BlueCat
Roses are red, cats are blue
- Dec 14, 2009
- 4,503
- 19,507
Any relation to time and this actual season is not needed. I get it would be from the beginning.
What about the large division? Just take 21?
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
If the max were 30, I would be fine with taking 21 in a large division. The athletes and the parents would probably be freaked out about it, though.
A difference of 21 and 36, however, is probably past the point where you could expect a fair contest. You might be at a significant advantage, or you may suffer from the wrong side of an apples/oranges comparison. Worlds isn't really the place to take that kind of gamble.
At some point, you have to make sure that you have enough roster spots to hold all your athletes. You also have to consider the costs in time/energy/ideas in having more teams for the same number of athletes. You would start to be hurting yourself in other ways more than you are helping by decreasing risk.
I would agree that there are economic pressures pushing teams towards maximizing their teams. I don't agree that this should be factored into the scoring system. Again, I think that all of the teams should be on equal footing, regardless of roster size. This, to me, means applying roster-size ratios to all parts of the scoring system, not just select parts that benefit one type of team.
All of that being said - I do like where you are going with the rest of it.