I was going to gripe about getting the 13th most difficult draw but then remembered that I was #3 on that list last year. progress!

Posted by justinlee_24 on 8/13/2019 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hurst47 on 8/13/2019 3:01:00 PM (view original):
This seems unfairly skewed -- high ranked owners have easier divisions and vice versa. Hard to believe the draw was random.

well, as rbow923 correctly points out, when division difficulty rank excludes the owner in question, of course high ranked owners will have easier divisions and low ranked owners will have harder divisions. That's exactly what I would expect from a random draw.

To see why, suppose all divisions are equal in strength. Now apply the division difficulty rank formula by excluding the owner in question for each owner. By definition, higher ranked owners have lower division difficulty ranks and vice versa (on average).

Yes but even considering that it seems extreme, e.g. #1 overall has the #94 ranked schedule. We're facing uphill battles from the start. Not to complain too much but I'm guessing most of us low-ranked guys paid out of pocket for this tournament while the high ranked guys have plenty of credits to use (correct me if I'm wrong). So this tournament is funded on our backs. Skewing the schedule toward the top-ranked teams just adds insult to injury.

Instead of using "average rank" of owners, I like to look at how many "good" owners are in my division and league. For example, I might categorize the top 32 seeded owners as "good" for purposes of this analysis. So if I see owners ranked 30 and 60 in my division, I would rank that tougher than 41 and 42 even though 83 is less than 90.

Remember that only 4 teams from your league (three division winners plus a wildcard) advance to the playoffs. And it doesn't matter to me if the bottom 6 owners in my league are ranked 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 or 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76. I still have to be one of the top 4 teams in the league (and hope two of those top teams aren't in the same division as me).

Also, keep in mind that the #1 seed is not 10 times better than #10 seed. It's not linear.

Maybe the best way to measure is to group owners into three groups...
(A) owners seeded 1-32
(B) owners seeded 33-64
(C) owners seeded 65-96.
You want to have the fewest number of Group A owners in your division.

Without actually looking at the names, I would bet that at least 20 of the top 32 owners make it into round 2. There always seems to be a couple of owners ranked in the 40's or 50's that surprise and move into round 2.

Posted by hurst47 on 8/13/2019 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by justinlee_24 on 8/13/2019 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hurst47 on 8/13/2019 3:01:00 PM (view original):
This seems unfairly skewed -- high ranked owners have easier divisions and vice versa. Hard to believe the draw was random.

well, as rbow923 correctly points out, when division difficulty rank excludes the owner in question, of course high ranked owners will have easier divisions and low ranked owners will have harder divisions. That's exactly what I would expect from a random draw.

To see why, suppose all divisions are equal in strength. Now apply the division difficulty rank formula by excluding the owner in question for each owner. By definition, higher ranked owners have lower division difficulty ranks and vice versa (on average).

Yes but even considering that it seems extreme, e.g. #1 overall has the #94 ranked schedule. We're facing uphill battles from the start. Not to complain too much but I'm guessing most of us low-ranked guys paid out of pocket for this tournament while the high ranked guys have plenty of credits to use (correct me if I'm wrong). So this tournament is funded on our backs. Skewing the schedule toward the top-ranked teams just adds insult to injury.

It's a ranked tournament. Sure, the higher ranked owners have an edge, but A) they've earned that edge through their success and B) it's made very clear beforehand that they will have that edge in the tournament. We all have the choice whether or not to enter.

Also, i mean, the lowest seeded person in the tourney, has the 2nd best ease of division.

What's wrong with a tough division? If you want to be the best you have to beat the best.

Posted by Jtpsops on 8/13/2019 3:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hurst47 on 8/13/2019 3:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by justinlee_24 on 8/13/2019 3:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by hurst47 on 8/13/2019 3:01:00 PM (view original):
This seems unfairly skewed -- high ranked owners have easier divisions and vice versa. Hard to believe the draw was random.

well, as rbow923 correctly points out, when division difficulty rank excludes the owner in question, of course high ranked owners will have easier divisions and low ranked owners will have harder divisions. That's exactly what I would expect from a random draw.

To see why, suppose all divisions are equal in strength. Now apply the division difficulty rank formula by excluding the owner in question for each owner. By definition, higher ranked owners have lower division difficulty ranks and vice versa (on average).

Yes but even considering that it seems extreme, e.g. #1 overall has the #94 ranked schedule. We're facing uphill battles from the start. Not to complain too much but I'm guessing most of us low-ranked guys paid out of pocket for this tournament while the high ranked guys have plenty of credits to use (correct me if I'm wrong). So this tournament is funded on our backs. Skewing the schedule toward the top-ranked teams just adds insult to injury.

It's a ranked tournament. Sure, the higher ranked owners have an edge, but A) they've earned that edge through their success and B) it's made very clear beforehand that they will have that edge in the tournament. We all have the choice whether or not to enter.

Yup and in the future I will take that into account and not enter if I feel the higher ranked owners have too big an advantage. Just consider that when recruiting those of us who are not among the elite.

I don’t think this scheduling “advantage” higher ranked owners supposedly have actually exists. Please explain it to me.

Many of us who aren't elite enjoy the challenge. I'm sure the tournament will go on.

The NCAA basketball tournament is also very unfair. Duke has a way easier schedule than the 16 seed. Duke gets to play the 16 seed. The 16 seed has to play Duke.

Ok, so, in short, there is no unfair bias in the divisional alignment system. The probability of being assigned to a division is inherently independent of rank (outside of the fact that you cannot be matched with yourself), as it is performed by a randomization engine that WIS uses for all leagues.

brianjw is ranked 1st and got the 94th easiest alignment, but sohio4ever was ranked 96th and for the 95th easiest alignment. Brian was just as likely to get paired with the second highest ranked owner in his leagues as anyone else. It's random. The only difference is that he cannot be paired with the top ranked owner, and everyone else can, because he is the top ranked owner himself, so 1 out of the 23 possibilities to be matched with is always a lower ranked owner for him than it is for anyone else in his leagues.

Bottom line: He just got lucky.

If you look at last year's league stats you'll see that rbow923, ranked 3rd overall, got the hardest divisional alignment.

These examples are anecdotal but illustrate the point -- randomization is random.

Last point: These rankings don't necessarily mean anything. Yes, they are generally accurate, but owners don't put out 6 teams of the same quality -- there's a range for each owner. My best team and my worst team are different, and there's just as much of a chance that Brian's opponents' best teams are in those divisions with him. Or that they are ranked poorly to begin with.

The rankings are my attempt to level the playing field. Without them, there'd be even less parity in the difference in difficulty between owners.