| Subject: Re: Counter proposal |
Author:
Ali
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 15:34:30 05/19/03 Mon
In reply to:
Ian
's message, "Counter proposal" on 14:29:49 05/19/03 Mon
Ian, I follow your line of reasoning - indeed I considered something very similar while I was constructing the proposal. I rejected it, along with a lot of other possible ideas, for several reasons. I welcome your comments, but perhaps I should present the thoughts I had when I considered your idea myself.
You state that it is intended to solve the 'couples out standard problem', yet it does not acheive this. Weak A-teams are still forced to dance in the A-team match - OK, a few less aren't, but what about unis with four full rubbish teams who still can't reshuffle at all. The D-team match will still have a selection of beginner couples, plus Oxbridge D-teams utterly whipping them. No amount of fudging will solve the fact that *dividing teams by standard within their univeristy will not mean that they are divided by standard overall*. Oxbridge D could beat the majority of A-teams, but instead we put beginners in the firing line! That hardly seems fair - especially as we do so with the intention of being more fair! Any ABCD-split will *always* result in large numbers of couples out of standard, simply because of the vast differences in size and standard through the circuit. Fudging can help a little, but it won't solve the problem.
Secondly, your proposal improves matter somewhat only for weak AND small universities. A large, rubbish team is just as bad off as ever it was.
Thirdly, the overall match is all about 'the best uni wins', but a split team match does not find this. How do we compare Oxford B with Cambridge C? The scoring system is so laughably simplistic that it is riddled with flaws. Any Condorcet-based system cannot operate under a split team match - they are fundamentally incompatible. On balance, a 2-division format with Condorcet/Copeland/Binary scoring is about the best possible evaluation of the 'best' university.
Fourthly, a 2-division split gives *every* team a realistic and attainable goal, and hence interest in overall results - and much greater enjoyment. At present noone but the top few care about their team results, and a modification for bottom unis isn't going to help this. The more people who actually feel involved in the team match as a competetion the better - and a 2-div system brings pretty much everyone into this bracket. Sure, some will always care more than others, but in terms of getting the smaller/weaker unis really invovled I can't see a better way than the 2-div system.
>This proposal is an alternative to your whole idea,
>its not as radical, and solves some problems that your
>solution doesn't,
I disagree on that point, though I've answered your concerns on the other thread (!).
>The proposal is status quo + allowance for weaker teams
I firmly believe that this is a significant backward step from the 2-division format proposed. After a considerable amount of thought and careful examination of many, many options the proposal stands head-and-shoulders above its alternatives because it solves practically everything that is wrong with the current system, but keeps all of its good points.
>OR status quo + allowance for weaker teams + team
>marking and concordet.
Unfortunatley that isn't an option, as Condorcet just isn't compatible with the ABCD split match.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 