<p>Whoops, totally missed that. Thank-you.</p>
<p>MIT 26
Stanford 2</p>
<p>(-2 Stanford/+1 MIT)</p>
<p>MIT 27
Stanford 0</p>
<p>-2 Stanford +MIT</p>
<p>The End</p>
<p>Mit ftw</p>
<p>Final Results:
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology
- Stanford University
- Harvard University
- Yale University
- Princeton University
- University of Chicago
- University of Pennsylvania
- Dartmouth College
- Columbia University
- Cornell University
- University of California- Berkeley
- Brown University
- California Institute of Technology
- Northwestern University
- Duke University
- Rice University
- Johns Hopkins University
- University of Virginia
- University of California at Los Angeles
- Vanderbilt University
- Carnegie Mellon University
- University of Notre Dame
- Georgetown University
- Emory University
- Washington University in St. Louis
- University of Southern California
- Wake Forest University</p>
<p>The champion is MIT! People who complain and contradict, just vote more next time!</p>
<p>So this is the Official CC Rankings!!!</p>
<p>I’d say this is better than USNWR ;)</p>
<p>Finally–it only took 2 months (almost). Agreed debarghya, this ranking is much better than US news. Except I’d say switch MIT and Harvard, and switch Dartmouth and Caltech.</p>
<p>A few things learned: while -1/+1 is nice and keeps the global # points constant, that also makes it more and more deliberative. Taking one global point out with each turn would make the game move efficiently, so -2/+1 is probably best. This also makes the very arbitrary -10 or -15 pointless.</p>
<p>Finally, if you have a vendetta against a top school, you can work tirelessly to get it out (e.g. someone did that to Princeton). If you vote for your favorite school in every single post (e.g. someone has done +MIT, -Stanford almost this entire thread), that school can stay strong for a long time.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We could have voted for our favorite schools or alma maters every time, but wanted to vote up/down other schools too (when they were around), which is more fun. :)</p>
<p>Alright, guys, get ready. I’ll be posting round two later today. I’m sure it’ll please many of you to hear that it’s on a +1, -2 system.</p>
<p>Berkeley should totally be higher. :)</p>
<p>yes! Anyways…I find the rankings better than others. :)</p>
<p>StudioMaximus, I don’t think people will love it if you launch another one so soon. Try doing such a ranking next fall only. :)</p>
<p>Or we could do a ranking of LACs! (Of course with a +1/-1) :)</p>
<p>I think a ranking mixing Nationals and LACs would be interesting.</p>
<p>I’m listening, guys. Well, I don’t want to wait all the way until fall to start up a new ranking thread. I think this new one will include more colleges (including maybe top 20 LACs), but each will start with fewer points, and a plus one, minus two system will be implemented. Thoughts?</p>
<p>i like the LAC idea.</p>
<p>I agree with Confidential 2015, if you just restart any ranking game along the same lines as the previous one with a few minor tweaks, you will get a lot of voter fatigue. </p>
<p>Adding LACs to the mix may not generate enough traction and would also be unfair as there is far less activity (and therefore fewer participants) on the CC LAC boards than the big university boards on CC. </p>
<p>On the other hand, a LAC alone ranking may be a good idea. They should get their chance too!</p>
<p>Alternatively you could consider a totally different type of contest such as direct elimination 64 school tournament with NCAA style brackets by “region” using the results of the just completed contest to get the top 16 seeds. You would add another 24 universities and 24 LACs to the mix to get to 64 colleges. You would start with 32 one-on-one contests and end up with a final four which could include all 4 teams at once competing against one another or just continue with one-on-one eliminations. </p>
<p>You would have to rearrange the “regions” such that top ranked schools can’t meet too early. You could put MIT, Stanford, Harvard and Yale as top seeds in the four regions and continue allocating seeds for the top 16 according to the ranking. The rest of the brackets could be filled randomly with the remaining colleges and the LACs. Maybe this way you could get some Cinderella wins!</p>
<p>^ awesome idea. To decide winner if each “game”, we’d probably have to vote on them. I know on fb when we did a bracket like this, whichever photo had the most “likes” went on to the next round.</p>
<p>The voting system could remain the same as this contest. Start with +1/-1 and then get to +1/-2 in “overtime” if no winner is declared after a set period.</p>
<p>If you allowed 1 week per round, the whole tournament would take 6 weeks to conclude. </p>
<p>I would also propose some rules such as no votes allowed by participants without a minimum of CC posts (10 or 20 for instance) to reduce “phantom” players. </p>
<p>Again, I don’t want to hijack the OP’s plans, but if there is enough interest in such a format I would put it together it as a separate contest if the OP does not want to do it. </p>
<p>We could post results on the individual CC college boards to motivate more members to participate. If they support their college they should vote!</p>
<p>To call for a re-do now doesn’t make sense since this just took 6 weeks and 1800+ posts.</p>
<p>BTW, maybe some better specified ground rules should be considered. Was this for undergrad only? or grad schools?</p>
<p>There was a satisfaction poll a couple years ago that ranked Harvard’s undergraduate program something like #32.</p>
<p>The NCAA tournament format intrigues me. I’ll draw up an outline soon and post my plans.</p>