1 / 13

SHRM HRGames

SHRM HRGames. Team Advancement Methodology. Prior to 2004. Advancement was based on either win-loss record or total points accumulated. Matches in which both teams ended with negative point totals would still count as a “win”

flavia-pittman
Download Presentation

SHRM HRGames

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SHRM HRGames Team Advancement Methodology

  2. Prior to 2004 • Advancement was based on either win-loss record or total points accumulated. • Matches in which both teams ended with negative point totals would still count as a “win” • Changes sought to even the playing field and bring consistency to state and regional competitions

  3. New Advancement Matrix • Measures consistency over the length of the preliminary rounds • Minimizes the won-loss unfairness • Not complex to administer • Used to determine semi-finalists and finalists in state and regional HRGames

  4. The New Method: Step 1 • Teams compete head-to-head. We’ll use a nine-team, three round competition schedule to illustrate this method: Note: Because of the odd number of teams competing, several teams will have a bye each round. This means that they do not play during a specific round.

  5. The New Method: Step 2 • Arrange teams in order from the highest points scored in the round, to the lowest: In this example, all teams will have one “bye” for the competition. This does not hurt their overall ranking.

  6. The New Method: Step 3 • Award “wins” to each team based on total points scored compared to the other teams’ scores in that round: Team “A”s score of 7200 was better than the other 8 teams competing. Thus, they are awarded 8 “wins” for round 1. Team “B”s score of 6300 was better than 7 of the other teams competing. They would be award 7 “wins.” Negative scores and byes (when applicable) will be scored as zero wins. Note: Tied point totals count as wins. In this example, both “C” and “D” scored 4400 points. That score of 4400 was better than the points scored by 5 other teams. As a result, “C” and “D” would be awarded 5 “wins” plus an additional “win” for tying with one another.

  7. The New Method: Step 4 • Repeat steps 1-3 for each of the remaining preliminary rounds:

  8. The New Method: Step 5 • When the preliminary rounds are completed, sum up the total number of points and “wins” for each team, and rank the teams in descending order based on the number of “wins.” In the example below, “A” accumulated 16 wins and would be ranked 1st:

  9. Determining Semi-Finalists Use the following order to determine your semi-final teams: • Total “wins” accumulated. • Total points accumulated. • Head-to-head competition. • Strength of schedule. Strength of schedule refers to the “quality” of competition you faced in the preliminary rounds. In step 5, teams were ranked from highest to lowest based on “wins.” If two teams are tied based on “wins,” rank by total points. Create a category called “SOS.” Sum up the rankings of each of the opponents each team faced. • Won-loss record in the preliminary rounds. If two teams competing both score in the negative for a round, neither team will be awarded a win (for the purposes of a tie breaker). • Coin toss.

  10. Calculating SOS In this example, “A” (ranked 1st) played “C” (who is ranked 4th) and “G” (who is ranked 3rd). That would give “A” an SOS score of 7. The team with the lower SOS would advance: • “A” played, and won against, “C” and “G” • “C” is ranked 4th and “G” ranked 3rd • Thus, “A”s SOS is 4+3= 7

  11. Rationale for Not Scoring Byes • An uneven number of teams will likely mean that there may be an uneven distribution of byes throughout the competition (i.e., in one round, one team might have a bye; in others, three or five teams will). • As a result, there may be an uneven distribution in “wins” per round. In a nine-team competition, if only one team has a bye, each of the other teams will have a chance to get 8 “wins,” whereas if there are three or five teams on bye, the other teams will only have a chance at, respectively, 6 or 4 “wins.” • Consequently, to create equity, byes are scored as zero.

  12. Semi-Finals Once the four semi-final teams are determined, the semi-final round should have the first and fourth place teams and the second and third place teams competing: The winners of each semi-final round will face off in the final round. In the example given, if “A” defeats “C” and “B” defeats “G”, “B” and “A” would meet in the final round despite “G” scoring more points than “A.” Teams “A” and “B” would compete in the final match to determine the competition winner.

  13. A Few Closing Reminders… • It is useful to prepare multiple competition schedules in case teams drop out. • This presentation is for illustration purposes only and your actual competition may have more than 9 teams. • For the full text of this presentation, please consult the HRGames Manual.

More Related