Conveniently, there were leftover packets, which would've allowed you to do this, wherein teams that had competed at a similar level during the first round-robin would play an additional game, providing more information to rank the teams. And had the best team still not been certain, you may even have had an extra packet, for them to play a third time to decide who was the winner!NGTech wrote:While it may seem to be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist the problem does in fact exist. The round robin format is assumed to be an even format based on the fact that every team faces every other team. The problem is that teams are made of people not computers, as such the strength of a team changes from round to round. The only ways to counteract this is to let each team face each other team multiple times, or use a mathematical method to adjust the field.theMoMA wrote:Also, all teams in a round robin play what amounts to the same schedule, so by trying to find the "most difficult schedule" you're "solving" a problem that doesn't even exist in your own format.
Also, worth noting, your individual "scoring system" sucks. Taking, for instance, the game against empty chairs:
Team A plays the Empty Chairs. Adam answers 5 tossups, Alex answers 5 tossups, Andrew answers 4 tossups, and Abigail answers 3 tossups. The Empty Chairs do not buzz.
Team B plays the Empty Chairs. Ben, playing solo, answers 2 tossups, and then takes a nap (or decides not to buzz anymore on an incorrect belief this will help his tiebreaker score). The Empty Chairs do not buzz.
According to your individual scoring system, Adam gets .294 as does Alex, while Ben gets 1.000.
This is not a hypothetical. Take these two games that actually happened in the same round, on the same questions:
GT 390, NGU 70. GT: Gregory 6, Keith 0, Robert 0, Bradley 8; NGU: Travis 2, DoRinda 0, Matthew 2, Jason 1; Total answered 19.
Berry 180, Snead 90. Berry: Sarah 0, Greg 3, Dylan 6, Anthony 0; Snead: Mark 5; Total answered 14.
All else equal, answering more questions is better, right? Answering more questions against other players who are answering more questions is even better, right? However, this isn't borne out. Gregory (GT) scores 6/19 = .316, while Mark scores 5/14 = .357. Bradley scores 8/19 = .4211, while Dylan scores 6/14 = .4286.
Your intentions may have been grand and noble, but their result was counter-productive and bad. If you'd mentioned your ideas ahead of time, dozens of people with years of experience could have explained to you why they would produce counter-productive and bad results.