The Quizbowl Resource Center

I am amazed you kept up the update speed for as long as you did. It's been great having these rankings around.

Thanks for the kind words. I hope everyone's enjoying them and that they have a positive impact on the game, in terms of viewing the difficulty of sets and in terms of recognizing teams.

I would be able to continue it without any problems - really, there's one full weekend of tournaments remaining this calendar year, maybe two depending on how you view the 17th. And the 7th isn't too full either. However, I'm taking the PCAT on the 10th, so I need to focus on that.

It's had somewhat of a sobering effect on my team.

One on hand, it somewhat inspires them to do more to get on the list.

On the other hand, it makes them realize how much of the last year and a half we wasted not getting any better, while a huge portion of the country vastly improved. One of them expressed the mentality that "it just makes me want to quit" to see so many better teams than this no matter how hard we think we're working. It's difficult to see such a huge gap between what we are and what we thought we'd be. It also certainly makes me feel like eating my words for predicting us to be in a much better position than lots of other people anticipated. I guess that's what i get for trying to be optimistic for once.

I have your team 128th in the extended version of my rankings. That's with just the prelims for GSAC. With the playoffs, you'd probably move up about 10 spots. I certainly think there's no shame in being one of the top 120 or so teams in the country.

Taking it even further, I'd emphasize to your team that there's a real thin line separating teams at that level. If they had answered just 10 more bonus parts correctly, that would have moved them up to roughly 92nd. If you'd make that 20 more correct, they'd be up around 70th. That's not considering any additional gains, given that learning these other answers usually doesn't just happen in a vacuum.

And there's other factors, like how lucky you are in getting bonuses you know, putting up more stat lines would (hopefully) show your team's improvement, etc.

There's also the sense that rankings are rankings and that you play quizbowl to have fun and win. I like Fred's rankings and I think they're interesting, but your team should hopefully not have required rankings to realize where they stand within the entire high school community (and as Fred points out, top 150 is quite good). The sky's the limit for improving and moving up and I'd argue that there are immensely thin levels of gradation separating most teams on any rankings. When I ranked the top 25 colleges, I found that after about 11, 12, or so, you could make really make an argument to rank numerous teams in any order from then on out, including some who didn't even make the list.

etchdulac wrote:

Fred wrote:Okay, I've updated the spreadsheet with all the info I could find. We're up to 1076 stat lines from 60 tournaments on 13 question sets.

Best power rates to date, regardless of sets:

Dorman A: 10.89 powers per game (BDAT)
IMSA A: 10.27 15pg (HT22)
IMSA: 10.18 15pg (OLEFIN)
Auburn: 9.91 15pg (HT22)
"Hothem/Hariharan A": 9.67 15pg (BDAT)
IMSA: 9.56 15pg (IS109)
Dunbar: 9.55 15pg (HT22)
Warren G. Harding: 9.22 15pg (IS108A)
Olmsted Falls: 9.00 15pg (IS108A)
DCC A: 9.00 15pg (DAFT)

On HT22, Seven Lakes matched IMSA with 10.27 15 pg.
http://texasquizbowl.org/d/@111203HoHoH ... s.html#t20

Ladue just got 11.6 11.7 powers per game on HT22 at Tiger Bowl (and 26.09 ppb 26.14 ppb!).

Edit: reflect fact that stats are posted

Here are the stats for Saturday's Tiger Bowl at Mizzou run on HSAPQ 22:

http://hsquizbowl.org/db/tournaments/40 ... all_games/

First: Ladue Horton Watkins "A"
Second: Rock Bridge "A"
Third: North Kansas City "A"

Iyas D. (Rock Bridge "A") was tops in the individual stats with 128.00 PPG.
Ladue "A" played with a 3-man team, as well as a girl.

Fred wrote:HSQBRank is going to be on recess from now until, at the earliest, after the weekend of January 14.

If I somehow fall into a bunch of free time where I can incorporate this coming weekend's results into the rankings, I will do so, but the odds are very much against that happening.

Does this mean that stats from tournaments on 12/3 (that were not available in the 12/5 rankings) will not be incorporated into the rankings until 1/14?

If I don't do another update until then, then they won't be incorporated.

Here's betting our pathetic NTV performance drops us out of the top 100.

tinioril wrote:Here's betting our pathetic NTV performance drops us out of the top 100.

Were you missing anyone?

Our 3rd, Tyler. He put up some good stats at kickoff but will have speech conflicts until mid-February, which is a problem.
EDIT: Forgot about Sam, we were missing him too. He's probably our 5th or 6th.
But we gave Libertyville their only two victories of the day. And just generally did not play well.

Here's the latest spreadsheet of all the stats. 1629 individual stat lines!

Dorman is listed as having 10.2 15PG on GSAC, but their 102 powers at New Trier Varsity included the 2 tiebreaker games they won, for a total of 12 games. I assume that Loyola and Seven Lakes will have the same problem.

I've updated the difficulty adjustments for all sets that have been used to date (except for any that I forgot).

Double post to say that good progress has been made on the new set of rankings. They likely won't be completed for another few days, though.

I'm also considering expanding the rankings by some number divisible by 5.

Fred wrote:They likely won't be completed for another few days, though.

I lieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed. You can find the new rankings here.

Just pointing out that #71 "Utica", is "Utica Academy", the IB school for Utica Community schools. That should not be confused with Utica High School in the same district, that to my knowledge has no quiz bowl team.

A count of teams in the top 150 from states/provinces.

20 Illinois
14 California
10 North Carolina
10 Ohio
10 Texas
9 Kentucky
8 Georgia
7 Missouri
6 Minnesota
6 New York
5 Michigan
5 South Carolina
5 Virginia
4 Maryland
4 New Jersey
3 Alabama
3 Delaware
2 District of Columbia
2 Florida
2 Iowa
2 Louisiana
2 Pennsylvania
2 Tennessee
2 Vermont
1 Connecticut
1 Idaho
1 Indiana
1 Mississippi
1 Montana
1 New Hampshire
1 Ontario

HSQB Rankings wrote:Most notably, performances on A-sets, BDAT and DAFT will be weighted heavier due to the adjustments showing those sets to be harder for teams being tracked than previously thought, while performances on HFT, HSAPQ, FKT, and GSAC will be adjusted to show those sets were easier than previously thought.

Just an observation, but shouldn't this be the other way around?

Ulster Clay Pigeon Shooting Association wrote:

HSQB Rankings wrote:Most notably, performances on A-sets, BDAT and DAFT will be weighted heavier due to the adjustments showing those sets to be harder for teams being tracked than previously thought, while performances on HFT, HSAPQ, FKT, and GSAC will be adjusted to show those sets were easier than previously thought.

Just an observation, but shouldn't this be the other way around?

Presumably he means something like "I thought HFT was a 9 on the difficulty scale when it was really a 7 and thought A-sets were a 2 when they were really a 3" as opposed to "Top Teams can only be distinguished by A-sets since A-sets are the only things hard enough."

Mewto55555 wrote:

Ulster Clay Pigeon Shooting Association wrote:

HSQB Rankings wrote:Most notably, performances on A-sets, BDAT and DAFT will be weighted heavier due to the adjustments showing those sets to be harder for teams being tracked than previously thought, while performances on HFT, HSAPQ, FKT, and GSAC will be adjusted to show those sets were easier than previously thought.

Just an observation, but shouldn't this be the other way around?

Presumably he means something like "I thought HFT was a 9 on the difficulty scale when it was really a 7 and thought A-sets were a 2 when they were really a 3" as opposed to "Top Teams can only be distinguished by A-sets since A-sets are the only things hard enough."

This is the intended way for it to be parsed.

Power stats for teams that played more than 10 matches at NTV were still only divided by 10, so Dorman, Seven Lakes, and Loyola need to have this corrected.

Will do, but note that isn't going to have any real effect on the rankings.

The afternoon stats for HFT at Auburn are now out and can be factored into future rankings.

King of Carrot Flowers wrote:The afternoon stats for HFT at Auburn are now out and can be factored into future rankings.

Maybe some rankings other than this one.

A new number one.

You have this stat line

Rankings wrote:Ohio State Winter War (HT22, 303.0 ppg, 3.3 15pg, 19.39 ppb)

for #98 Copley, but it's actually South Range's, just an fyi.

Whoops. Will be fixed for next week.

Since you do seem to be making a note of when players are missing from a team, I thought I'd note the strength of the GDS A team at various tournaments in the year:
VCU Winter and Maryland Fall were full strength teams
ACF Fall, Olefin, and GSAC were all played down one player
The Saint Jospeh's Mirror of DAFT III was played down two players
At Half Hollow Hills we split into two teams, each of which had two players from A-team
If stats ever appear for the Centennial tournament or NHBB, those were both played by a single player.

SunWukong wrote:If stats ever appear for the Centennial tournament or NHBB, those were both played by a single player.

The Maryland History Bowl results are here: http://www.historybowl.com/2011-2012-results/?site=3099, but I do not believe Fred factors NHBB results into his rankings at all.

And here is the spreadsheet of all the stats ever (from this year) (that include a usable PPB). 1,897 stat lines!

Fred wrote:And here is the spreadsheet of all the stats ever (from this year) (that include a usable PPB). 1,897 stat lines!

Thanks, Fred. Are you aware that New Trier had a separate tournament for non-nationals caliber teams on GSAC? I bring it up b/c #77 Barrington A played that level at NTV and have stat lines from it, as does your # 88, and #117 ...
http://www.ihssbca.org/statistics/2011_ ... ndings.php (overall)

Moving Day wrote:

Fred wrote:And here is the spreadsheet of all the stats ever (from this year) (that include a usable PPB). 1,897 stat lines!

Thanks, Fred. Are you aware that New Trier had a separate tournament for non-nationals caliber teams on GSAC? I bring it up b/c #77 Barrington A played that level at NTV and have stat lines from it, as does your # 88, and #117 ...
http://www.ihssbca.org/statistics/2011_ ... ndings.php (overall)

Yep, I am aware. Those stat lines are in the Excel sheet but not my rankings. It's something I'm working on, but it's lower priority than trying to maintain the rankings and non-rankings things.

So I updated the rankings here. I added one and a half sets of stats (didn't feel like waiting on stat files to output a combined set of stats for the Standard division at Ultima).

After some consideration and with a new stat line from Rancho Bernardo, I've decided to use the rest of their season's performance when determining where to rank them.

You might also be interested in knowing that Bellarmine (finally!) has a stat line (from BARGE).

It might be useful to realize that the HFT mirror at Auburn's afternoon stats have been up for quite a while now. The combined stats are here. Also, the last two rounds (advantaged finals) played by IMSA and Auburn were on (harder) Finals packets.

Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo my laptop crashed which has all the files on it.

Fred wrote:Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo my laptop crashed which has all the files on it.

I guess from now on we'll have to decide which teams know more things through some sort of primitive competition where teams use buzzing devices to answer questions.

The Hub (Gainesville, Florida) wrote:

Fred wrote:Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo my laptop crashed which has all the files on it.

I guess from now on we'll have to decide which teams know more things through some sort of primitive competition where teams use buzzing devices to answer questions.

This, or Fred's local computer-servicing store will help us to move from the dark ages swiftly back into the modern era.

DO NOT PANIC I HAVE RECOVERED ALL OF THE FILES

More like KEEP CALM AND CONSISTENTLY UNDERRATE TEAMS THAT START WITH A 'K'.

jonpin wrote:More like KEEP CALM AND CONSISTENTLY UNDERRATE TEAMS THAT START WITH A 'K'.

KLADUE?

jonpin wrote:More like KEEP CALM AND CONSISTENTLY UNDERRATE TEAMS THAT START WITH A 'K'.

Caesar Rodney starts with a "C," Jon.

Due to my computer issues and then focusing on SCT, I have accumulated almost 400 (!) stat lines to go through since the last update. Bear with me.

Thanks! Just a note, for Rube Golberg, DCC A was actually DCC B, although this doesn't seem to have affected DCC A's ranking.

Still crossing my fingers--any hope of getting stats from Springfield NAQT Invite? (it was January
21) We go to one good tournament this year and get one shot at the rankings and this is what happens.

tintinnabulation wrote:Still crossing my fingers--any hope of getting stats from Springfield NAQT Invite? (it was January
21) We go to one good tournament this year and get one shot at the rankings and this is what happens.

Fred does his best to get stats from every good tournament that he can find. Odds are if the stats are posted on the forums, which the Springfield Invite stats were, he'll include them. If he didn't then it's probably more prudent to produce said stats than just bug him about it, although it's entirely your prerogative.

EDIT: Here are, what I believe to be, the stats in question: http://www.ihssbca.org/statistics/2012_ ... ndings.php

Yeah, if stats are missing but you want them in there, you should post a link to them.