Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad
Clearly if two teams played each other 8 times then something was very wrong with the scheduling algorithm. I will note that it is very common now to see 2 teams play with each other in one match and then against each other the next so that issue still exists and clearly is acceptable.
|
I'm not contesting that the execution of that algorithm was very poor. However, that poor execution highlighted some of the fundamental issues with strength of schedule as an algorithm parameter.
In terms of current partners becoming opponents, it's not a direct issue per se. However, the consistency of it in the week one schedules helps allow for reverse engineering of how the algorithm functioned, and demonstrates the rigidity of an over constrained algorithm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad
(BTW, something is wrong int he OPR calculations for Galielo in 2007--they imply that the OPRs for the other teams are strongly negative. Archimedes and Newton have the same problem. Curie might be correct. I suspect the problem is in the bin-method of scheduling took away a key element of solving the matrix problem. So it's not the scoring method that messed with the OPRs; it's the way that teams were matched up. So the bottom line is that the OPRs are worthless for comparison in 2007.)
|
That was my point. When you create imbalanced schedules, it invalidates the metrics you used to establish those schedules. In this extreme case, it quite literally almost broke the matrix. In a less extreme case, using a district point based system would create schedules that would lower the district points of the high end and raise the district points of the low end (harming the metric in future iterations of the schedule).
With regards to OPR in 2007, I still stand by it being a pretty poor metric. The end game was cooperative and the primary scoring method was both exponential and cooperative (multiple teams building a row together). Both of those things play very poorly with OPR. Further still, facing off against tougher competition actually hurt your scores, since smart placement of their tubes denied longer rows. I suspect this played a significant role in why low numbered teams were implied such large negative contributions.