View Single Post
Old 07-20-2010, 05:00 PM   #75
Miles Libbey
Member Miles Libbey is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mountain View  CA
Posts: 3
Re: 2010 games scoring - impossible to catch up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrina A. Burton View Post
So some people have suggested that after cuts the points should reassigned based on their ranking in each event compared to the remaining athletes. I copied the results to a spreadsheet and reassigned the points based on the top 16 competitors only. 1st = 1 pt through to 16th = 16 pts.

In the mens division the results would have been:
1.) Graham Holmberg (40)
2.) Chris Spealler (48) + 1 rank
3.) Rich Froning Jr (50) - 1 rank
4.) Austin Malleolo (57) + 2 ranks
5.) Matt Chan (60) - 1 rank
6.) Ben Smith (62) + 2 ranks
7.) Mikko Salo (65) - 2 ranks
8.) Pat Burke (70) - 1 rank
9.) Tommy Hackenbruck (77)
10.) Peter Egyed (79)
11.) Moe Kelsey (90) + 3 ranks
12.) Brandon Phillips (100) - 1 rank
13.) Chad Mackay (101) - 1 rank
14.) Joey Warren (101)
15.) Jason Khalipa (101) + 1 rank
16.) Rob Orlando (103) - 1 rank

Some changes, but Graham would have still won!
Are you sure -- I think this is the same scoring concept as my comment #18 -- here's the spreadsheet (WFS) with pretty different results:

new name score orig place
1) Spealler, Chris 40 3
2) Egyed, Peter 52 10
3) Froning Jr., Rich 56 2
4) Malleolo, Austin 57 6
5) Holmberg, Graham 63 1
5) Hackenbruck, Tommy 63 9
5) Burke, Patrick 63 7
8) Salo, Mikko 66 5
9) Smith, Ben 76 8
10) Chan, Matt 77 4
11) Kelsey, Moe 79 14
12) Orlando, Rob 92 15
13) Khalipa, Jason 101 16
14) Warren, Joey 103 13
15) Mackay, Chad 106 12
16) Phillips, Brandon 107 11

what accounts for the difference?
  Reply With Quote