Add contingency for High Honors and Honors ranking groups

[johnbrvc]

Is your feature request related to a problem?
This feature may help address a possible "last minute" issue with rankings.
...

Feature Description:

It is a distinct possibility that given the new "Highest Honors", "High Honors" and "Honors" ranking groups for WF type contests (#978), that the criteria for where the various groups start in the rankings could change. As it stands now, it is possible that the "High Honors" (or even "Honors") groups may have no teams in them. For example, medalist ranks 1-12 have 8 problems solved, and no one has 7 solved, then the "High Honors" group would not have any teams. This feature request adds the ability to manually specify the number of problems needed for "High Honors" and "Honors".

In the example above, it may be desired to move any team that has 6 solved up to the "High Honors" group, and possibly shifting the "Honors" group up as well.
...

Have you considered other ways to accomplish the same thing?
There would be no way to do this. This is more of an "ICPC HQ" defensive programming feature.
...

Do you have any specific suggestions for how your feature would be implemented in PC^2?
The code should be able to work either way. Perhaps on the "Finalize" tab, where it provides a mechanism to configure the Gold/Silver/Bronze medals, we could add a couple more boxes that say # of problems for High Honors, and # of problems for Honors. Then, those could be entered by hand into PC^2 before we generate the results.tsv. If those boxes are empty (or 0?) then the code will follow the rules as they are currently written (again, see #978).
...

Additional context:
...