18-09-2017, 12:52 AM
(17-09-2017, 11:03 PM)andyburnett Wrote: An interesting range of approaches, many of which I had looked at previously - the English language ones being the easiest of course: google translate has problems with even basic stuff let alone 'regulation-type' translations.AndyB, If you already are applying an 'activity' floor, would applying a 'ratings floor' as well not create a fault line?
I'd like to somehow include the Scottish in our criteria somewhere, but as I mentioned previously, the dates are very awkward - either very dated or too close to the team events in question.
The 'minimum' rating floor is also something I have strongly considered, and may be a way of offering hope to those haven't reached a target of games played? Say, 2300 base for the Open team in Olympiad - if there is not enough interest from those over 2300 who have reached the games threshold, places could be offered to others starting from the highest-rated down, for example. For the women's team, say, 1700 as a floor rating.
Yes, yes, of course me mentioning this is just fuel for the 'but you said...' gang. Knock yourselves out
Eg - does that mean that in the situation where no-one higher rated with enough games had accepted, a 2320 with no games in the previous six months would be eligible automatically in front of a 2280 with 20 games - who would presumably not be considered?
Cheers