Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This is pretty cool. I was trying to think of some objections to it like the need for bye's, schools not hitting themselves, avoiding repeat match-ups, maintaining power-matching or side-based win bias, but I think all of those are solved by increased flexibility a lot better than the traditional model. It seems like this is more focused on reining in the extremes than trying to keep a perfect balance between every single round. Have you considered translating it into a tabbing software tool? It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! I appreciate your feedback. I put my thoughts to your questions below.


Byes -- yeah, I'd just pull the bye team first before starting any part of side assignment or pairing; otherwise it shouldn't be an issue. Maybe the only limitation is that a team with a +2 or -2 aff differential (aff - neg) shouldn't get a bye. They should debate to even their schedule out.


Schools not hitting themselves / avoiding repeat match-ups -- those same restrictions should be maintained, of course.


Power-matching -- my method would actually make it easier to do power-matching as it increases the flexibility in pairing. Two 3-0s that are both due aff could hit.


Side bias -- it's less dramatic than people think. It's maybe a couple of percentage points of advantage. Is it enough to worry that one team has 4 affs and 3 negs and another team has 3 affs and 4 negs? Probably not.


Software -- I do plan to use this method in our league tournaments, yes, in our little Excel sheet. The real question is whether the big tab software packages pick it up!

  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now