[eDebate] oh, and since i'm pissing people off: Joe Zompetti, wtf?

michael hester uwgdebate
Thu Apr 3 01:11:08 CDT 2008


ranking the first/second rounds is a hard task. we are inevitably forced to
make tough calls based on razor-thin distinctions. i'll admit my own
rankings had some wrinkles i was concerned with. having said that,


Joe, did you allow a dart-throwing monkey to do your rankings? if not,
please try that next time. even with a blindfold, they might get closer to
reality:

Harvard RW 25th?! Missouri State 7th? UWG LS 21st? NU FW 2nd?

the differences between these teams median and mode rankings vs their MW rep
ranking is off the charts. e.g., Harvard RW's next lowest ranking was 11th.
ELEVENTH versus TWENTY-FIFTH.

back in the day, when rankers had to do all the compilation of stats, such a
discrepancy might be more easily explained (although still unjustified). but
Bruschke's site does all that work for us now. it's easy to read.

to rank Harvard RW at 25 is just freakin crazy. 15-8 against other bid
applicants and they were the next-to-worst applicant??

if the response is "well, they didn't have that many rounds together" (i.e.,
the logic of 'more total debates = better team'), then how in the heck does
NU FW leapfrog Emory HW for 2nd place (Emory 41-20 vs bid applicants, NU
31-27).


i know this is all kinda trivial. it is just the bid process. but dayum.


hester
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080403/e299947a/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list