems to me that they are not very different teams. In the two lists I see 4 of the same teams on both lists and 1 unique team per list.
With the way the district points system is set up the points earned at DCMP are multiplied by 3 to determine who moves on to CMP. That means that the effects of the relative competitiveness of the district events are lessened to a degree.
I believe a greater number of smaller district events should lessen the difference in competitiveness between the district events. It certainly won't eliminate it though.
Combined with the way DCMP points work it should still result in the top teams moving on, but not eliminate the variability caused near the cutoff points line for the mid range teams.
No it certainly isn't a perfect system but I believe that it is pretty good based on my experiences in the PNW district. In our district we have one highly dense area, two minor areas and the rest of the teams spread pretty wide.
For reference here is a map of the distribution of teams.
http://batchgeo.com/map/70d940e318d9...b583b66cde4d5c