Don't feel like doing the math and work, but... somebody should make a body of work profile for the top 5 men where the tier 1 scores are averaged at 100% of their worth, their scores at tier 2 competitions are averaged at 66% of their value, and the scores at tier 3 are averaged at 33% of the value. Would be a good way of looking at who has the advantages.
Im curious - do you know for a fact that that’s how their process works, or did you just suggest it for comparative purposes?
Even without calculating, I’m guessing that using your model, Jason and Nathan would be pretty far ahead right now, since they’re the only ones who’ve done 2 Tier 1 events (GPF and Worlds 2017). They also both have 4CCs and 2GPs (Tier 2) and 2017 Nats and 1 Challenger (Tier 3). Adam has one Tier 1 event so far (GPF), but due to his injury last year, his only other points would come from Tiers 2 (GP) and 3 (Challenger). That probably puts him ahead of Vincent and Max, though.
I think the criteria also take into account scoring trends - this is where Adam’s recent consistency versus the others could play a role in selection, I think. I’m also wondering if they consider placement and medals.