NTRP Police wrote:
Playoff level and above are what I consider the "real" level. It's the "benchmark" level and its averaged across the section/nation and is the greatest indicator of where you're at.
This could explain why we often disagree about what players at a particular level can do.
Consider this. In 2011, I was a 3.5C. I went to districts, sectionals and nationals. For 2012, I was a 4.0B.
I think it would be a mistake to say that in 2012 that I was at the "real level" of 4.0 because I was a 4.0B.
More accurate would be to say that in 2011, I was at the top of 3.5 even though I was a 3.5C. In 2012, I was at the very bottom of 4.0, even though I was a 4.0B.
So why is it that you keep suggesting that the playoff level is the real level?
This idea of considering benchmark ratings as the "real level" seems to be causing a lot of confusion and misstatements around here. People with B ratings are scattered throughout a particular level. In other words, if you gathered all of the 3.5B men in a room, you would find a wide range of ability. Some would be recent move-ups from 3.0, and others would be almost 4.0.
So why does it make sense to consider 3.5B the "real level?"