The Quizbowl Resource Center

Just a reminder--be sure to have your coach nominate you for Team Illinois if you are interested. Tryouts will be held at U of I on Sunday, February 21, exact locations and format TBA. Let me or Mr. Laudermith know if you have any questions.

But it is not absolutely necessary that you be nominated by your coach: you may put yourself forth as a candidate regardless of team affilliation or coach representation, as long as you are from an Illinois high school.

Although it doesn't hurt, especially if you are relatively unknown to either the coaches of Team Illinois or the coaches on the IHSSBCA Sterring Committee.

Bump. Nominations have been received, queried, etc. as of 1/22/10 for:

Ben Chametzky
Andrew Deveau
Dan Donohue*
Abid Haseeb
Zahed Haseeb
Kevin Malis*
Jeremiah Monk
Quinn Rosenthal*
Lloyd Sy
Robert Volgman
Nolan Winkler
Marcel Youkhna

Mr. Laudermith may know of others. *indicates nomination form received

David Riley wrote:Bump. Nominations have been received, queried, etc. as of 1/12/10 for:

Dan Donohue
Abid Haseeb
Zahed Haseeb
Lloyd sy
Nolan Winkler
Marcel Youkhna

Mr. Laudermith may know of others.

Seems like it'll be a very easy decision at this point

I'm filling the application out right now.

What do the tryouts consist of? Regular games on teams?

Tryouts will be two one-on-one rounds, followed by two group rounds. The former will be tossups only, the latter will include bonuses. Other details forthcoming.

How do the tryouts plan to test specialization? I would imagine that the best possible team would consist of the four or five best specialists and not necessarily the best four or five players who try out. Am I right?




Edit: Specialists, not generalists.

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:How do the tryouts plan to test specialization? I would imagine that the best possible team would consist of the four or five best generalists and not necessarily the best four or five players who try out. Am I right?

You want generalists, of course. However, you do need people with specialties to get those third parts that can win or lose close games.

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:How do the tryouts plan to test specialization? I would imagine that the best possible team would consist of the four or five best generalists and not necessarily the best four or five players who try out. Am I right?

I'd imagine that the best possible team would be comprised of the 4 or 5 best ppl at specific areas, as I'm sure that the best specialist in say, history, is probably going to be better than the generalist best at history. Of course, this is not true in all cases as I would say that the best generalist in Illinois is definitely also the best at physics, as well as other science.

Is there info somewhere on the tournament this is to qualify for?

jdeliverer wrote:Is there info somewhere on the tournament this is to qualify for?

http://hsapq.com/allstar.html

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:How do the tryouts plan to test specialization? I would imagine that the best possible team would consist of the four or five best generalists and not necessarily the best four or five players who try out. Am I right?

I think you mean specialists. And, if we're being frank here, Deveau (if he's trying out) + 4 specialists who cover everything.

I'm kind of confused at the whole tryout thing though. What's the significance of two 1 v. 1 rounds, and how will that even be done if everybody doesn't end up playing everybody?

EDIT: To add speculation of whether Deveau is playing.

Jacopo Robusti wrote: What's the significance of two 1 v. 1 rounds, and how will that even be done if everybody doesn't end up playing everybody?

Power matching? That's fair, right?

jdeliverer wrote:

Jacopo Robusti wrote: What's the significance of two 1 v. 1 rounds, and how will that even be done if everybody doesn't end up playing everybody?

Power matching? That's fair, right?

http://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9105

Yeah. I'll be trying out.

jdeliverer wrote:

Jacopo Robusti wrote: What's the significance of two 1 v. 1 rounds, and how will that even be done if everybody doesn't end up playing everybody?

Power matching? That's fair, right?

I'm not sure. We should have a debate. Dan-Don?

Jacopo Robusti wrote:

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:How do the tryouts plan to test specialization? I would imagine that the best possible team would consist of the four or five best generalists and not necessarily the best four or five players who try out. Am I right?

I think you mean specialists. And, if we're being frank here, Deveau (if he's trying out) + 4 specialists who cover everything.

I'm kind of confused at the whole tryout thing though. What's the significance of two 1 v. 1 rounds, and how will that even be done if everybody doesn't end up playing everybody?

EDIT: To add speculation of whether Deveau is playing.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

Wait, so what will the completion of these two rounds determine anyways? Whichever individuals are left are to vie for the spots on the team? That seems a bit strange.

I assume they're just there to get a better look of how the players stack up to each other. You're obviously not going to be eliminated based on ur loss to Deveau in rd 1.

The way it worked when I tried out for Team Illinois was that everybody played the whole day. The details were never revealed to me as to how the individual pairings are made, but they function as another source of information about a player's abilities. I think the results of the individual rounds were used to seed people and divide strength evenly among the games in one of the group rounds. In that group round, we played on questions from all categories. In the other group round, there were rooms corresponding to different specialties that we could choose, and we played a round consisting of questions from those categories. I imagine some things will be different given the different nature of the competition, but the basic philosophy will probably be similar.

Siverus Snape wrote:The way it worked when I tried out for Team Illinois was that everybody played the whole day. The details were never revealed to me as to how the individual pairings are made, but they function as another source of information about a player's abilities. I think the results of the individual rounds were used to seed people and divide strength evenly among the games in one of the group rounds. In that group round, we played on questions from all categories. In the other group round, there were rooms corresponding to different specialties that we could choose, and we played a round consisting of questions from those categories. I imagine some things will be different given the different nature of the competition, but the basic philosophy will probably be similar.

What was the question source that year? Given the use of the ACF Regionals set, I don't think they'll have time to sort out questions by category according to what we choose. Maybe they will; I don't know.

Just wondering, is there any reason other than $$ that acf regionals is being used for the tryouts instead of the specific HSAPQ NASAT Tryout Set? It seems that using a set designed by the tournament writers to be the same difficulty-level is preferable to a set that may or may not be in the same difficulty range as the tournament.

EDIT: Wordingz and gud grammar.

Jacopo Robusti wrote:

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:How do the tryouts plan to test specialization? I would imagine that the best possible team would consist of the four or five best generalists and not necessarily the best four or five players who try out. Am I right?

I think you mean specialists. And, if we're being frank here, Deveau (if he's trying out) + 4 specialists who cover everything..

This is a little bit tricky because NASAT is actually played 4 vs. 4. I don't know what the coaches are looking for in their one substitute. Maybe they can elaborate?

MoCity02 wrote:Just wondering, is there any reason other than $$ that acf regionals is being used for the tryouts instead of the specific HSAPQ NASAT Tryout Set? It seems that using a set designed by the tournament writers to be the same difficulty-level is preferable to a set that may or may not be in the same difficulty range as the tournament.

Tryouts are a week before that set is said to be becoming available, and given that HSAPQ isn't consistently able to make its actual deadlines, the chances of it being available early seem preposterous. (Also, the VHSL might object to its use beforehand.)

Dan-Don wrote:Given the use of the ACF Regionals set, I don't think they'll have time to sort out questions by category according to what we choose. Maybe they will; I don't know.

If the coaches want the set separated into categories, I expect that to happen.

Dan-Don wrote:What was the question source that year? Given the use of the ACF Regionals set, I don't think they'll have time to sort out questions by category according to what we choose. Maybe they will; I don't know.

The source was old Panasonic questions, which have an extremely easy to sort category line for each question.

My question is how the group rounds with bonuses are going to be played. Does an individual get a chance to answer a bonus solo if they get a tossup correct? That seems kind of silly. Perhaps the individual rounds will be used to seed players onto teams of four for the group rounds?

If you ask me, four rounds is not enough for a fair tryout. I know that there are extenuating circumstances that really limit the time that we can take (the IHSSBCA general meeting beforehand, and the selection committee meeting afterward), but I wish this were not the case. Though I can see the selection not taking as long as it has in past years that I have been involved in it, since this year the people on the committee have been hand chosen, are knowledgeable, and won't argue for the inclusion of a student based solely on geography. It'll also be easier to not have to weed out the really weak players who shouldn't have been there in the first place, since I don't think that many that fit that description are going to try out.

Mr. Laird is right on virtually all counts. The bonuses are going to be used to observe how different groups of people play as a team. I agree that four rounds is not a lot, but basically all we can do due to time constraints. And yes, the selection committee is composed of people who see you guys every weekend, so they will have a good idea of your strengths (earlier comments about constipated owls nonwithstanding ).

Mr. Laudermith and I discussed whether or not to do subject rounds. These questions aren't as easy to separate as Panasonic, but the selection committee should be able to determine subject strengths through observation. And certain subject strengths (e.g. Lloyd=lit) are well known and documented, anyway.

Yesterday, Mr. Laudermith and I met to work out the particulars of Team Illinois tryouts (supersedes above). Here is the result:

When and Where

University of Illinois at Urbana (rooms to be determined), Sunday, February 21, 2010, from 1pm to 3:30 pm.

Process

There will be 5 rounds:

Round 1: 1-on-1, only tossups, use existing stats to place top players in separate matches

Round 2: 1-on-1, tossups and bonuses, use Round 1 results and have winners play winners

Round 3: 4-on-4, tossups and bonuses, use Rounds 1 and 2 stats to place top players on separate teams

Round 4: 4-on-4, tossups and bonuses, use Round 3 stats to place top players on the same teams

Round 5: Category round, 3 rooms: Lit/RMP, Science, Hist/Geog/SocSci (there may also be an Arts room)

Members of the selection committee will moderate. Should there be a need for additional moderators, we will choose these from available members of the University of Illinois Academic Buzzer Team.


After the tryout, the selection committee will meet to choose the five players for Team Illinois. Members of the selection committee are me, Mr. Laudermith, Mr. Reinstein (New Trier), Ms. Lorinskas (Carbondale), Ms. Greene (Auburn), Jonah Greenthal (University of Chicago) and Matt Laird (moderator, unaffiliated). Mr. Laudermith and I selected the committee based upon their knowledge of many of the candidates’ strengths and their experience with the question style and format.

I will phone the successful candidates later that evening.

Addendum: I saw several players who exhibited great promise at my f/s tournament on Saturday (e.g. Alex Kling from Latin, Stephen Skarpek of OPRF, Chris Olsen of Champaign Cenennial) who may not make Team Illinois this year, but are excellent candidates for future years. I would ask that any coaches whose players made the all-tournament team to nominate them for Team Illinois; it will be great experience!

If more than 10 people (i.e. more than 2 full teams, as we seem to be at 9 right now) are at the tryout, how will rounds 3 & 4 be done? Will there be some rotation of substitution, or will players be broken down into 4 teams and then a similar process to rounds 1 & 2 will be done?

David Riley wrote:Yesterday, Mr. Laudermith and I met to work out the particulars of Team Illinois tryouts (supersedes above). Here is the result:

When and Where

University of Illinois at Urbana (rooms to be determined), Sunday, February 21, 2010, from 1pm to 3:30 pm.

Process

There will be 5 rounds:

Round 1: 1-on-1, only tossups, use existing stats to place top players in separate matches

Round 2: 1-on-1, tossups and bonuses, use Round 1 results and have winners play winners

Round 3: 4-on-4, tossups and bonuses, use Rounds 1 and 2 stats to place top players on separate teams

Round 4: 4-on-4, tossups and bonuses, use Round 3 stats to place top players on the same teams

Round 5: Category round, 3 rooms: Lit/RMP, Science, Hist/Geog/SocSci (there may also be an Arts room)

Members of the selection committee will moderate. Should there be a need for additional moderators, we will choose these from available members of the University of Illinois Academic Buzzer Team.


After the tryout, the selection committee will meet to choose the five players for Team Illinois. Members of the selection committee are me, Mr. Laudermith, Mr. Reinstein (New Trier), Ms. Lorinskas (Carbondale), Ms. Greene (Auburn), Jonah Greenthal (University of Chicago) and Matt Laird (moderator, unaffiliated). Mr. Laudermith and I selected the committee based upon their knowledge of many of the candidates’ strengths and their experience with the question style and format.

I will phone the successful candidates later that evening.

Categories are divided a little strangely, but I would suppose that no matter how you divide them, there's going to be something that could work a little better. I can't help but wonder if simply keeping track of category buzzes is sufficient.

EDIT: Zahed is really good at typing.

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:Categories are divided a little strangely, but I would suppose that no matter how you divide them, there's be something that could work a little better.

This is a finite sequence and thus has an upper bound.

We will keep track of category buzzes in the other rounds as well.

Oliver Ellsworth wrote:

David Riley wrote:Yesterday, Mr. Laudermith and I met to work out the particulars of Team Illinois tryouts (supersedes above). Here is the result:

When and Where

University of Illinois at Urbana (rooms to be determined), Sunday, February 21, 2010, from 1pm to 3:30 pm.

Process

There will be 5 rounds:

Round 1: 1-on-1, only tossups, use existing stats to place top players in separate matches

Round 2: 1-on-1, tossups and bonuses, use Round 1 results and have winners play winners

Round 3: 4-on-4, tossups and bonuses, use Rounds 1 and 2 stats to place top players on separate teams

Round 4: 4-on-4, tossups and bonuses, use Round 3 stats to place top players on the same teams

Round 5: Category round, 3 rooms: Lit/RMP, Science, Hist/Geog/SocSci (there may also be an Arts room)

Members of the selection committee will moderate. Should there be a need for additional moderators, we will choose these from available members of the University of Illinois Academic Buzzer Team.


After the tryout, the selection committee will meet to choose the five players for Team Illinois. Members of the selection committee are me, Mr. Laudermith, Mr. Reinstein (New Trier), Ms. Lorinskas (Carbondale), Ms. Greene (Auburn), Jonah Greenthal (University of Chicago) and Matt Laird (moderator, unaffiliated). Mr. Laudermith and I selected the committee based upon their knowledge of many of the candidates’ strengths and their experience with the question style and format.

I will phone the successful candidates later that evening.

Categories are divided a little strangely, but I would suppose that no matter how you divide them, there's going to be something that could work a little better. I can't help but wonder if simply keeping track of category buzzes is sufficient.

EDIT: Zahed is really good at typing.

Also, with the current nomination/registered field I see, a regrouping of the categories might do some good as to spreading out the players a bit more and, you now, not having 6 people in one room, 2 in another, and 1 in the third. I also think arts definitely needs to be added since it gets a pretty decent amount of the distribution

What would you suggest? The only alternative I could see is to put RMP in with Soc Sci and have history its own category. And if we do an arts room, will there be a sufficient number who elect that room?

David Riley wrote:What would you suggest? The only alternative I could see is to put RMP in with Soc Sci and have history its own category. And if we do an arts room, will there be a sufficient number elect that room?

I guess that would be the problem. I, for one, would completely be in favor of there being an arts room, but I really can't think of many others (Marcel, probably, but two people won't be enough).

I do think that grouping RMP with SS is a great idea, especially with the amount of philosophy that overlaps with social science (and vice versa).

For what it's worth, I think there should definitely be an arts room. I won't be in it, but I think it's important. I would prefer that SocSci goes with history for my own reasons, but either way works.

I'm filling out my application and I had a few questions.

Exactly what sort of awards are considered relevant for the "other awards" section? I'm guessing my Junior Historian award probably is and my writing awards probably are not, but what about stuff like Honor Roll and NHS? I'm surprised there even is a section for other relevant awards.

Also, can someone more knowledgeable that myself point me to a comprehensive list of PACE scores online? Nobody in Carbondale seems to remember how we did at PACE, and I cannot seem to find anything other than championship winners on the PACE website.

I might as well add my two cents while I'm posting. An art room would probably be pretty underpopulated, but that points out a weakness in Team Illinois that needs to be addressed. There should be some mechanism that causes the team to have a decent arts player.

Monk wrote:I'm filling out my application and I had a few questions.

Exactly what sort of awards are considered relevant for the "other awards" section? I'm guessing my Junior Historian award probably is and my writing awards probably are not, but what about stuff like Honor Roll and NHS? I'm surprised there even is a section for other relevant awards.

Also, can someone more knowledgeable that myself point me to a comprehensive list of PACE scores online? Nobody in Carbondale seems to remember how we did at PACE, and I cannot seem to find anything other than championship winners on the PACE website.

I might as well add my two cents while I'm posting. An art room would probably be pretty underpopulated, but that points out a weakness in Team Illinois that needs to be addressed. There should be some mechanism that causes the team to have a decent arts player.

Results from last year's NSC are here. Not speaking for Messrs. Riley and Laudermith, but I'm guessing it doesn't really matter what you put there (unless, like, you lie). I put that field there because it was on the old form and no one had told me to leave it off, but the team is going to be picked strictly on what combination of people will produce the team that is likely to achieve the highest possible place in NASAT, not on how many medals you won at Science Olympiad or whatever.

jonah wrote:

Monk wrote:I'm filling out my application and I had a few questions.

Exactly what sort of awards are considered relevant for the "other awards" section? I'm guessing my Junior Historian award probably is and my writing awards probably are not, but what about stuff like Honor Roll and NHS? I'm surprised there even is a section for other relevant awards.

Also, can someone more knowledgeable that myself point me to a comprehensive list of PACE scores online? Nobody in Carbondale seems to remember how we did at PACE, and I cannot seem to find anything other than championship winners on the PACE website.

I might as well add my two cents while I'm posting. An art room would probably be pretty underpopulated, but that points out a weakness in Team Illinois that needs to be addressed. There should be some mechanism that causes the team to have a decent arts player.

Results from last year's NSC are here. Not speaking for Messrs. Riley and Laudermith, but I'm guessing it doesn't really matter what you put there (unless, like, you lie). I put that field there because it was on the old form and no one had told me to leave it off, but the team is going to be picked strictly on what combination of people will produce the team that is likely to achieve the highest possible place in NASAT, not on how many medals you won at Science Olympiad or whatever.

Yeah, for my app I just wrote something along the lines of "I don't see how this is in any way relevant to quizbowl success, so this is being left blank."

The other awards section is a holdover from Panasonic days, but don't worry about it. Quizbowl awards (all-tournament, all-state, etc.) are certainly more important.

The deadline is fast approaching! Even if you've indidcated an interest, I still need an application form--so far, the only ones I've received have been Quinn's and Kevin's. Feb 1 is a firm deadline so that we can arrange for competent moderators. Don't delay!

David Riley wrote:The deadline is fast approaching! Even if you've indidcated an interest, I still need an application form--so far, the only ones I've received have been Quinn's and Kevin's. Feb 1 is a firm deadline so that we can arrange for competent moderators. Don't delay!

Mr. Laudermith has my form.

I gave all my forms to my coach about a week ago; you should be getting them soon.

Sorry, Dan, I knew that. Robert, will look for yours in the mail.

Field (above) updated.

David Riley wrote:Bump. Nominations have been received, queried, etc. as of 1/22/10 for (list)

For whatever it's worth, I'd like to see the following additional people try out (in no particular order): Ben Carbery, Greg Dzurickso, Krystle Leung, Steve Server, and the gentleman from Buffalo Grove whose name is escaping me.

jonah wrote:Buffalo Grove whose name is escaping me.

Greg Ward?

edit: misquote

Server can't do it because of some date conflicts.

MoCity02 wrote:

jonah wrote:

David Riley wrote: Buffalo Grove whose name is escaping me.

Greg Ward?

Yeah.