So many posts...so many different responses:
rchschem wrote:Individual stats, at least as far as Raleigh Charter is concerned, are squirrely. Philip is the only player with the same number I recorded. Kevin had dead on 50ppg in the prelims by my accounting. He did have 9 negs, so if that's the top number, he did earn it.
It's entirely possible. I have to say though that as I was handling the scoresheets during the day, the scoresheets were fairly consistent within matches (usually the biggest problem was that there was an incorrect running total, causing me to change the final score). Most of Kevin's number look reasonable except for the first game against Fort Mill. Jeff had a pretty big game that round, but his numbers also look reasonable. There's a lot of variation on these scoresheets, so unfortunately the stats aren't always precise. If I get really bored some day, I'll run the scoresheets through a feeder scanner and dump them online.
etchuck wrote:[W]e should require a minimum participation level with individual stats recorded for a minimum number of events. I think that way it would behoove certain programs to remain in touch with NCATA. (...) At least half of the NCATA-scheduled events if at all possible... unless that's too much to ask.
To be quite honest, while this is really a policy discussion for '07-'08, I think a specific number is unreasonable. The primary point of recognizing an All-State team is for the students, not the coaches or administrators. And many students do not have control over what competitions they go to. We also have to realize that not every student can come every weekend either. There are several serious (okay, virtually locks) who have been "spotty" under this kind of rule, and might not even make this minimum requirement. But I can guarantee you that I will see this/these person/people on that all-state list given their performances this year.
Instead of a specific requirement, a better idea is an ad-hoc analysis based on the statistics. At the lower end of the spectrum, I do believe that there is a critical mass to the number of tournaments that a player needs to attend to get a feel for that player. But the fewer tournaments a player attends, the less margin of error there is. As a player attends more tournaments, there will be more variance, and more tolerance therefore.
A minimum requirement also hurts teams that do not attend stat-bearing competitions (and there are still many that don't keep stats). There are out-of-State tournaments that don't keep stats. I think that the emphasis on the process should rather be on keeping the process equitable for players. In the end, their performances are what determines who shows up on that all-state team.
Would it be to good to use this to entice more teams to come to tournaments? Yes, and one of the ways you do it is by telling them that the more tournaments their students go to, the more they increase their chances for consideration. To set an arbitrary level that may not be consistent with reality (and I would have to do a team frequency table to see what "reality" is), I think might be a mistake.
I am of the opinion that it actually is
possible for a player to even produce an individual performance that is so truly overwhelming and convincing that is obvious that such a player should be selected. In fact I have an example
in mind. I am not of the opinion that anyone satisfies this kind of situation this year however.
DrakeRQB wrote:By my count, ten
I also keep a count (slightly different from your's). It's located here
. It also has most of this year's stats too!
etchuck wrote:After I get the spreadsheet from Patrick and a dart board to break ties. :)
As I have mentioned to several people already, Patrick will be working on the final stats shortly, but it won't start until Thursday afternoon at the earliest (that or Friday). He's still recovering from his four minute presentation and getting killed by the architecture & microprocessors test.
I am still missing stats from No Buzzer Bowl (have emailed Seth McElvaney), part of RTO (it appears like a couple of rounds), and all of NCOAST. Whatever I have this weekend will be the basis of whatever coallation I send out, but I'd like to get those in there.
rchschem wrote:Let's try to coordinate more in the off-season. The RCHS school calendar is on the web if anyone wants to look at it.
For 2005-2006, I made an online calendar that contained a bunch of the dates that would most likely conflict with each other. If that would be helpful, I can start in on something like that (although I may wait a few weeks for things to get less busy).
rchschem wrote:Harumph. NCOAST was announced at the RTO, on this board, and in NCATA emails. I blame everyone else.
(Not to pick on you Eric, but you keep saying interesting things for me to comment on). I think these places are good places to start, but they don't replace getting on the ground level at other tournaments and pushing out the information person-to-person. It also doesn't hurt to snail mail (and that's how a great variety of our teams showed up to Red and White Bowl).
One of the ideas (now defunct) that I came up with in my freshman year ('03-'04) was to try to make a periodic newsletter that I would distribute at tournaments with tournament announcements and results. I dropped the idea because it was a lot of work for me, and I wasn't sure how helpful it was. But maybe with a little better distribution, and a little more work, it might be worth considering a revival for next year (of course, I have no idea if I'll be around here next year, but that's another story).
I think the attendance at NCOAST had more to do with the lateness of the announced date which affected how much you could get teams out to it. Knowing what I know with how many behind-the-scenes details had to be cleared up, it's a miracle it got announced when it did. But obviously getting an earlier date and site--and as one person has mentioned to me--a more public process for that determination (although once again, I fully understand the difficulties with this year's edition). This of course is a more extended discussion.
This is an excellent discussion and starting point for what needs to be worked on. I may decide (in the 169 hours/week of free time I must certainly
have) to rearrange this thread and ship it off to the Comparison forum (since it is beginning to depart the original point of the thread).