Thread: Seeding Calculations
View Single Post
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 23-06-2002, 21:56
archiver archiver is offline
Forum Archival System
#0047 (ChiefDelphi)
  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 21,214
archiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond reputearchiver has a reputation beyond repute
If you think that was complicated. try this...
Posted by Raul.

Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 9/5/99 10:57 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: not bad... not bad... posted by Bethany Dunning on 9/5/99 9:38 PM MST:



As long as we're throwing out ideas, I can contribute to the absurdity:

How about having specialty rounds?
Round 1: Pure offense - team with most points get most bonus points
Round 2: Pure defense - team allowing least points gets most bonus points
Round 3: Anti-defense - team that allows the most points but still wins
Round 4: Anti-offense - team that score the least points but still wins
Round 5: Largest point difference - as it says
Round 6: Smallest point difference - as it says
etc.

Just think of the variations in strategy required to do well.
For instance, in round 3 above you may need to help your opponent score points but still have more so you could win.

But of course, in all cases these would just be for tie breakers because I will always believe that
NUMBER OF WINS SHOULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT IN ANY SCORING SYSTEM.

There is no way that a team with more wins should be ranked below a team with less wins.
If this would have been the case at the nationals, we would have had much different strategies for our matches.
We would have tried to win instead of risking losing by trying to get a big score.

It is sad that last year's scoring could rank a team with 1 win and 2 loses higher than a team with 3 wins.
Here is an example:
Team #1: lose with 18 points, lose with 24 points, win with 540 points = 1662 Q-points = 554 ave QP's
Team #2: win with 90 points, win with 150 points, win with 120 points = 1080 Q-points = 360 ave QP's

Now I'm no expert statistician, but I believe that given all the variables with alliances that it was easier for a team to get lucky and get 2 very high scores (almost ensuring them a top 16 seed at nationals) then it was for a team to get lucky and win all 6 rounds!!!

So, there it is. I tried to resist complaining about scoring systems, but I could not resist.

Raul



__________________
This message was archived from an earlier forum system. Some information may have been left out. Start new discussion in the current forums, and refer back to these threads when necessary.