>From an article in the Washington Post, December 3, 2000:
< the sport is water polo, and the favored UCLA team just beat Navy to
read the NCAA final round. >
"UCLA's record includes four forfeits stemming from the
ineligibility of Adam Wright, its leading scorer through 17 games.
UCLA declared Wright ineligible on Oct. 31 after being notified that
medical redshirt paperwork regarding his true freshman year, 1996,
was never filed.
"The Pacific-10 Conference ruled on Nov. 17 that the Bruins would
have to forfeit any games they won by three goals or less that Wright
played, deciding that his contribution was approximately three goals
per game."
That is the first time that I have heard of, that I remember, where a
team is effectively penalized by points-per-game. It seems reasonably
civilized. But it does minimize a penalty, especially when compared
to the notion of flat-out-losing every game that your ineligible
player took part in, which I thought was more conventional.
It is an NCAA sport, but the Conference decided the penalty.
This comment was a dozen lines at the end of a Post article on Navy
losing in the Semis of the NCAA tournament. The Naval Academy at
Annapolis is a local collegiate team (more or less) for the Post, and
getting to the Semis was a rare achievement. The article mentions,
"No school outside of California has reached the final. The NCAA
began men's water polo championships in 1969."
- When I asked before about 'statistical' adjustment of political
ballots, Herman Rubin volunteered that he had heard of vote totals
for candidates being reduced proportionately to make the overall total
come out to something not-greater-than the total number of voters.
I had never heard of that.
- Since then, I heard a correspondent on TV mention possibilities for
cases like "Seminole County" where there is a challenge concerning a
fraction of the absentee ballots. He said that it was possible that
they could disallow a fraction of the absentee votes -- which I
understood to mean, a strict fraction of the 15,000 ballots, since I
did not think they could identify the exact votes.
Is it possible that they could find and remove the exact ballots, as a
friend suggests to me?
Or, was this the statistical solution that I imagined, which was kind
of a poorly aimed remedy, since it would have an effect only because
2/3 of the absentee votes happened to go to one candidate?
--
Rich Ulrich, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.pitt.edu/~wpilib/index.html
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
