1. © 2003 SHRM SHRM HRGames Team Advancement Methodology

2. © 2003 SHRM 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. © 2003 SHRM 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. © 2003 SHRM 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. © 2003 SHRM 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. © 2003 SHRM The New Method: Step 3 Award “wins” to each team based on total points scored compared to the other teams’ scores in that round: 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. 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.

7. © 2003 SHRM The New Method: Step 4 Repeat steps 1-3 for each of the remaining preliminary rounds:

8. © 2003 SHRM 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 1 st :

9. © 2003 SHRM Determining Semi-Finalists a.Total “wins” accumulated. b.Total points accumulated. c.Head-to-head competition. d.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. e.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). f.Coin toss. Use the following order to determine your semi-final teams:

10. © 2003 SHRM Calculating SOS In this example, “A” (ranked 1 st ) played “C” (who is ranked 4 th ) and “G” (who is ranked 3 rd ). 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 4 th and “G” ranked 3 rd Thus, “A”s SOS is 4+3= 7

11. © 2003 SHRM 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. © 2003 SHRM 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. © 2003 SHRM 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.