Harvard Fall Tournament at Rockford Auburn HS (IL) 12/12/09

[Charley Pride]

Auburn's mirror of 2009 HFT will be this coming Saturday and Auburn High School in Rockford. Below is the team listing in alphabetical order. Note that this is a five-on-five event.

Auburn - 2
Belvidere North - 2
Culver Academies - 2
Guilford
Keith Country Day
LaSalle-Peru - 2
Loyola Academy - 2
New Trier - 2
St. Ignatius
Sterling
Sterling Newman
Stevenson - 2
Stillman Valley
Wehaton North - 2
Wheaton-Warrenville South - 2

Waitlisted: McHenry


The field is closed, but I supposed you can add yourself to the waitlist if that floats your boat.

EDIT: Attachments, Field corrections

[Your Cup of Robust Tea]

Two things.

a) I think she wanted this in the Illinois forum (is there even a difference?).

b) I don't think there are further admissions being made, due to limitations on moderators and whatnot.

[styxman]

Hold the boat - Keith Country Day has a team? Somebody email me their coach's email address, please! (and actually, Belvidere North, Sterling Newman, and Stillman Valley's coach, too, I don't think I've got updated contacts for them either)

[Your Cup of Robust Tea]

Hold the boat - Keith Country Day has a team? Somebody email me their coach's email address, please! (and actually, Belvidere North, Sterling Newman, and Stillman Valley's coach, too, I don't think I've got updated contacts for them either)

I'll get this to you by tomorrow. I have a cousin who goes there and is apparently on the Keith Country Day team, but wasn't able to provide the coach's email when I called her.

EDIT: Clarity

[dtaylor4]

Through 5:

Auburn is undefeated, beating St. Ignatius by 10 in the fifth power-matched round. Playoff RRs are starting now. I'd post stats, but I can't access my netfiles due to the RPS network being retarded.

[wexs883198215]

Is this the last scheduled mirror of HFT?

[Crazy Andy Watkins]

Is this the last scheduled mirror of HFT?

Indeed.

[Captain Sinico]

Top bracket final results:
Auburn A, 9-1
St. Ignatius, 8-2
Stevenson A, 7-3 (22.82 PBCPBC)
Loyola A, 7-3 (20.86 PBCPBC)
New Trier A, 5-5
Culver A, 3-7.

Per the rules, no final was played and the 3rd and 4th places were decided on points on bonus controlled per bonus controlled.

[Jane Fairfax]

As has been, said, Auburn A won the tournament with a 9-1 record. We finished 5-0 in the morning, while St. Ignatius, Stevenson, and Loyola all finishing 4-1 and New Trier and Culver having the highest PPB of the 3-2 teams.

Andrew Deveau easily was top scorer, finishing with 45+ more ppg than anyone else.

It was a good day of quizbowl and thanks to everyon who helped.

[dtaylor4]

I apologize, but stats are unavailable for right now. The main file was on my flash drive, which I have somehow misplaced, much to my chagrin. Once I am able to procure it again, stats will be up shortly afterwards.

[Your Cup of Robust Tea]

A big thanks to everyone who helped this tournament run well, especially the moderators and DTaylor for the statistics (which have apparently been temporarily misplaced). Today was fun, and we enjoyed the set (as well as Sorice's commentary on it, of course).

I eagerly look forward to NTV.

[styxman]

Out of curiosity, why no advantaged final? (I see that the rules posted earlier do not allow for one - why don't they?)

[Charley Pride]

Out of curiosity, why no advantaged final? (I see that the rules posted earlier do not allow for one - why don't they?)

Honestly there's no great reason. There was time for one, but the best reason for why we didn't have one would in fact be time limitations. I'd want an advantaged final next time.

[Coach G]

The rules did call for/allow one. . .I think the rules posted are not the final version. Auburn defeated St. Ignatius, the second place team, twice during the regular ten rounds of play. That's why there was not another round between them. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by an advantaged final?

[styxman]

Out of curiosity, why no advantaged final? (I see that the rules posted earlier do not allow for one - why don't they?)

Honestly there's no great reason. There was time for one, but the best reason for why we didn't have one would in fact be time limitations. I'd want an advantaged final next time.

That's unfortunate. Welp, live and learn for next year, I suppose.

[Secretary of Bobcats]

The rules did call for/allow one. . .I think the rules posted are not the final version. Auburn defeated St. Ignatius, the second place team, twice during the regular ten rounds of play. That's why there was not another round between them. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by an advantaged final?

Well normally it is not done by head-to-head records, but rather overall and since Ignatius was 8-2 and Auburn was 9-1, Ignatius was only 1 game behind. Thus, normal (ACF-style) procedures would be to hold an advantaged final between Ignatius and Auburn with Auburn having the advantage.

[cornfused]

The rules about the final as announced pre-tourney:

"If there is a tie in the upper bracket after round 10, another round will be played to determine the champion. If there is a multi-way tie after 10 rounds, e.g. 3 teams with one loss each, they will be ranked based on average bonus points per controlled bonus. The 2nd and 3rd place teams on that criterion will play either a half round or a full round (depending on what time it is then) to determine which one will play the other team for the championship. In other cases, to break a tie by record for ranking, we will use average points scored per bonus the team controls (this does not include rebound or stolen bonus points) for the entire day."

So while it would have been great to play an advantaged final (especially considering the closeness of the games between Auburn and St. Ignatius) and I supported the possibility of one happening, the tourney rules clearly stated: no final unless there's a tie for first place after ten rounds.

[cornfused]

The rules did call for/allow one. . .I think the rules posted are not the final version. Auburn defeated St. Ignatius, the second place team, twice during the regular ten rounds of play. That's why there was not another round between them. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by an advantaged final?

Well normally it is not done by head-to-head records, but rather overall and since Ignatius was 8-2 and Auburn was 9-1, Ignatius was only 1 game behind. Thus, normal (ACF-style) procedures would be to hold an advantaged final between Ignatius and Auburn with Auburn having the advantage.

Basically, under standard ACF rules, you play an advantaged final (two games, advantaged team wins tourney by winning either game) unless a team has cleared the field by two games after regular play finishes. So an ACF tourney would've had Ignatius-Auburn in round 11... and if Ignatius won, then Ignatius-Auburn again in round 12.

Auburn was 2-0 against St. I in regular play, but to count this as the tiebreak would basically forgive Auburn for the (of course, only relatively) "bad" loss they took against Loyola. Imagine if Auburn had lost to, say, New Trier as well. Then Auburn's still 2-0 against Ignatius, but RA and St. I have two losses each and we would've had a final.

[adeveau]

So, basically, there should have been an advantaged final?

[Charley Pride]

What we did followed the rules we set out.

That said, I will say that I don't agree with the rules, and I partially take responsibility for not realizing the night before (when we were discussing format) that there was no stipulation for a true final match. This happened last year at NTV, and it happened again this past Saturday: the championship was decided between two teams when one of the teams beat a third team. Last year we lost to Loyola in the penultimate match of afternoon pool play, but we won the tournament when we won the last match against Carbondale. I don't think there ever should be an afternoon playoff decided without an advantaged final; it defies convention and makes for anticlimactic finishes.

A tournament winner should always be decided through a final match that both teams must have earn a right to play in, unless, in a freak circustance, there is a team with a distinct two-game advantage. I'm sorry this didn't happen at Auburn.

[adeveau]

That came off as more hostile than I meant it to. I really enjoyed the tournament and I was even okay with no advantaged final. I just thought that Ms. Greene said there should have been one. That's all.

[Charley Pride]

That came off as more hostile than I meant it to. I really enjoyed the tournament and I was even okay with no advantaged final. I just thought that Ms. Greene said there should have been one. That's all.

If you're talking to me, I didn't take any hostility. I actually felt bad about how it ended up, and I was gonna type that message up anyway.

[Coach G]

Since posting of full stats will be delayed per Donald's earlier post, I'll give here some of the scores/results of matches among the top bracket teams.
You'll see that there were many great matches; I wish I could have seen more of them.

Day's records -
1st Auburn A 9-1 (5-0 AM), loss to Loy A in the PM
2nd St. Ignatius 8-2 (4-1 AM), both losses to Aub A, 1 in AM, 1 in PM
3rd Stevenson A 7-3 (4-1 AM), 2 losses to St. Ig - AM & PM, 1 loss to Aub A in PM
4th Loyola A 7-3 (4-1 AM), 1 loss to St. Ignatius in PM, 2 losses to Stev. A 1 in AM & 1 in PM
5th New Trier A 5-5 (4-1 AM), AM loss to St. Ig
6th Culver A 3-7 (3-2 AM), AM losses to Aub A and NT A

From AM Swiss power-paired rounds (played on rds. 1-5 of the Harvard questions) -
rd. 3: St. Ig 520 - NT 130, Stev 450 - Loy 270, Aub 470 - Culv 210
rd. 4: St. Ig 370 - Stev 360, Aub 610 - Stillman Valley 60 (the only round for the day with a team scoring over 600, I believe)
rd. 5: Aub 350 - St. Ig 340, Loy 480 - WWS 220*, Stev 490 - Aub B 120, NT 350 - Culv 260 * WWS was missing 1 or more starters all day

From PM bracketed rounds (top six teams based on AM were in this bracket) - played on rds. 6-10 of Harvard questions -
Rd. 6: St. Ig 340 - Loy 320, Aub 480 - Culv 220, Stev 570 - NT 170
Rd. 7: Stev 370 - Loy 340, Aub 510 - NT 180, St. Ig 520 - Culv 140
Rd. 8: Loy 360 - Aub 300, NT 290 - Culv 270, St. Ig 430 - Stev 240
Rd. 9: Loy 300 - NT 290, Aub 410 - St. Ig 240, Stev 430 - Culv 150
Rd. 10: Aub 480 - Stev 240, St. Ig 380 - NT 210, Loy 350 - Culv 250

[cornfused]

That came off as more hostile than I meant it to. I really enjoyed the tournament and I was even okay with no advantaged final. I just thought that Ms. Greene said there should have been one. That's all.

Ms. Greene misunderstood the term "advantaged final" - according to the tourney rules, no, there should NOT have been an advantaged final.

[crs@mchsi.com]

Thank you Linda Greene for posting more results. Is this the official site for tournament results? There were more results in our local paper today but still looking for individual stats and the complete results. Will there be more than what was in the newspaper? Sorry for all of the questions, we are new to this. thanks!!

[dtaylor4]

Thank you Linda Greene for posting more results. Is this the official site for tournament results? There were more results in our local paper today but still looking for individual stats and the complete results. Will there be more than what was in the newspaper? Sorry for all of the questions, we are new to this. thanks!!

If you check earlier upthread, you'll read about my mishap with my flash drive. Stats will be up by Monday. Any questions, email me.

[styxman]

Thank you Linda Greene for posting more results. Is this the official site for tournament results? There were more results in our local paper today but still looking for individual stats and the complete results. Will there be more than what was in the newspaper? Sorry for all of the questions, we are new to this. thanks!!

And yeah, Donald's stats will be complete, including individual results. A hearty welcome for KCD to the quizbowl circuit - after years of watching you guys do well at ICTM and WYSE, it's wonderful to see your debut come at a good quizbowl event like Auburn's HFT mirror. We hope to see you at Huskie Bowl at NIU in February!

[dtaylor4]

I apologize profusely for the delay, my flash drive was kindly sent to me by the person who found it, so the stats were recovered.

Prelims
Overall

Note: The bounceback was only used to remove bounceback points from the bonus conversion statistic. The B/C that was utilized is the conversion rate for bonuses controlled by that team.

If there are any errors, let me know, and I'll do my best to correct them.

[JackGlerum]

UIUC password protected for me.

[Crazy Andy Watkins]

UIUC password protected for me.

Me too.

[jonah]

Hm, Donald's netfiles were working for me earlier but aren't now. In any events, the stats are also available here (prelims) and here (full).

[Cernel Joson]

Pardon me here, but I'm surprised. Comparing these stats to the Decemberist stats, it looks like HSAPQ set 9 (or the bonuses, at least) was a good bit tougher than HFT. If someone wants, I can post a comparison, but really, an HSAPQ set shouldn't even be as difficult as HFT.

EDIT: I just noticed that this is a 5 on 5 event, which could screw up the numbers. Still, I think this should be looked into.

[sageorator]

Pardon me here, but I'm surprised. Comparing these stats to the Decemberist stats, it looks like HSAPQ set 9 (or the bonuses, at least) was a good bit tougher than HFT. If someone wants, I can post a comparison, but really, an HSAPQ set shouldn't even be as difficult as HFT.

EDIT: I just noticed that this is a 5 on 5 event, which could screw up the numbers. Still, I think this should be looked into.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there were bouncebacks, which would inflate numbers.

[Cernel Joson]

Pardon me here, but I'm surprised. Comparing these stats to the Decemberist stats, it looks like HSAPQ set 9 (or the bonuses, at least) was a good bit tougher than HFT. If someone wants, I can post a comparison, but really, an HSAPQ set shouldn't even be as difficult as HFT.

EDIT: I just noticed that this is a 5 on 5 event, which could screw up the numbers. Still, I think this should be looked into.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there were bouncebacks, which would inflate numbers.

Well, no, bounceback stats are listed separately.

[dtaylor4]

Pardon me here, but I'm surprised. Comparing these stats to the Decemberist stats, it looks like HSAPQ set 9 (or the bonuses, at least) was a good bit tougher than HFT. If someone wants, I can post a comparison, but really, an HSAPQ set shouldn't even be as difficult as HFT.

EDIT: I just noticed that this is a 5 on 5 event, which could screw up the numbers. Still, I think this should be looked into.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there were bouncebacks, which would inflate numbers.

The bouncebacks were taken out by adding in rebounds, which aren't really accurate. The bonus conversion shown is only for controlled bonuses, just like as if there weren't bouncebacks.

If someone can devise a way to accurately track bounceback conversion as well as regular bonus conversion without making it cumbersome for the people involved, I'm all ears.

As for the stats: I made a few corrections, but forgot to redo the permissions. They should be good now.

EDIT: As if I couldn't do even more stupid s*** today.

[sageorator]

Pardon me here, but I'm surprised. Comparing these stats to the Decemberist stats, it looks like HSAPQ set 9 (or the bonuses, at least) was a good bit tougher than HFT. If someone wants, I can post a comparison, but really, an HSAPQ set shouldn't even be as difficult as HFT.

EDIT: I just noticed that this is a 5 on 5 event, which could screw up the numbers. Still, I think this should be looked into.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there were bouncebacks, which would inflate numbers.

Well, no, bounceback stats are listed separately.

I was talking about the PPG, but looking back at the Decembrist, I see your point. Considering the criticism the initial incarnation of HFT got for difficulty, this should be looked at.

[dtaylor4]

I was talking about the PPG, but looking back at the Decembrist, I see your point. Considering the criticism the initial incarnation of HFT got for difficulty, this should be looked at.

Bouncebacks still inflate PPG, just not to the degree that they would influence B/C.

[Crazy Andy Watkins]

I was talking about the PPG, but looking back at the Decembrist, I see your point. Considering the criticism the initial incarnation of HFT got for difficulty, this should be looked at.

Bouncebacks still inflate PPG, just not to the degree that they would influence B/C.

Don't those stats separate points per bounceback and points per bonus? I can't tell, I guess.

[wexs883198215]

I was talking about the PPG, but looking back at the Decembrist, I see your point. Considering the criticism the initial incarnation of HFT got for difficulty, this should be looked at.

Bouncebacks still inflate PPG, just not to the degree that they would influence B/C.

Don't those stats separate points per bounceback and points per bonus? I can't tell, I guess.

He's talking about points per game though.

[Crazy Andy Watkins]

I was talking about the PPG, but looking back at the Decembrist, I see your point. Considering the criticism the initial incarnation of HFT got for difficulty, this should be looked at.

Bouncebacks still inflate PPG, just not to the degree that they would influence B/C.

Don't those stats separate points per bounceback and points per bonus? I can't tell, I guess.

He's talking about points per game though.

Not in the clause "they would influence B/C" which implies that bouncebacks would influence bonus conversion. Is that true if--as I see in the stats--points per bonus and points per bounceback are listed separately?

[dtaylor4]

I was talking about the PPG, but looking back at the Decembrist, I see your point. Considering the criticism the initial incarnation of HFT got for difficulty, this should be looked at.

Bouncebacks still inflate PPG, just not to the degree that they would influence B/C.

Don't those stats separate points per bounceback and points per bonus? I can't tell, I guess.

He's talking about points per game though.

Not in the clause "they would influence B/C" which implies that bouncebacks would influence bonus conversion. Is that true if--as I see in the stats--points per bonus and points per bounceback are listed separately?

They are, in this case. The rebound stats aren't perfectly accurate, since the number of opportunities is wrong. There is a way to calculate rebound conversion percentage that I just thought of:

[30 * (opponent TU) - (BP scored by opponent on opponent-controlled bonuses)]/10 = rebound chances
points scored on rebound = total rebound points
rebound chances / rebound points = conversion

if the bonuses points are broken down, which can (and should) be done by the scorekeeper, then the proper data can be entered into SQBS.

[Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It]

bonuses

It's bonuses.

[Charley Pride]

Yeah, bonuses bounced back. Assuming the bounceback points are accurate (which they apparently aren't), then the real total points for Auburn would be 4670 - 700, and our real PPG without bouncebacks would be 397...does that sound more reasonable?

[dtaylor4]

The amount of points gained off of bouncebacks should be accurate. The number of bounceback opportunities is in error.

[Charley Pride]

I did notice that PPB were markedly higher at HFT, and that PPG was also legitimately higher, especially considering both tournaments had bouncebacks.

To the issue of bonuses, I would say that it could be a symptom of teams improving. Furthermore, I would say that teams looked awfully sluggish at Decemeberist for much of the day. I don't know how seriously people will take that statement, not am I sure how much it applies, but that's the only explanation I have.

The issue of PPG is resolved by the fact that higher level teams played fewer difficult games at HFT than at Decemberist. This explanation is based strictly on my memory of who we played and not at all on studying actual matches. There were matches at HFT where Auburn scored 590 and 610 points. Nothing of the sort happened at Decemberist.

[Dan-Don]

This was power-matched though, right? That's always going to affect the prelim PPG. Decemberist wasn't.

[dtaylor4]

This was power-matched though, right? That's always going to affect the prelim PPG. Decemberist wasn't.

The prelims were power-matched. The playoffs were group RR based on the prelim record, then controlled PPB.

[dtaylor4]

Any corrections sent me have been incorporated into the stats. Still the same link.