[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: High-High Round 3 Pairing
leah wrote:
>
> I agree with Tuna. High-high pairing sk(r)ew the top teams in every
> bracket, which has the result of affecting the seeding in elims by
> progressively dropping the high-point, high-win teams down the bracket.
>
> I believe the argument against high-high pairings depends on whether there
> is a correlation between who does better in prelims and who will do better
> in elims. If there is no such correlation, then as far as I can tell
> there is no reason to seed elims. In fact, if prelim records, including
> points (since many tournaments cut on points), don't matter, then those
> records are no fair way to select elim pariticipants.
>
> Let's pretend that teams "A" and "B" are the class of the tournament.
> After round 6, they're both undefeated with higher points than anyone
> else. With high-high pairings, they debate in round 7. "B" loses, and is
> down one, even though they could have beaten anyone else in the higher
> bracket. They don't get to debate those teams. They're in a lower
> bracket and will be seeded lower in the elim bracket.
>
> This sk(r)ew is mitigated a little when the high-high round happens
> earlier, because team "B" can work their way back up into a higher
> bracket, but what purpose has been served by this.
>
> If we assume that speaker points are relevant to success, then I don't see
> what it accomplishes to create distortions in the seeding for elims by
> making the best teams in each bracket knock each other down earlier.
>
> Tom Jewell
Will anyone defend the HIGH-HIGH ? Just wondering what barriers need to be
overcome on eliminating this one ... :)
david rhaesa
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page