25! & 28! wrote:PDad wrote:25! & 28! wrote:Yep, you are right! I checked your references and looked it up on Wikipedia. It is literally called standard competition ranking. So despite the lack of logic and the complete overturn of 4th grade ordinal math, I stand corrected.
According to Wikipedia, the method you used is called modified competition ranking. How is it more logical to say the 3rd best record is 4th or the 5th best is 8th? I understand why some people might want to use it, but it seems like a glass-half-empty kind of approach. Neither competition ranking method adheres to ordinal math - 4th grade or otherwise.
FWIW, the ASA orders of finish could be assigned true ordinal rankings because they are in sequence according to tie breakers. ASA just chooses to rank them only by where they finished in the bracket.
Well, my acknowledgement of your, or the, method used was meant to end the issue. But since you asked. There is nothing more logical to me than if 15 teams play in a tournament scenario and 7 of them are deemed, by losing in the first round and having no other means by which to judge themselves against the other 7, to be the worst of the 15 that they be logically considered anything higher than tied for 15th, or last. Ninth place as last place in a field of 15 is highly illogical.
I'm more concerned about ranking the top half accurately than the bottom half. How about a hybrid that uses standard for the top half and modified for the bottom?
FWIW, I goofed by not including the 'tied' indicator in my order of finish (e.g. 3t, 5t, 9t).I'll PM you on the ordinal issue.
