Rebecca Kuang leads D&B Race by .12 points – Updated

Greenhill’s Rebecca Kuang holds the lead for the Dukes & Bailey cup with 1638.16 points, just barely leading Henry Zhang of Peninsula, who has 1638.04.

The Dukes and Bailey Cup is an annual award given to the LD debater competing at the NDCA Championship Tournament who has amassed the most NDCA qualifying points over the course of the season.  The past three winners are Jordan Lamothe (’09 and ’10), Steven Adler (’11), and Noah Star (’12).

The data below include results from Alta, Apple Valley, Berkeley, Blake, Bronx, Crestian, CPS, Dowling, Iowa Caucus, George Mason, Glenbrooks, Grapevine, Greenhill, Houston Memorial, Harvard, Hendrick Hudson, Meadows, Newark, Princeton, Ridge, St Marks, Stanford, Sunvitational, UPenn, U Texas, Valley, Victory Briefs, Voices, Wake Forest, and Yale.  Any tournament can count towards NDCA credit.  If you would like another tournament included in the scores, please contact me at palmer at tabroom dot com.

NDCA points are calculated by multiplying the winning percentage in prelims by the size of the field (with a cap at 100), with bonus multipliers for advancing in elimination rounds (2.3 for winning, 1.8 for finals, 1.6 for semis, 1.4 for quarters, 1.2 for octos, and 1.1 for clearing) and for geographic diversity (2 for 16+ states, 1.8 for 13-15, 1.6 for 9-12, 1.4 for 6-8, 1.2 for 3-5). Only a debater’s top five tournaments count towards NDCA points.

Also if you spot an error let me know; if your name or your school name was spelled differently at two tournaments or something, it’s possible you don’t have your full total credited.   The last column is number of tournaments I have records for, though your top 5 tournament scores are the only ones included in the totals.

You can track results tournament-by-tournament as I add them on the publicly viewable Google spreadsheet.

Leaderboard

Place School Debater Total Tourns Counted
1 Greenhill Rebecca Kuang 1638.16 6 460 (Bronx) – 395.6 (Glenbrooks) – 331.20 (Emory) – 265.6 (Harvard) – 185.76 (Apple Vall)
2 Palos Verdes Peninsula Henry Zhang 1638.04 8 360 (Glenbrooks) – 360 (Harvard) – 356.04 (Apple Vall) – 322.00 (Stanford) – 240 (Bronx)
3 Millburn Yang Yi 1410.24 9 303.60 (Sunvitatio) – 288 (Lexington) – 288.00 (Yale) – 278.64 (Apple Vall) – 252 (Princeton)
4 Loyola Michael Harris 1407.6 10 368 (Berkeley) – 276.00 (CPS) – 256.00 (Victory Br) – 255.6 (Bronx) – 252 (Apple Vall)
5 Harrison Danny DeBois 1380.24 7 381.8 (Harvard) – 275.2 (Bronx) – 268.92 (Lexington) – 237.60 (Greenhill) – 216.72 (Apple Vall)
6 St. Louis Park Richard Shmikler 1261.31 9 306.67 (Victory Br) – 305.44 (Blake) – 240 (Glenbrooks) – 210.00 (Valley) – 199.2 (Harvard)
7 New Orleans Jesuit Jim Huang 1237.84 6 414.00 (Valley) – 240.8 (Bronx) – 240.8 (Glenbrooks) – 174.24 (Greenhill) – 168.00 (Emory)
8 Pflugerville Tillman Huett 1220.45 6 285.12 (Sunvitatio) – 276.00 (Grapevine) – 276.00 (UT Austin) – 194.13 (St Marks) – 189.2 (Glenbrooks)
9 Palos Verdes Peninsula Daniel Tartakovsky 1217.4 7 303.60 (Greenhill) – 288.00 (Victory Br) – 227.2 (Glenbrooks) – 216.00 (CPS) – 182.6 (Harvard)
10 Lake Highland Terrence Lonam 1216.66 10 343.62 (Lexington) – 240.8 (Bronx) – 221.76 (Sunvitatio) – 212.48 (Berkeley) – 198.00 (Valley)
11 Lexington Adam Hoffman 1178.88 6 345.00 (Yale) – 265.6 (Harvard) – 224 (Blake) – 173.88 (Hendrick H) – 170.4 (Glenbrooks)
12 West Des Moines Valley Megan Nubel 1140.68 8 324.00 (Yale) – 232.4 (Harvard) – 209.16 (Lexington) – 189.2 (Bronx) – 185.92 (Blake)
13 Cypress Bay Robert Steirn 1115.76 7 280 (Harvard) – 259.20 (Emory) – 211.20 (Sunvitatio) – 209.16 (Lexington) – 156.2 (Glenbrooks)
14 Scarsdale Grant Reiter 1100.24 7 285.12 (Sunvitatio) – 220 (Harvard) – 216.72 (Apple Vall) – 189.2 (Bronx) – 189.2 (Glenbrooks)
15 Carpe Diem Joseph Millman 1080.73 7 288 (Lexington) – 267.26 (Princeton) – 186.67 (Victory Br) – 182.6 (Harvard) – 156.2 (Bronx)
16 Sacred Heart Adam Tomasi 1068.96 8 294.40 (George Mas) – 210.00 (Yale) – 209.16 (Lexington) – 199.2 (Harvard) – 156.2 (Bronx)
17 Palo Alto Travis Chen 1036.87 6 279.07 (St Marks) – 224.00 (Victory Br) – 220 (Harvard) – 211.20 (Greenhill) – 102.6 (Apple Vall)
18 Bronx Science Shai Szulanski 996.64 10 324.00 (Valley) – 192.00 (Emory) – 179.28 (Lexington) – 159.36 (Blake) – 142 (Glenbrooks)
19 Kent Denver Sam Mathews 989.24 8 256.00 (Victory Br) – 240 (Glenbrooks) – 185.76 (Apple Vall) – 159.36 (Berkeley) – 148.12 (Iowa Caucu)
20 Fordham Prep David Joannides 982.68 7 273.7 (Columbia) – 220 (Harvard) – 185.92 (Princeton) – 170.4 (Bronx) – 132.66 (Lexington)
21 Strake Jesuit Jeremy Dang 975.8 8 227.2 (Glenbrooks) – 192.00 (Grapevine) – 189.2 (Bronx) – 184.80 (Sunvitatio) – 182.6 (Harvard)
22 Byram Hills Josh Altman 944.54 8 276 (Newark) – 180.00 (Yale) – 168 (Princeton) – 164.34 (Lexington) – 156.2 (Bronx)
23 West Des Moines Valley Lucy Korsakov 939.52 9 288 (Blake) – 182.6 (Harvard) – 168.00 (Yale) – 156.2 (Bronx) – 144.72 (Lexington)
24 CESJDS Elana Leone 932.84 5 206.4 (Bronx) – 204.48 (Apple Vall) – 182.6 (Harvard) – 170.4 (Glenbrooks) – 168.96 (Greenhill)
25 Meadows Ed Hendrickson 930.75 6 247.68 (Apple Vall) – 198.8 (Glenbrooks) – 185.92 (Berkeley) – 151.68 (Voices (Pr) – 146.67 (Victory Br)
26 West Des Moines Valley Jason Smith 922.7 8 256 (Blake) – 198.8 (Glenbrooks) – 182.6 (Harvard) – 144.72 (Lexington) – 140.58 (Apple Vall)
27 La Jolla Ram Prasad 912.36 9 209.16 (Crestian) – 199.2 (Harvard) – 174.24 (Greenhill) – 170.4 (Glenbrooks) – 159.36 (Blake)
28 Brophy College Prep Samir Reddy 875.07 6 280 (Harvard) – 186.67 (Victory Br) – 168.00 (Alta) – 126.40 (Voices (Pr) – 114 (Glenbrooks)
29 Walt Whitman Jessica Levy 859.32 6 227.2 (Bronx) – 185.92 (Blake) – 184.80 (Greenhill) – 147.4 (Harvard) – 114 (Glenbrooks)
30 Hockaday Katherine Qiu 853.16 6 216.00 (Valley) – 206.4 (Bronx) – 158.40 (Sunvitatio) – 156.2 (Glenbrooks) – 116.16 (Greenhill)
31 Scarsdale Larry Milstein 850.26 5 270.00 (Yale) – 190.4 (Columbia) – 156.2 (Bronx) – 127.82 (Princeton) – 105.84 (Hendrick H)
32 Harvard-Westlake Annie Kors 849.96 7 256 (Blake) – 170.4 (Bronx) – 160.00 (Victory Br) – 147.4 (Harvard) – 116.16 (Greenhill)
33 Harker Pranav Reddy 849.2 6 189.2 (Glenbrooks) – 180.00 (Valley) – 176 (Berkeley) – 160.00 (Victory Br) – 144.00 (Stanford)
34 Brentwood Andrew Glantz 848.32 6 210.00 (Yale) – 185.92 (Berkeley) – 170.4 (Glenbrooks) – 168.00 (Valley) – 114 (Bronx)
35 Scarsdale Noah Thaler 833.42 7 252.00 (Yale) – 159.36 (Newark) – 147.4 (Harvard) – 142 (Glenbrooks) – 132.66 (Lexington)
36 Bronx Science Zeke Rosenberg 830.26 8 185.92 (Princeton) – 179.28 (Newark) – 159.36 (Blake) – 156.2 (Glenbrooks) – 149.50 (Meadows)
37 Walt Whitman Daisy Massey 827.98 6 189.2 (Glenbrooks) – 182.6 (Harvard) – 170.4 (Bronx) – 145.20 (Greenhill) – 140.58 (Apple Vall)
38 Palos Verdes Peninsula Akhil Jalan 826.8 9 196.00 (Stanford) – 182.6 (Harvard) – 160.00 (Victory Br) – 156.2 (Glenbrooks) – 132.00 (Valley)
39 Lexington Jerry Chen 824.08 5 199.2 (Harvard) – 170.4 (Glenbrooks) – 165.00 (Yale) – 156.2 (Bronx) – 133.28 (Columbia)
40 Cypress Bay Jake Steirn 820.48 8 184.80 (Sunvitatio) – 179.28 (Lexington) – 156.2 (Bronx) – 156.2 (Glenbrooks) – 144.00 (Emory)
41 Wenatchee Colton Smith 820 7 192.00 (Stanford) – 180.00 (Valley) – 176 (Berkeley) – 140.00 (Alta) – 132.00 (CPS)
42 Collegiate Andrew O’Donohue 815.2 7 180.00 (Yale) – 179.28 (Lexington) – 156.2 (Bronx) – 152.32 (Columbia) – 147.4 (Harvard)
43 Stuyvesant Samantha Hom 790.84 10 209.16 (Lexington) – 156.2 (Bronx) – 147.4 (Harvard) – 146.08 (Blake) – 132.00 (Yale)
44 Northland Christian Shania Hunt 788.93 8 232.96 (St Marks) – 147.84 (Greenhill) – 146.08 (Berkeley) – 144.72 (Lexington) – 117.33 (Victory Br)
45 Harvard-Westlake Tommy Choi 785.64 7 224.00 (Alta) – 159.36 (Blake) – 156.2 (Bronx) – 146.08 (Berkeley) – 100.00 (Stanford)
46 Walt Whitman Tori Seidenstein 771.2 6 187.6 (Harvard) – 170.4 (Bronx) – 165.00 (Yale) – 132.00 (Emory) – 116.20 (Crestian)
47 Palos Verdes Peninsula Arjun Tambe 761.27 10 182.6 (Harvard) – 168.00 (Stanford) – 146.67 (Victory Br) – 144.00 (Valley) – 120.00 (CPS)
48 Scarsdale Ben Ulene 755.9 7 184.80 (Sunvitatio) – 179.28 (Lexington) – 132.00 (Valley) – 132.00 (Yale) – 127.82 (Princeton)
49 Timothy Christian Andrew Meleta 750.66 8 182.6 (Harvard) – 162.68 (Princeton) – 139.44 (Newark) – 133.28 (Columbia) – 132.66 (Lexington)
50 Lake Highland Julian Alvarez 750.4 10 210.00 (Valley) – 158.40 (Sunvitatio) – 147.4 (Harvard) – 120.6 (Lexington) – 114 (Bronx)

Top 25 single-tournament finishes

Greenhill Rebecca Kuang TX Bronx 100 2 7 7 1 2.3 460
New Orleans Jesuit Jim Huang LA Valley 100 1.8 6 6 1.00 2.3 414.00
Greenhill Rebecca Kuang TX Glenbrooks 100 2 7 6 0.86 2.3 395.6
Harrison Danny DeBois NY Harvard 100 2 6 5 0.83 2.3 381.8
Loyola Michael Harris CA Berkeley 100 1.6 6 6 1 2.3 368
Palos Verdes Peninsula Henry Zhang CA Glenbrooks 100 2 7 7 1 1.8 360
Palos Verdes Peninsula Henry Zhang CA Harvard 100 2 6 6 1 1.8 360
Palos Verdes Peninsula Henry Zhang CA Apple Valley 100 1.8 7 6 0.86 2.3 356.04
Lexington Adam Hoffman MA Yale 100 1.8 6 5 0.83 2.3 345.00
Lake Highland Terrence Lonam FL Lexington 100 1.8 6 5 0.83 2.3 343.62
Greenhill Rebecca Kuang TX Emory 72 2 6 6 1.00 2.3 331.20
West Des Moines Valley Megan Nubel IA Yale 100 1.8 6 6 1.00 1.8 324.00
Bronx Science Shai Szulanski NY Valley 100 1.8 6 6 1.00 1.8 324.00
Palos Verdes Peninsula Henry Zhang CA Stanford 100 1.4 7 7 1.00 2.3 322.00
St. Louis Park Richard Shmikler MN Victory Briefs 100 1.6 6 5 0.83 2.3 306.67
St. Louis Park Richard Shmikler MN Blake 100 1.6 6 5 0.83 2.3 305.44
Palos Verdes Peninsula Daniel Tartakovsky CA Greenhill 99 1.6 6 5 0.83 2.3 303.60
Millburn Yang Yi NJ Sunvitational 99 1.6 6 5 0.83 2.3 303.60
Sacred Heart Adam Tomasi MA George Mason 100 1.6 5 4 0.80 2.3 294.40
Palos Verdes Peninsula Daniel Tartakovsky CA Victory Briefs 100 1.6 6 6 1.00 1.8 288.00
Carpe Diem Joseph Millman NJ Lexington 100 1.8 6 6 1 1.6 288
West Des Moines Valley Lucy Korsakov IA Blake 100 1.6 6 6 1 1.8 288
Millburn Yang Yi NJ Lexington 100 1.8 6 6 1 1.6 288
Millburn Yang Yi NJ Yale 100 1.8 6 6 1.00 1.6 288.00
Scarsdale Grant Reiter NY Sunvitational 99 1.6 6 6 1.00 1.8 285.12
  • sjadler

    Chris, I really appreciate your taking the time to maintain this as a community resource. Here are some ideas I have on how it might be improved:

    I agree with previous commenters that a school-count might be more relevant than a state-count. Especially with different state sizes and state density in regions, this seems to reflect the intention better–basically, how much diversity was there among the pool of competitors.

    I also think there are two potential tweaks to the win-loss ratio, assuming that we want to still keep it in the formula in some capacity. For one, we could scale the win-loss records differently so that they aren’t straight percentages. For example, 7-0 could remain 1.00, but 6-1 could be 0.95 instead of 0.86; 5-2 could be 0.90 as opposed to 0.71. These numbers are relatively arbitrary selections of mine, and I’m not wedded to them–I just think a straight percentage tends to overstate the importance of prelims (by taking a massive chunk out of outround points).

    A more interesting idea about win-loss record might be to have it enter the equation via addition, rather than multiplication. That way, a debater who goes 4-2 or 5-2 in prelims but dominates elimination rounds wouldn’t have the outround points diminished by their prelims; they could enter the equation in separate ways. I think that’s consistent with how people see prelim performance as distinct from outround performance (nobody looks down on someone who wins an octas-bid for having lost two preliminary rounds).

    This could also be consistent with an elimination rounds multiplier of some kind, which I believe used to exist in the NDCA formula but no longer does (bonus points for being in the tournament when less than a certain fraction of the field remains, or something along those lines).

    Thanks again!

    • I like the addition idea. Ballot count would be ideal IMO, but I don’t know whether every tournament has that data accessible. The 2.3x multiplier for winning also seems disproportionate. The difference between finals and winning is as large as the difference between triples and semis.

      I don’t like school-count as much. That doesn’t seem to be substantially different than size of field (which is already considered). # of states takes into account geographic variety which I think is an important consideration. People travel from farther away for better tournaments. I’m not sure how to account for east coast bias, though. Perhaps weight west coast states as 1.5-2 states each?

      • My thought for school count vs state count is that it distinguishes between local and regional events. A local tournament could easily score the same number of debaters as at a selective octos bid tournament; MA has local PF fields in the 90s sometimes. However, a 100 entry tournament with 5 schools bringing 20 each is a very different beast than one where 50 schools bring their 2 best.

        I’m not sure that a school traveling far necessarily says more about a tournament than one nearby deciding to come. It tracks somewhat,b ut not perfectly; I think debater/school ratio may be better still. Privileging those who can afford plane tickets is one of LD’s endemic problems, after all.

        • “Distance traveled” is a measure of tournament quality not because it advantages people who can fly but because it’s a proxy for the attractiveness of the tournament. There are a lot of factors that go into making a tournament a draw, and it would probably be impossible to individually identify and measure all of those factors, but the willingness of people to expend resources to attend the event from far away collapses all of those factors into one measure. “Distance traveled” avoids both the problem of “states in attendance” (which privileges northeast tournaments because of the concentration of smaller states vs. the southwest with all of those big geographically isolated states) and “schools in attendance” (because even if a school brings 10 kids, if they each have to expend resources to get there.)

          I agree that we shouldn’t structurally privilege kids with more resources, but there’s a difference between taking resource expenditure as a measure and generating an advantage to a given set of students. Acknowledging that debate is resource-intensive and then acknowledging those tournaments that motivate the greatest resource expenditure is reasonable.

          Edited for clarity

  • I like the idea of a ranking system like this, but there are just too many errors in this one for it to be taken seriously. Omitting major tournaments like Berkeley and Voices is inexcusable. The prelim record multiplier makes no sense and makes it so that people who did better at a tournament get less points. The state multiplier is also obviously going to advantage that part of the country where the states are really little. The octos bid tournaments on the east coast are just not 50-100 points out of 460 better than the tournaments in the midwest and west coast.

    • Voices is included in the rankings. I’ve got requests in with the LD tab directors for the data for Golden Desert, Berkeley, and the Sunvitational. However, the points from those tournaments cannot affect who wins the D&B.

      And, well, “If you would like another tournament included in the scores, please contact me at palmer at tabroom dot com.”

      If you have ideas for improving the formula please share them. I have thought that perhaps school count would be a better metric than state count myself. But calling them “errors” is a bit strong when they’re really differences in subjective opinion.

      • I agree with John that the state multiplier is problematic. It puts CA and TX debaters at a disadvantage, because the smaller bid tournaments in those states draw a mostly in-state crowd. This isn’t the case for Northeast tournaments. Obviously, this hasn’t hurt Rebecca or Henry, but they’ve also been to enough tournaments outside of TX and CA, respectively, that they can compensate.

        • The state multiplier is definitely the main problem. Jordan has won 2 finals bid tournaments that had exclusively Texas students competing in them, yet he’s still 48th.

          • Chris Palmer runs the D&B rankings completely voluntarily, at no benefit to himselfI. He also does not claim that they are A) a definitive ranking of the “best” and “most successful” debaters or B) complete, perfect, or 100% accurate. Having worked with Chris for around four years now, I know from first hand experience that he is remarkably receptive to constructive criticism and crafting collaborative solutions to problems. Offering a concrete alternative multiplier for prelim wins and for school/state variance would be welcome feedback I’m sure, rather than just critiquing a voluntary service without providing an alternative.

          • Anonymous

            I agree, I think that instead of just prelim win percentage, it should be overall win percentage, including elims, multiplied by the pool size. There should also be elim bonuses, maybe having the elim bonuses a little higher even, to account for someone who goes 4-2/5-2 and wins the entire tournament. I do agree with Fritz, Scoggin, and Jared that the state multiplier needs to be less important, because I don’t think that it’s necessarily indicative of tournament difficulty. Maybe have the state multiplier only multiply for the amount of states in out rounds, if that makes sense, as that would be more indicative of tournament difficulty. I’m sorry if it came off as being too abrasive, however I think this is a reasonable solution.

          • I apologize if I came across as overly critical. As someone who went to the NDCA tournament 3 times, I definitely appreciate what Chris does/has done. I didn’t provide an alternative simply because I’m not sure of one that would work. I’d be interested in hearing about different options as well.

          • Oh no worries Jared, my bad. It’s awesome that people are taking an interest in improving the D&B and attending the NDCA tournament!

      • My mistake regarding Voices. There is a packet for Cal that I found within like 3 seconds on google, if you think it looks good to publish a list with basic omissions and be like “sorry email me” go ahead and continue to do that. My interest in this is not personal, I don’t care about the standings in the cup because I think the formula is too inexact for it to mean anything. I am intrigued by the idea of something like this and think it could be something worthwhile if it was maintained more rigorously and the formula was conceived better. I like the idea of a number of schools multiplier, probably not perfect but certainly a step in the right direction. The prelim thing in my mind is also important, you should just not get more points for advancing less far in a tournament than someone else.

        Short Version: A quick look at the list and you can just see its not right, could be cool if it was altered.

        • The packet report is not a format that I can use to extract data automatically; I need the TRPC Universal Data Export under the Packet Results, or the Teams in Order report in a searchable PDF. Otherwise, I have to input the results automatically, and Berkeley’s 300+ debaters makes that somewhat daunting. I hope you’ll forgive me for trying to avoid that; the huge stipend of $0 I demand to run the NDCA LD tournament doesn’t quite cover a data entry staff…

          I got Harvard’s data quickly simply because I was there and could ask in person; the Berkeley folk just haven’t gotten back to me yet, but I’ve only just asked, so I don’t see why anyone’s shorts are in a knot over this. It’ll probably have the few remaining major tournaments included by next week sometime.

          • It’s entirely up to you how much work you want to put in to it, I’m just saying in its current form it’s not accurate.

          • pjwexler

            The point rankings seem to be reasonably accurate to me. It’s not really incumbent on Chris (or anyone else) to track down tournament data in useable form. It’s not even incumbent on Invitational directors to send in the information either.

            As I understand it, the Dukes and Bailey recognizes the debater who performed the best overall at whichever tournaments do report their results. One might suggest different ways to crunch the numbers which are included, but that is a different matter. There are good arguments to be made for any number of weighing factors.

            One last note- I see no particular reason to regard the system as an overall ranking. Indeed, I believe overall ranking systems to be absolutely pernicious to the activity, The D and B award is a valuable way to recognize season long excellence, but let’s not pretend there is a meaningful difference between any given debater and the individual immediately below or above them in most cases. So sure, tweaking the system might mean someone finishes 4th instead of 5th or 44th instead of 45th under this particular snapshot, but that is all.

          • No, the “tweaking” that has been suggested (such as correcting for east coast bias and removing the disproportionate weight of prelims) would have pretty big effects on the rankings.

            I recalculated some of the data using these suggestions. Though also imperfect, my formula removed the prelim win multiplier, substituted bid level for diversity as a measure of difficulty (where octas = 2, quarters = 1.8), and included Cal.

            The results were a drastic change in rankings that had, for example, the current #1 debater with 1778 points and the current #4 with 1744 points. This probably better accounts for season long success – I don’t think anyone would argue that the #1 and #2 have had 200 points-worth (or 10-20%) better seasons than the #3-#5.

          • pjwexler

            I have no doubt that using a different formula would yield different results. I just think that anointing one formula over another (in many cases) is a fruitless and even harmful effort. The same is true for whatever weight we allocate to elims or prelims. There are any number of factors that might help or hinder one region over another. That is true even if we go to how we weigh the number of people at a particular tournament.

            My actual main point is that, at least in my opinion, ranking systems in general actively harm the educational benefits of the activity. Recognizing one person as a winner of a specific award is fine, and if people want to come up with their own formulas and recognize somebody as top notch according that formula, well, I respect those developers for their dedication to the activity.

            Howecer, worrying about who is #6 or #7 gives us all of the detriments of competition without any of the benefits.

            I’m not against competition. People work harder than they otherwise would with competition. Further, winning a given tournament means something, namely that in the minds of particular judges A. Student was the best debater on that particular day in that particular place. To compare people who debated under different conditions against different people at different times at at different places means less than nothing. These are all factors outside of any given team’s control, and no system will quantify the differences in the minds of all.

            I do think the way the D and B is set up mitigates these factors. But its not set up statistically to imply that that the top two debaters are having twenty percent better seasons than anyone else- and I’m not sure what that would mean if it were.

            At the point any such system becomes one of relative ranking rather than just who was top under a particular formula, that to me becomes a problem.

      • Anonymous

        Danny DeBois was in semis of Bronx, but has more points than Michael Harris who was in finals?

        • Rebar Niemi

          I believe this is this is the “prelim wins count for too much” problem.

          • Guest

            Yea I was just illustrating examples of it

          • The formula is clearly posted above; and you can figure out why Danny got more points than Michael easily enough. It all comes down to a different definition of what it means to do well at a tournament.

            As I’ve said, I’m happy to entertain proposed amendments to the formula and convey them to the NDCA board; I’m not wedded to it myself.

          • Anonymous

            I mean, I agree that it comes down to a different definition of what it means to do well at a tournament, but it’s sort of like sports with playoffs: the regular season, or prelims, is a way to get to the playoffs, or outs, and if the #1 team in the regular season loses in the first round of the playoffs, I don’t believe that they had a better season than the team that won the championship, or the runner-up. I feel like prelims are just a means to the end of doing well in out rounds

  • akskdkf

    where’s sunvite