Sponsored by the Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence @PACENSC
Cheynem wrote:an over-reliance on D-value/SCT results and not enough on actual information about who was playing
Some of the brackets ended up very annoyingly regional.
cchiego wrote:First the tiebreaks: The NAQT distribution is already skewed from being a tournament-wide distribution rather than a by-packet distribution.
cchiego wrote:If you do keep the half games, they should be on special, balanced packets designed specifically with the knowledge that they'll be used for tiebreak games
Matt Weiner wrote:At some point, you have to win games against really good teams to advance in the tournament, regardless of what the format is, so I'm not hugely concerned with the fact that seeding may have prevented Team X from making the top bracket. With that said, the only real solution if a similar number of contenders is expected in future years is to expand the top bracket to 12 teams (the top 3 from each prelim) and correspondingly play 9 playoff games instead of 6; this would add about 90 minutes to the tournament in order to gain some additional amount of certainty about seeding and format fairness.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest