Page 1 of 2

Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:34 am
by Edward Powers
Saint Joseph High School of Metuchen, NJ is pleased to announce that it will host a Pre-Christmas Tournament on December 17th, 2011 using a Mirror of the DAFT III Question Set written by Dunbar High School of Lexington, Kentucky.

Fee Structure:$70.00 for the first team, $50.00 for each additional team.

Discounts:$10 off for each buzzer system; $15 off for each moderator; $20 off for travel of 150 miles or more. Minimum payment per team: $40.00

Tournament Structure:The final format will be determined by the field size. We are targeting a field of 24, but could host as many as 28 if we could attract a sufficient staff. Our hope is to run a preliminary round-robin then re-bracket and have another round robin for all teams. Minimally, everyone should play at least 9-10 rounds.

Registration:You can register right here online or you can email me at edwardpowers948@msn.com. Please place "Christmas Tournament" or "DAFT III" in the subject line. On the morning of the tournament, registration will run from 7:45-8:45 in our cafeteria, and we will start Round 1 by 9AM. We will have a light breakfast of bagels, juice, etc., while registration is taking place and final brackets are formed. Also, we have ample parking space on campus if this is a concern, and we encourage everyone to park behind the school in our large lots and enter the school via the cafeteria, which you really cannot miss after you park. You can pay your registration fees at this time. However, if you wish to pay in advance, you can mail it to Ed Powers, St. Joseph High School, 145 Plainfield Ave, Metuchen NJ 08840.

Directions: With the advent of online services like Mapquest and your very own GPS systems, I trust that our address and zip code above will be sufficient aids in finding us.

Field Update ( 28 Teams, 21 Buzzers, 18 Moderators):

Seton Hall (1, 3, 1)
Millburn (3, 2, 0)
Ridgewood ( 3, 2, 0)
Wissahickon (1, 0, 0)
High Technology (3, 1, 0)
Hunter (4, 2, 0)
Great Neck South (2, 1, 0)
Bergen Academies (3, 1, 0)
Kellenberg (1, 2, 1)
Wilmington Charter (4, 4, 1)
Georgetown Day School ( 1, 0, 0)
Saint Joe's House Teams ( 2, 2, 15)

THE FIELD IS NOW CLOSED

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 7:04 pm
by Edward Powers
I was informed earlier today that this Mirror of DAFT III has been Platinum Certified by PACE. This means if you finish in the Top 25 % of the field, you can register for the NSC immediately, since this tournament occurs after the earliest date anyone can register, December 1st. Furthermore, as a qualifier at a Platinum Tournament, you will automatically receive a $75.00 deduction in your registration fee.

So, come join the competition and the fun while having a chance to earn an earlier and less expensive spot at Nationals!

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Tue Oct 11, 2011 9:21 pm
by SHP Pirate
Ed ... SHP will be there. Details to follow soon. At least one team, three buzzers, and one moderator.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:38 pm
by adzaho31
This is probably a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway. Is this tournament (as well as GSAC) a HSNCT qualifier? In other words, if a team finishes top 15% at this tournament, does said team qualify for NAQT nationals?
Thanks

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2011 6:13 am
by Edward Powers
It is a good question. Unfortunately it DOES NOT qualify you for the HSNCT in Atlanta. It seems PACE honors NAQT qualifiers for its tournaments, but NAQT does not seem to reciprocate for non NAQT question sets like DAFT or GSAC or OLEFIN. If this latter information about NAQT is incorrect, I trust that someone from NAQT will log on and correct it.

However, as stated upthread, since this tournament has been certified as a Platinum Tournament by PACE, the Top 25% of the teams in the field qualify for PACE's NSC (National Scholastic Championship) at Washington University in Saint Louis at the end of the year. In addition, it gives a $75.00 discount for registration for the NSC and allows teams to register immediately, since the December 1st registration opportunity for all Platinum teams only will already have been passed by the date of SJHS' Mirror of DAFT III.

I hope this helps.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 8:48 am
by adzaho31
It helps a lot. Thank you so much.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:12 pm
by Important Bird Area
Edward Powers wrote:It is a good question. Unfortunately it DOES NOT qualify you for the HSNCT in Atlanta. It seems PACE honors NAQT qualifiers for its tournaments, but NAQT does not seem to reciprocate for non NAQT question sets like DAFT or GSAC or OLEFIN. If this latter information about NAQT is incorrect, I trust that someone from NAQT will log on and correct it.
Sorry, just catching up with this- I don't always expect NAQT policy questions to show up in the announcement thread for a non-NAQT tournament.

Coach Powers is correct- a tournament must use NAQT questions to automatically qualify the top 15% of the field for HSNCT. However, strong performances on quality non-NAQT sets like DAFT will certainly improve a team's chances of earning a wildcard bid to Atlanta. Please contact me if you have any questions about how to qualify for HSNCT.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:30 pm
by Great Bustard
Ed, I'll be directing our Hawaii tournament that day, so unfortunately I won't be able to make it, but put Ridgewood down as likely for 2 teams (possibly more) and 2 buzzers - more if you need them.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:23 pm
by Edward Powers
Bumped to encourage more registrations, since this is a little more than a month away.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 3:40 pm
by ryanrosenberg
Ardsley is interested, but very tentatively.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 8:46 pm
by Grace
High Tech should actually be able to supply one buzzer system as well.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 9:37 pm
by lchen
Hunter should be there with 2-4 teams and 2 buzzers.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 5:15 pm
by Edward Powers
Bumped once again to encourage additional registrations.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:38 pm
by felix
Great Neck South is interested in bringing one team (possibly two) and one buzzer.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:12 am
by Edward Powers
Welcome aboard, GNS.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:27 pm
by gstoye
Ed..

MAST will tentatively bring two teams and (definitely) one moderator.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 1:25 pm
by BroNi
We'll be there with 2 (3) teams, 2 buzzers, and one moderator.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2011 6:30 pm
by Edward Powers
Good to know you're coming, Brother. With your registration, we have between 18-24 teams coming, and 24 is actually the ideal number I was looking for given the number of classrooms easily available for our hosting.

So if other teams wish to register, feel free to do so and I will place you on a waiting list, since 6 of the 24 registrees are still uncertain registrants as of now. Once teams who have already registered clarify their final numbers, I can replace any dropped teams with those on the waiting list. And if demand is really great, I could expand the field to as many as 30 teams if I can be sure to have enough moderators, and the first teams on the waiting list would fill those spots. But for now I will simply use a waiting list until teams already registered clear up their numbers. And if any of those teams with unclear numbers at the current time wish to provide greater clarity, it would be greatly appreciated.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:40 pm
by Edward Powers
I am contemplating opening the field one last time, creating a hard cap of either 30 or 32 teams. Right now with 6 teams on the waiting list, and 21-24 already registered, we would have 27-30 teams registered with a little less than 3 weeks to go, more than enough time to get a firm 30 or 32 team commitment. I just received permission to add the rooms I will need, so space is not the problem. The only thing preventing me right now from expanding to 30 or 32 is knowing if I will have enough qualified moderators. If my alums and some colleagues on my staff get back to me in the near future, I will certainly open the field soon and move everyone currently on the waiting list off, but in the meantime if any teams already registered can bring another moderator with some experience, this would help greatly, since some of my alums might be tied up with mid-term exams. So, let me know if anyone coming or on the current waiting list can help with an extra moderator or 2---at a guaranteed $15.00 discount/moderator as well.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 6:08 pm
by Edward Powers
I have moved all the teams that were on the waiting list into the field. If anyone else is interested, let me know, and I can place you on our new waiting list. I do have hard cap of 32, but we are not there yet.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:58 pm
by Edward Powers
Could the four schools that are still unclear about the number of teams they are bringing on the 17th post here with clearer registration numbers as soon as possible? It would be greatly appreciated.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:53 pm
by jonpin
Bergen can make do with two teams, but if a spot opens up, we have enough people for a third team.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:42 pm
by BroNi
Kellenberg will have 2 teams.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:23 pm
by bdubbs
Hi Coach Powers, Wilmington Charter will bring 4 teams.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:08 pm
by Edward Powers
The field is now frozen at 28-30 teams. Bergen should note I added the 3rd team it requested.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2011 11:13 pm
by Edward Powers
Some teams have withdrawn, so if any new schools or extra teams from schools already registered wish to join us, there is still some room.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:49 am
by Great Bustard
Ed,
I know the chance of this is quite unlikely, but in light of the comments on the Belvidere thread, is there any chance of getting a different set and/or splitting the field for 2 divisions? I'd really recommend a field split in any case. I really am concerned about Ridgewood being at this in light of a strong field, and the difficulty of the set that seems it was designed to prepare Dunbar for ACF Nationals while writing it.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 3:17 am
by Edward Powers
I do not know if getting a 2nd set is either possible or wise. Offhand, do you know of a 2nd set I could get on such short notice that would serve the purposes that you wish, which would be, I suppose, to give the weaker portion of the field, however that might be defined, a more appropriate challenge than a difficult set might provide? But is this in turn fair to Dunbar? I am sure the comments about the set made on the Belvidere North thread were made in good faith, but they were only the comments of two people AND they were about a relatively inexperienced field. In the case of SJHS' Mirror, a look at virtually all the schools registered reflects the opposite---almost all teams registered come from programs that have attended nationals or other challenging regional tournaments on a fairly regular basis, and those that have not are the small exception. But even these, if memory serves, are pretty gifted teams---or at least most of their A teams are. Further, given these observations, one must assume that the coaches of such experienced teams must have had a reasonably good idea that DAFT III might be a little more challenging---yet they registered multiple teams anyway. So even if the set might be harder than most, I cannot simply and unilaterally replace the judgments of a dozen or so coaches and/or teams with my own. It would not be fair to them or to Dunbar to act pre-emptively in this way.

But here is what I can do, since I also want to be fair to those schools that might wish for the playing field to change in some manner, and I can see three ways that this might be possible without creating a tempest in a teapot. All 3 methods require that the teams registered agree to one of the proposals I will now make:

Proposal 1: Keep things just as they are and let the 'change' occur naturally, during the competition known as the Prelims;

Proposal 2: This is the simpler of the remaining 2, involving no change in the question set, but simply a self-designated split in the field into an Expert division and a Novice Division, so that their opponents will be, from the very beginning of the day, on a more agreeably competitive level. Assuming teams would prefer to do this, this should not be too hard to do. Speaking hypothetically for purposes of illustration, perhaps 10 of the A teams and 6 of the B teams might self-select this Expert option? This would mean we would currently have an Expert division of 16 and a Novice division of let's say 11. I could of course add a comparable house team to the lower division and the split would be 16-12, an easy situation to bracket, and I would have no trouble doing this if the teams coming consented to do this. Perhaps the numbers might not be 16-12, but as long as there was a sensible and agreeable numerical split of some sort, this could be done.

Proposal 3: I would seek another set of questions and in effect create 2 tournaments, if this were overwhelmingly preferred to either of the two proposals above, and provided I could get such a set on such short notice. (DO YOU HAVE THE NAME OF SUCH POTENTIAL SET?) Further, I would still compensate Dunbar at the rate Dunbar would have been compensated had no such split occurred, and, further, I would need to know that organizations like PACE and NAQT would still see this as a field of 26-28 or so teams overall, and not, let's say, a field of only 16 upper teams for the purposes of national qualifications. Provided all of these criteria could be met, I would be willing to do this.

The real problem is defining the meaning of consent in the short time that is available if there is not unanimous support for one of the above proposals. What % of the schools registered would have to agree to implement any change in the current situation? 75%, or, 9 of the 12 schools registered? More? Less? Given the likelihood that this might be irresolvable on such short notice, does this become a TD's discretion? Any thoughts on this issue, or on the situation overall?

My goal is to offer the best competitive opportunity for all involved. So, if I get overwhelming feedback in support of one of the above proposals, I will follow that proposal. And unless I am informed otherwise, Proposal 1 will be my default Proposal. Any comments, remembering as you do that I do not wish to create a tempest, but wish instead to find the muse of prudence and collegiality as this is mutually examined by all who might be affected by whatever decision is ultimately made ?

EDIT: I welcome feedback from all members of the board, of course, but the most important practical feedback will be from those registered for next week's tournament, so I welcome as many of these responses as possible regarding the 3 Proposals above. So, if anyone who is coming next week is reading this, please feel free to add your thoughts and preferences to the discussion.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:58 am
by Great Bustard
Off hand, I don't know of any other set, but I also don't follow these things particularly closely, so I may not be aware of one out there. I think option 2 would be a really good idea. Ridgewood has said they're really looking forward to coming, so we may even be able to provide a 3rd team if it makes it easier for your bracketing. I'm not overly concerned about the questions, it's the questions and the really strong field combined that creates the concern for me. I would say that all of Ridgewood's teams belong in the novice division, but I'll let the kids make the final judgment.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:33 am
by ryanrosenberg
I would favor Options 2 or 3, with no real preference as to either. If you wish to find an additional set for the novice division, the Norcross BDAT set would seem to be the best available choice, given its difficulty (weighted about an IS set in Fred's rankings) and lack of mirrors in the Northeast.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:57 am
by Edward Powers
Ryan,

A point of clarification, please: Are you suggesting that Ardsley would prefer to play in the proposed Novice Division, irrespective of the set used, or, are you recommending Proposal 2 or 3 for those who might want the creation of a Novice Division?

In addition, the BDAT set you recommended seems somewhat tough as well---in the most recent iteration of the the set, in Missouri yesterday, circa 17 of the 21 teams in the field scored below 10 PPB---not an auspicious sign. Further, at Norcross' original host site, about half the teams were also below 10 PPB. So, on this preliminary inspection, it is not clear that this proposed set would be any less challenging for younger or less experienced teams than DAFT III would.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:53 am
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
Given the short notice and lack of alternative options, and having seen the set, I'd say that a Expert/Novice division split will help things in the most meaningful way. It won't solve things - you'll still have to say to the teams "this tournament is hard, often egregiously so" but it's entirely possible that knowing what you're going into ahead of time will prove to be enough to combat the negative feeling we all had yesterday, and that allowing teams to play it on a more level playing field from the word "go" will improve that.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:55 am
by tuscumbiaqb
After hearing BDAT yesterday at Missouri S&T, I would not recommend it if you're looking for a set of reasonable difficulty for B through D teams. Has the Minnesota Novice set been used yet in the Northeast? Noting that I have not heard or read the set, that seems like a reasonable option for your potential lower-division field.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 12:15 pm
by Edward Powers
Brad and Jason: Thanks for your input. I will explore the Minnesota option once I sign off, but first, here is an "Open Letter" in the form of a brief survey elaborating on my 2nd Proposal above:

To All Schools Registered for the SJHS Mirror of DAFT III:

A suggestion has been made that since DAFT III might be a very difficult Set for young or inexperienced teams, perhaps we should split the field into EXPERT & NOVICE DIVISIONS. I have indicated that I might be willing to do this, but only if the schools that have registered would vote overwhelmingly to do so, and, that admission into either division would be based on the choice of the schools involved themselves and not as a result of any arbitrary decision I might make.

So, first, would you be opposed to such a split in principle?

Second, if you were not opposed, which division or divisions would you select for your own team(s)?

Third, if you were opposed, would you object to such a change if a significant majority of the 12 schools coming---let's say at least 8, representing at least 67% of the schools involved---wanted me to create such a split in the field in order to create a greater number of more competitive matches for all teams throughout the entire day?

Fourth, if you were opposed even if a large percentage of other schools were not, what would you do? Would you make an objection, for the record, yet stay and play anyway, or would your opposition be so great that you would choose to withdraw from the tournament because of such a change at this late date?

Finally, could you express your preferences here, on this site? Or , if you prefer to respond off the record and wish to PM or email me instead, do you mind if I publish an overall summary of the wishes of the teams involved, without, of course, publishing your specific preferences, unless you ultimately instruct otherwise?

And you should know that I will make NO changes unless there are at least 8 schools that wish for me to do so.

Thanks for your time.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:04 pm
by anderson
Hi,

We're fine with the field being split into two divisions, given how difficult this set seems to be. We'd choose the expert division.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:31 pm
by Important Bird Area
Edward Powers wrote:I would need to know that organizations like PACE and NAQT would still see this as a field of 26-28 or so teams overall, and not, let's say, a field of only 16 upper teams for the purposes of national qualifications.
NAQT always treats tournaments as the total size of both divisions for qualifying purposes. (We don't want to give hosts an incentive to throw inexperienced JV teams into a varsity division.)

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 1:40 pm
by ryanrosenberg
I was recommending BDAT based on its similarity to an IS set, as I wasn't sure if St. Joe's wanted to go with a set that was above novice level but below DAFT level, or a true novice set. If they wish to use a set of easier difficulty, then disregard my suggestion of BDAT.

To respond to Coach Powers:
1) No, Ardsley would support splitting the field.
2) We would choose the Expert division.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:08 pm
by BroNi
1) Kellenberg would vote for splitting the field.
2) Kellenberg A - Expert; Kellenberg B - Novice

Is any HSAPQ set available? (Just asking/wondering.)

In addition, despite my post upstream, this is the weekend prior to our trimester finals, and we might have difficultly fielding the B team. My A team will also not be full. We may end up with one team of A/B team members. I will let you know as soon as I get final commitments from the team.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 4:16 pm
by felix
GNS votes for splitting the field; our A team would like to be in the Expert division (though we'll be missing most of our regular A team) and B team in the Novice division.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 6:05 pm
by Edward Powers
So far, 5 out of 5 schools expressing a preference have endorsed a split field, and this only took several hours to do. So, with any luck we might arrive at both a broad consensus for splitting the field and a sense of the numbers to be included within the split.

In the meantime, Brother Nigel, I have noted your concerns and I will await final word from you. And thanks for the update.

Finally, David---you initiated these potential changes with your post up-thread, so, given your preference for a split field, any comment on how Ridgewood will split its teams. One in each division, or, two in the novice division?

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 7:34 pm
by bdubbs
Wilmington Charter is fine with whatever everyone else decides to do. If the field is split, our A and B teams will be in Expert and C and D will play in Novice.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:10 pm
by Smuttynose Island
If you chose to split divisions, OLEFIN should be open for use for the lower division, provided that GDS doesn't chose to play in that division.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:19 pm
by Great Bustard
2 in the novice. Makes much more sense. We may be able to bring a 3rd if needed to help balance out the draw.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 9:12 pm
by Grace
I'd have to clear this with Dr. Eng first, but as far as I know:

We were aware when we signed up that DAFT is considered one of the harder pre-Nationals sets, and we have warned students accordingly.
1) We would not be opposed to such a split on principle.
2) High Tech A would definitely be in expert. B has had limited experience in serious quiz bowl, but, given the strength of the field, might be more comfortable in novice. C would definitely fall into novice.
3, 4) Not applicable (see response to 1 above).
5) We would prefer to have the brackets, largely because of the strength of the field and because we would like the B and C teams to have at least somewhat competitive matches. While we have talented players on both of those teams, they have had limited exposure to good quiz bowl, and they might have a more enjoyable day of competition if they play teams with similar levels of experience.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 10:02 pm
by Edward Powers
Grace and Bohan,

Thanks for responding. So far, with your responses, 7 out of 7 schools have no problem with splitting the field, assuming, that is, that Dr. Eng would have no problem with Grace's assessment here. And, of course, we are still waiting to hear from Hunter, GDS, Millburn, Bergen and SHP, and until we do we cannot draw any final conclusions just yet.

Nevertheless, I do want to thank everyone who has responded in such swift and cordial ways. I imagine the remaining 5 teams will do so in the very near future and we will be able to resolve this issue in a manner agreeable to all, given how thoughtfully everyone has approached this issue so far.

Right now, assuming Grace is correct, we seem to have 7 teams selecting play in the Expert Division, and 7-8 have expressed an interest to play in the Novice, should one be created. Were this trend to continue, it seems we might get a 12-14 split in either direction. But this is still speculative. The other teams will surely let us know their preferences soon.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:42 pm
by lchen
Hunter is opposed to a field split. However, if the field does end up being split, we'll enter 3 teams in the upper division and 1 in the novice division.

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:52 am
by Edward Powers
Does anyone know if PACE mimics NAQT's policy of counting all teams in both divisions if a field is split as is being contemplated here, or does PACE reduce the number of qualifiers in proportion to the numbers that move into the Novice or lower bracket?

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:55 am
by Guile Island
From the NSC website:
For multi-division tournaments (e.g., a tournament with both Varsity and JV divisions) only the top division can qualify teams for the NSC. The average of the number of teams in the top division and the number of teams in the whole tournament will be used as the field size number for such events

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:14 am
by Edward Powers
Edward Powers wrote:
"...here is what I can do, since I also want to be fair to those schools that might wish for the playing field to change in some manner, and I can see three ways that this might be possible without creating a tempest in a teapot. All 3 methods require that the teams registered agree to one of the proposals I will now make:

Proposal 1: Keep things just as they are and let the 'change' occur naturally, during the competition known as the Prelims;

Proposal 2: This is the simpler of the remaining 2, involving no change in the question set, but simply a self-designated split in the field into an Expert division and a Novice Division, so that their opponents will be, from the very beginning of the day, on a more agreeably competitive level. Assuming teams would prefer to do this, this should not be too hard to do. Speaking hypothetically for purposes of illustration, perhaps 10 of the A teams and 6 of the B teams might self-select this Expert option? This would mean we would currently have an Expert division of 16 and a Novice division of let's say 11. I could of course add a comparable house team to the lower division and the split would be 16-12, an easy situation to bracket, and I would have no trouble doing this if the teams coming consented to do this. Perhaps the numbers might not be 16-12, but as long as there was a sensible and agreeable numerical split of some sort, this could be done.

Proposal 3: I would seek another set of questions and in effect create 2 tournaments, if this were overwhelmingly preferred to either of the two proposals above, and provided I could get such a set on such short notice. (DO YOU HAVE THE NAME OF SUCH POTENTIAL SET?) Further, I would still compensate Dunbar at the rate Dunbar would have been compensated had no such split occurred, and, further, I would need to know that organizations like PACE and NAQT would still see this as a field of 26-28 or so teams overall, and not, let's say, a field of only 16 upper teams for the purposes of national qualifications. Provided all of these criteria could be met, I would be willing to do this.
"

When I began this process over the past 24 hours, I did stipulate several key provisions, otherwise I would be unable, as a matter of principle, to change the tournament we are hosting in the ways some were hoping for. One of those provisions involved the issue of qualifications for PACE not being diminished for the field as a whole because we were trying to create a more enjoyable competitive situation for all involved by splitting the field as has been proposed above.

As it turns out, PACE will reduce the number of qualifying teams if we split. So, if we do not, with 26-27 teams currently registered in the field, a full 7 teams would qualify. if we split into, let's say, at 16 team upper bracket and a 10-12 lower bracket, our PACE qualifications would be reduced to 4 teams.

Since this is true, the field as a whole would be punished for choosing to create such a split, especially the best teams in the field. So, I conclude that our efforts to do what is probably best for the novice calibre teams in the field will end up punishing the very best teams in the field, so, as the TD for this tournament I cannot allow this to happen. So, I will figure out a different way to allow the best teams to compete for the 7 Platinum qualifiying spots that are available at this site, while simultaneously providing the most competitve play possible for the younger and inexperienced teams in the field.

What does this mean, practically? That we revert to Proposal One, but with the following 3 ideas to guide me as I do so:

First, we will not split the field. I will bracket the field as all TD's do, and as of now it seems it will be one larger field of 24-28 , and not two divisons of 12-14 each;

Second, it means I thank everyone who voted calmly and collegially today to split the field in judicious and fair ways for all involved, and you should know I appreciated the cooperation shown by all in this endeavor, and all should know that I heard what you preferred and will try to achieve it in a different way;

Third, I will bracket the preliminaries in multiples of 4, creating either 6 or 7 brackets. From these 6-7 brackets, the top 8-12 teams will move into the Championship brackets, having a chance to play 7-9 matches against comparable teams, while the remaining 12-18 teams will play consolation matches, also against more comparable teams.

This, I think, is a reasonable compromise which endeavors to meet the needs of all teams---both the best in the field and the novice type teams that will surely have better matches against teams more likely to be on their own level, and this strategem suggests that possibly 75% of the matches of both broad groups can be of this type.

To split the field knowing this will effectively punish the very best teams who might have registered precisely because of the Platinum qualification this tournament offers would, in effect, be prioritizing the experiences of the C & D teams,and many of the B teams, over their flagship A teams, and this is neither wise or fair either. So I think this solution, which maintains the highest number of qualfiying positions while promising a vast majority of competitive matches throughout the day, is the best available.

EDIT: My quotation above is not the normal "tan" color, making my comments on if difficult to differentiate from the quote itself. Does anyone have clue as to how I can change this to make the post easier to comprehend?
(Fixed!--the mgmt)

Re: Saint Joe's Mirror of DAFT III, December 17th, 2011

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 1:19 am
by lchen
King of Carrot Flowers wrote:From the NSC website:
For multi-division tournaments (e.g., a tournament with both Varsity and JV divisions) only the top division can qualify teams for the NSC. The average of the number of teams in the top division and the number of teams in the whole tournament will be used as the field size number for such events
So if a tournament has split divisions, the effective field size is automatically cut in half regardless of the proportions of teams in the upper/lower divisions? This doesn't seem very reasonable.

EDIT: Whoops, I can't read. :oops: