"TFC-03: Motion by Bernstein that, at ORCS, AMTA will use the following pairing system designed to equalize strength of schedule: Teams will be divided by TPR into four groups: Groups A (teams ranked 1-6), B (7-12), C (13-18), and D (19-24). Each team will face exactly one team from each of the four groups. The Tabulation Advisory Committee is directed to create a detailed implementation of this policy for the Board's consideration at the 2019 mid-year meeting.

Rationale: AMTA's entire system of determining winners -- based first on number of ballots won – is predicated on a false assumption: that teams face opponents of equivalent difficulty. In fact, AMTA's pairing system makes no effort to equalize schedule strength and, in some ways, is designed to reduce the likelihood that teams face schedules of equivalent difficulty (by pairing high-high for two rounds, and inconsistently overall). The proposed pairing system would create a more balanced playing field. TPR is not perfect, but this would make it far less likely that a team faces, say, three of the very best teams in the tournament, and it would make it far less likely that a team faces, say, none of the very best teams in the tournament. It does not advantage top-ranked teams, as they would also have to face exactly one team in Group A. I used this format at three tournaments, and it substantially reduced the standard deviation of teams' CS – in other words, it created more similar strengths of schedule. Note that this could not be used at Regionals, as it requires a field size of a multiple of eight, and (currently and historically) Regionals have uneven field sizes."

Discuss this item here!

Rationale: AMTA's entire system of determining winners -- based first on number of ballots won – is predicated on a false assumption: that teams face opponents of equivalent difficulty. In fact, AMTA's pairing system makes no effort to equalize schedule strength and, in some ways, is designed to reduce the likelihood that teams face schedules of equivalent difficulty (by pairing high-high for two rounds, and inconsistently overall). The proposed pairing system would create a more balanced playing field. TPR is not perfect, but this would make it far less likely that a team faces, say, three of the very best teams in the tournament, and it would make it far less likely that a team faces, say, none of the very best teams in the tournament. It does not advantage top-ranked teams, as they would also have to face exactly one team in Group A. I used this format at three tournaments, and it substantially reduced the standard deviation of teams' CS – in other words, it created more similar strengths of schedule. Note that this could not be used at Regionals, as it requires a field size of a multiple of eight, and (currently and historically) Regionals have uneven field sizes."

Discuss this item here!

## Comment