From: rhodesia@wixer.cactus.org (Felix S. Gallo)
Subject: Re: SINL PLAYOFF UNOFFICIAL RANKING
Followup-To: rec.games.netrek
Reply-To: rhodesia@wixer.UUCP (Felix S. Gallo)
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Distribution: rec
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 18:08:21 GMT

"Joseph E. Beck" <jb8n+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>
>Tom (referring to power ratings)
>>And power ratings are also affected by strength of schedule,
>>sometimes more so than tiebreakers.
>>It's not a coincidence that no sport has ever used power ratings for
>>anything other than newspaper filler.
>
>Regardless, I think it is better than the current system.  Premise:
>the best teams should go to the playoffs.  Fact:  12 Angry Men went,
>and Crack Pot didn't.  Did CP do anything wrong?  Did they screw up?
>No, they failed to do what no team did (including GBO even with the
>lag):  beat the Arrogant Assholes.  

On the other hand, the 12AM-CP conflict shouldn't just be resolved
with CP in mind.  What did 12AM do?  We racked up 3 wins and a no
decision as an at large team.  By contrast, CP racked up 2 wins,
a loss, and a no decision as a CMU SuperTeam.  In the minds of many,
the choice is clear.
>
>It appears this causes a contradiction, one of the best teams doesn't
>go, but the Angry Men do. 

You're clearly a little confused.  12AM was one of the best teams;
either #4 or #5 in strength.  I think we could have beaten Crack Pot.
I really really really really wish they had given rescheduling a
token attempt and/or done what all the other teams in the INL did
when the other team got completely ghosted -- stop.

>This is not meant as a flame to 12 AM who 
>did a great job (and impressed me with their play), but IMHO Crack Pot
>is a better team.

If so, not by much.

>  And the team with the cream puff schedule (see GBO) 
>gets ranked #1.

*grin*  Man, you CMU guys don't give the rest of the world a millimeter,
do you?
>
>How does this sound:
>
>First criteria:            wins-loses
>
>First tie breaker:         games against each other
>Second tie breaker:        games against common opponents 
>Third tie breaker:         at large teams win tie-breakers at this point
>Fourth tie breaker:        team with more difficult schedule 
>Fifth tie breaker:         most planets taken
>Sixth tie breaker:         least planets lost
>Seventh tie breaker:       coin toss
>
>This gives at large teams an advantage (although not as large as the
>current one), and helps a team who had a more difficult schedule.  If
>anyone feels this is too complicated, it isn't that bad.  It only gets
>computed at the end of teh season, and it's unlikely any tie-breaker
>would go past the third tie breaker.
>
The last thing at-large teams need is to get nearly no compensation for
their horrendous playing conditions.  This plan must look good from the
standpoint of a school player -- after all, you don't know what it's
like -- but from the standpoint of an at large player, it's just another
screw.

Well, let me rephrase that.  It'd work very well if lag was equalized
and games played under impossible conditions were automatically null.

>The only question I have is if it goes to the seventh tie breaker who
>gets to flip the coin? :-)

Oh, that's easy.  We just use public key encryption.

>What does everyone think of this?  
>
>	joe
>	Purple haze