Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GAMTI

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GAMTI

    anyone have results?

  • #2
    Re: GAMTI

    UVA took first and second place, at 8-0 and 7-1. Rounding out the top 5 (though unsure about the order) were Furman, George Washington, and Maryland.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: GAMTI

      1. 972 UVa, 8-0 (CS 15)
      2. 973 UVa, 8-0 (CS 11)
      3. 585 Furman, 5-2-1
      4. 756 George Washington University, 5 (head to head)
      5. 668 Maryland, 5 (head to head)

      Congrats to the Hoos!
      "Find Michael Harmon guilty, your honor. Find him guilty . . . of Mic

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: GAMTI

        another impressive finish by UVa, congrats. These are still their unstacked teams we're talking about, correct?

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: GAMTI

          Correct.
          "Find Michael Harmon guilty, your honor. Find him guilty . . . of Mic

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: GAMTI

            Did this tournament do something creative with second round pairings? Looking at the tab summary on UVA's website, I can't for the life of me figure out why the second round was paired the way it was.

            These are all of the 2-0 teams after the first round, along with their second round opponent:

            Maryland 668 (2-0, +42) v. Miami 992 (2-0, +24)
            Virginia 972 (2-0, +40) v. Duke 304 (1-1, +9)
            Cornell 436 (2-0, +32) v. Rhodes 872 (0-1-1, -1)
            Virginia 973 (2-0, +20) v. Howard 684 (0-2, -18)
            Wake Forest (2-0, +18) v. NYU 565 (0-2, -5)
            George Washington (2-0, +15) v. Kansas 864 (0-2, -20)
            Furman 585 (2-0, +5) v. NYU 564 (0-2, -15)

            With eight 2-0 teams, there was only one matchup between the undefeateds. What was the rationale for doing this?

            (I'd also like to point out that this was an incredibly deep invitational. Even with these seemingly uneven second round pairings, only two teams were undefeated after the second round.)

            Also, if anyone knows, were the impermissible matchups resolved from the top-down? If so, how did that system work out?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: GAMTI

              Wake Forest would like to thank UVA and D.Cross for hosting us and putting on a great tournament. We would also like to thank Howard and both NYU teams for fantastic rounds. Howard as always is a very classy friendly team, and my 1st experiences with my team competing against NYU showed the same is true of them...
              It's all about the U.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: GAMTI

                [quote author=uscmikey link=topic=3265.msg150302#msg150302 date=1162840206]
                Did this tournament do something creative with second round pairings? Looking at the tab summary on UVA's website, I can't for the life of me figure out why the second round was paired the way it was.

                These are all of the 2-0 teams after the first round, along with their second round opponent:

                Maryland 668 (2-0, +42) v. Miami 992 (2-0, +24)
                Virginia 972 (2-0, +40) v. Duke 304 (1-1, +9)
                Cornell 436 (2-0, +32) v. Rhodes 872 (0-1-1, -1)
                Virginia 973 (2-0, +20) v. Howard 684 (0-2, -18)
                Wake Forest (2-0, +18) v. NYU 565 (0-2, -5)
                George Washington (2-0, +15) v. Kansas 864 (0-2, -20)
                Furman 585 (2-0, +5) v. NYU 564 (0-2, -15)

                With eight 2-0 teams, there was only one matchup between the undefeateds. What was the rationale for doing this?

                Also, if anyone knows, were the impermissible matchups resolved from the top-down? If so, how did that system work out?
                [/quote]

                If you notice, those teams were all on the same side of the case in round 1. That was the defense bias that I mentioned in the other thread. That is what I would assume caused the odd pairings.
                It's all about the U.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: GAMTI

                  Wow, that is a strong defense bias. Thanks for clearing that up (I'm quite embarassed I didn't pick that up...I haven't done any tabbing in 7 months and am obviously pretty rusty).

                  However, what is truly interesting was this bias only appeared in the first round. The defense was an astonishing 16-3-1 in the first round, whereas the defense was 10-10 in the second round, 11-9 in the third round, and only 9-10-1 in the fourth round. Any explanations for this phenomenon?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: GAMTI

                    Just want to say thanks to the entire UVA organization for what was once again an excellent tournament. NYU had a lot of fun. Thanks to GW, Furman, Wake Forest, and Bellarmine for some outstanding rounds this weekend. The level of competition was fantastic.

                    As for the bias, although it is too early to accurate tell by round 3 pairings, here are a few other interesting things I noticed looking at the tab summary, not quite sure what can be extrapolated from them though:

                    I noticed that a 3.5 Columbia 514 played a 6 win Virginia 973 in round 4. This struck me as odd, until I realized that (with the notable exception of 972), 3.5 was the highest win total for any team that had played both its plaintiff rounds by round 4.

                    On that note, all 5 of the top 5 teams went defense in round 1.
                    Reloading...one ballot at a time.

                    Least we're the Fighting Violets and

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: GAMTI

                      I agree with Kris -- nothing suggests yet that there is a bias or imbalance in this case. We observed the skewed results in round 1 at GAMTI, but the subsequent rounds suggest that the case is indeed balanced and that the round 1 results were simply the result of an imbalance in the pairings. And to the extent there is any imbalance favoring the defense, it should be noted that both UVA teams went undefeated, which at the very least shows that any such imbalance is insignifant and not outcome determinative.


                      (pun intended)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: GAMTI

                        [quote author=princecaspian link=topic=3265.msg150315#msg150315 date=1162863292]
                        And to the extent there is any imbalance favoring the defense, it should be noted that both UVA teams went undefeated, which at the very least shows that any such imbalance is insignifant and not outcome determinative.[/quote]

                        Holy Question Begging, Batman!
                        "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: GAMTI

                          I think rd 1 here can be indicative of some bias...It is difficult to dismiss the large discrepancy in ballots won by each side...however the flip power paired round 3 seems to indicate a very balanced case. Round 1 could have just been a random improbability, we will probably need to see some results in upcoming invites to know. I think the case is pretty well balanced, although I think in terms of an actual verdict the P would need a 4th witness to have a chance of winning this case on the merits. Round 3 suggests that isnt affecting scores...I hope thats true as this is a great case and I dont want to go through a flurry of changes again this year.
                          It's all about the U.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: GAMTI

                            We really should start factoring the type of attorneys judging the rounds into these analyses. If Round 1 at GAMTI was ruled by civil defense attorneys, especially attorneys who have represented the government, while later rounds were more judge-balanced, methinks we could reasonably dismiss the bias. Anyone want to start taking surveys at the next Invitationals?
                            -Thom Gray

                            "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: GAMTI

                              To my knowledge, the judging pool at GAMTI was essentially the same from round to round. We had a number of judges judge all 4 rounds, and the rest were a smattering of government attorneys, lawyers from D.C. firms, etc. (in relatively equal numbers from round to round).

                              I don't think that the round 1 bias can reasonably be attributed to the judging. The argument that the pairings were inherently mis-matched that round due to the challenge format makes a lot more sense to me.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X