Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Glick
There is an easy way to factor in the difficulty of a match. Take both the red and blue scores (before penalties), add them together, and divide by 2 (or not). There is your match difficulty score. Teams are ranked by win/loss first, then difficulty score. This both promotes scoring and winning.
|
Isn't this basically what the old system did? It ranked you by W/L then by opponent's points, so if you were winning high scoring matches, you ranked higher than if you were winning low scoring matches or matches where you scored high but your opponents don't score much.
I'm not saying one way is better than the other, yet. Let's get through a few weeks of regionals and Champs before hashing it out. All I'm saying is that I REALLY didn't like the ranking process going into this morning, but after watching it play out for a day, it's not so bad.
Will there be flaws in any system that uses such a small population of data to "rank" teams? Of course. That's the world in which we choose to compete. I'm just saying it's not as bad as I thought it would be going in.