The Quizbowl Resource Center

So what ideas do people have for the format of the tryouts?

For clarification this is not an official list.
It is just for an number estimate and for any contact necessary.

As for a "field update" these are the people who seem interested:
Shray K.
Cole Phelps
Scott Blain
Julie Heinze
Joey Brown
Jason Martin*
Brian F.
Victor M.
Sandy Huang
Ping Chen
Andrew Salyer
Faiyad Mannan
Brad Cantrell*
Jack Carter
Dowell Harmon*
Rachel Newcomb*
Luke Maupin
Aaron Kinney*
Luke Lewis*
Andy Lyon

Staff:
Nick Conder
Brian Powell
Joe Wells
Rob Kremer
Susan Magedanz

*Unconfirmed

Feel free to post suggestions or tell me if you are interested.

grayson77 wrote:So what ideas do people have for the format of the tryouts?

As for a "field update" these are the people who seem interested:
Cole Phelps
Scott Blain
Julie Heinze
Joey Brown
John Jarboe
Jason Martin
Brian F.
Victor M.
Sandy Huang
Ping Chen
Andrew Salyer
Faiyad Mannan
Jack Carter
Dowell Harmon
Rachel Newcomb

Feel free to post suggestions or tell me if you are interested.

I am pretty sure Aaron Kinney would be head-over-heels for this.

Thanks for reminding me.
I forgot about him and Luke.

grayson77 wrote:Thanks for reminding me.
I forgot about him and Luke.

Is there anyway we could get this mentioned throughout the state, I can see some teams who don't regularly go to this site, but still go to tournaments like Simon Kenton and Russel.

Dragon's Lair (TV series) wrote:

grayson77 wrote:Thanks for reminding me.
I forgot about him and Luke.

Is there anyway we could get this mentioned throughout the state, I can see some teams who don't regularly go to this site, but still go to tournaments like Simon Kenton and Russel.

Yeah they always have good players. I know Andy and Luke are really good at their respective fields.

grayson77 wrote:So what ideas do people have for the format of the tryouts?

Questions - Harder than nationals, preferably HSAPQ's NASAT set.
Format - Free for all since it's the best way to test who has real depth and who overlaps with others in certain subject areas. I'm not sure the Ohio format works as well for determining who has the best overall depth or who gets overlapped by who and in what areas. I know Dunbar has a buzzer system with 4 ports that allows 8 players per port, so 32 players can play at the same time. Oh and yeah, a voting system among the top 8 or so in case certain players are just getting unlucky with the questions.

Huang wrote:

grayson77 wrote:So what ideas do people have for the format of the tryouts?

Questions - Harder than nationals, preferably HSAPQ's NASAT set.
Format - Free for all since it's the best way to test who has real depth and who overlaps with others in certain subject areas. I'm not sure the Ohio format works as well for determining who has the best overall depth. I know Dunbar has a buzzer system with 4 ports that allows 8 players per port, so 32 players can play at the same time. Oh and yeah, a voting system among the top 8 or so in case certain players are just getting unlucky with the questions.

I like the idea of the free for all. I suggest keep the tallying in divided by subject as well. I know you will NEVER see me get a literature question.

If people can get me a date that works best for them, I will be quite happy to host a tryout, as well as serve as an assistant coach for Team Kentucky. I'll have a draft of the format I want to use, and we can go from there. Some possible dates/locations include:

2/27 at Centre
3/13 at State
Any time after state at Centre

So let me know when and where you want this, and I'll get the ball rolling on setting it up.

Is there some way to set up a poll for the date?

The Saturday at State seems to be the concensus right now on the date. I think Sandy said he had something to do on 2/27

Dragon's Lair (TV series) wrote:The Saturday at State seems to be the concensus right now on the date. I think Sandy said he had something to do on 2/27

2/27 is the Science Fair (according to Sandy).
3/13 seems to be the best date.

powerplant wrote:If people can get me a date that works best for them, I will be quite happy to host a tryout, as well as serve as an assistant coach for Team Kentucky. I'll have a draft of the format I want to use, and we can go from there. Some possible dates/locations include:

2/27 at Centre
3/13 at State
Any time after state at Centre

So let me know when and where you want this, and I'll get the ball rolling on setting it up.

The deadline is 3/17, so I doubt we'd have time after state. Also, how will we get the NASAT set? I know it costs money, so should we (players who will participate in the tryouts) split the cost?

Saturday evening of state sounds like it will be the least conflicting time.
Grayson could probably bring four above average moderators to help with this.

Okay, so the Saturday evening of state sounds like it is our winner. Ideally for the format, I'd like to steal what the team Ohio selection format was: reading tossups to rooms of 8 players, and tracking who got tossups in different categories. Every so often, players would be shuffled, eventually ending with the specialists in different categories playing against each other for the final round, allowing us to see if one lit specialist can lock another one down. Additionally, after those trying out have played the event, they would fill out a ballot saying who they would most prefer to play along side if they were selected (as well as mention players who they think would be difficult to play with).

From this, a team of four starters would be chosen, as well as two alternates (who might not play, but still are deserving of being named to team Kentucky). This only leaves the situation of who would be the coach of team Kentucky. Only really having any experience with Susan Magedanz of Dunbar and Rob Kremer from Danville, I can say I would endorse either of them for the position of coach. I would probably have a coach section of the ballot. Whoever gets the most coach votes would be contacted about their nomination, and be allowed to choose an assistant coach or two.

Does this seem fair/agreeable to those interested?

At this tryout tournament, will any stats be kept on bonus conversions? From what I've seen, high bonus conversion percentage typically shows the more skilled teams. Also, instead of random teams, maybe we should have teams of specialists. Like, make a list of lit players and randomly assign them to teams. That way you ensure head to head match-ups with people in the same categories to show who is best.

Beastman wrote:At this tryout tournament, will any stats be kept on bonus conversions? From what I've seen, high bonus conversion percentage typically shows the more skilled teams. Also, instead of random teams, maybe we should have teams of specialists. Like, make a list of lit players and randomly assign them to teams. That way you ensure head to head match-ups with people in the same categories to show who is best.

Due to the time constraint of hosting this event after the state tournament, I don't think we'll be playing bonuses. Players won't be playing on teams per se, it will be every man for himself in each room, while every tossup's category is tracked. That way, if we see that two people are scoring obscene numbers on lit, at some point during the event we would have both lit stars competing.

powerplant wrote:Players won't be playing on teams per se, it will be every man for himself in each room, while every tossup's category is tracked. That way, if we see that two people are scoring obscene numbers on lit, at some point during the event we would have both lit stars competing.

Or we can just do a free for all that will help determine everything you've listed above? It'll just be everyone in one room buzzing.

I'll also point out that on March 6th, after around 6:00 PM, Ping will be back in Lexington. Teams could go get dinner after our tournament, which will probably end at around 5:30ish, then come back to Dunbar (there are many restaurants close by) to do tryouts. Joe, I'm hoping you're going to use HSAPQ's NASAT tryout set?

Huang wrote:

powerplant wrote:Players won't be playing on teams per se, it will be every man for himself in each room, while every tossup's category is tracked. That way, if we see that two people are scoring obscene numbers on lit, at some point during the event we would have both lit stars competing.

Or we can just do a free for all that will help determine everything you've listed above? It'll just be everyone in one room buzzing.

That's actually rather hard to be able to do with that many people unless you have a buzzer system that can take 16-20 buzzers hooked up to it at once. Otherwise, it won't work.

When Ohio State did tryouts for Ohio, the first bracketing was pretty much random. Then, after a few rounds of tossups, we were rebracketed so that people with similar strengths were grouped with each other. This happened several more times, and finally the last bracket had the best candidates grouped together. It might be more fair to see what everyone's strengths are first, so that someone who is constantly getting overshadowed by another player in history or something can show how good of a player he or she really is.

Judy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:

Huang wrote:

powerplant wrote:Players won't be playing on teams per se, it will be every man for himself in each room, while every tossup's category is tracked. That way, if we see that two people are scoring obscene numbers on lit, at some point during the event we would have both lit stars competing.

Or we can just do a free for all that will help determine everything you've listed above? It'll just be everyone in one room buzzing.

That's actually rather hard to be able to do with that many people unless you have a buzzer system that can take 16-20 buzzers hooked up to it at once.

Dunbar has one that can hook up to 32 players (4 ports of 8 players each)

I don't expect to make the team, as there are many in the state much better at Social Studies than me, but I look forward to trying out. It will be interesting to have all of the best players in the state in one place together. And really, it will be great practice and a great learning experience.

I'm happy to help out with this in whatever capacity I'm needed.

I think the Saturday night of State is probably the best time to do it since we know everyone will be in a central location. Since it's before the State tournament starts, everyone will probably be hanging out with nothing to do for at least part of the night. March 6 (after the Dunbar tournament) is probably bad because the players who would be interested in this will have likely traveled to the tournament with their teammates and I feel like it's unfair to hold all of them waiting at Dunbar while people run the tryouts.

I also like Joe's plan for setting up the tryouts. I tend to think that everyone buzzing at once in one room is a bad way to handle selecting a team. I think it makes it much harder to see what players are able to do outside of their specialty (which I think is something very valuable to consider for this type of team).

Coach K wrote:I think it makes it much harder to see what players are able to do outside of their specialty (which I think is something very valuable to consider for this type of team).

Why would it be harder? I'm pretty sure doing one room versus doing separate rooms won't matter in terms of determining who does well outside their specialty. Both formats would help determine this. Except doing separate rooms would only inflate scores.

Huang wrote:

Coach K wrote:I think it makes it much harder to see what players are able to do outside of their specialty (which I think is something very valuable to consider for this type of team).

Why would it be harder? I'm pretty sure doing one room versus doing separate rooms won't matter in terms of determining who does well outside their specialty. Both formats would help determine this. Except doing separate rooms would only inflate scores.

Suppose trying out for the team there are six lit specialists, six history specialists, and six science specialists. And of those six, there are 2-3 very strong players in each area.

Hypothetical player A is a very strong history specialist who happens to be pretty strong in Lit also.

In the single room scenario, player A's strength in history will be very clear to see. However, the combination of 3 strong lit players in that single room make it nearly impossible to notice that player A is also good at Lit (since the chances of ONE of the three strong lit players beating player A on a given question is much higher than any one of them beating him individually).

However, if we divided those 18 players into 3 rooms (in various permutations), then it becomes much easier for the people organizing the team to notice player A's literature strength as well. So when it comes to selecting the team, the organizers are able to say "well player A is also strong at literature, so we would prefer to have player A over a player that can only do history".

It's much the same reason that Panasonic's format was somewhat janky. A team could be the second best team in lit, science, and history, but as long as there was one team better than them in each area, they had no chance of winning anything.

becomes much easier for the people organizing the team to notice player A's literature strength as well.

Player A's strength in literature is useless if the best literature player covers him or her. I know plenty of players who are decent generalists when they're playing on a less-than-stellar team but become virtually useless when they play on a team with lockdown specialists.

well player A is also strong at literature, so we would prefer to have player A over a player that can only do history

Again, player A's strength in literature won't get the team any points if the best literature player is already getting those points. The difficulty of NASAT will require more than just surface generalist knowledge. I know I, and most Dunbar and duPont Manual players, would stand to benefit from a small room setup because it would greatly inflate the number of points we would get. A large room setup eliminates both of our team's useless generalist knowledge but also rewards useful generalist knowledge (like if Player D, who is a generalist, somehow gets a lot of points despite being in a room with all the top subject specialists, then he or she would be rewarded). I'm not sure what other people in Kentucky think the difficulty of this tournament will be (like this tournament could very well be much harder than the later rounds of Dunbar Fall; this is not your normal HSAPQ or IS set), but I can assure them that a team of the top specialists will perform better than a team of decent generalists, especially considering the field of the tournament.

It's much the same reason that Panasonic's format was somewhat janky. A team could be the second best team in lit, science, and history, but as long as there was one team better than them in each area, they had no chance of winning anything.

If Kentucky has a team of 4 players who are above average generalists, it will not do as well as it could with a team consisting of the best science player, the best history player, the best literature player, and a fourth player who fills in the knowledge gaps those three have. A large room set up would quickly determine this without the inflated scores that a small room setup will inevitably bring.

Don't get me wrong, both formats work. But it seems logical to me that the large room setup is more efficient and statistically superior.

I understand what Sandy is saying.
For example, if I am in a room with an assortment of specialists and generalists, I will likely get many of the lit questions.
However, going against Victor and Jack I will only be able to get either questions from deep knowledge or about obscure topics I have studied, but they have not.
I am sure I will look like a much more useful player, when I am not playing against these other lit specialists.
Also, I tend to get random science questions, that will seem much more meaningful when I am competing against science specialists.
Since the four players on the team will be playing against each other at the same time, we should see how players play simultaneously.

I forgot to point out that the hypothetical combo lit-history specialist in Mr. Kremer's post is, in fact, benefiting from the sort of point inflation I've been referring to in my previous posts. If that hypothetical player were to meaningfully contribute on the Kentucky team, he or she would be able to get a decent amount of questions when playing against all of the other single-subject specialists. If that player couldn't get a decent amount of points, then he or she really wouldn't be qualified to be on the team.

grayson77 wrote:For example, if I am in a room with an assortment of specialists and generalists, I will likely get many of the lit questions.

The tryouts should discriminate between those who know the most amongst a group of specialists rather than a generic group of participants as that will certainly be the case at nationals. It is for this reason that we should attempt to have as many people as possible in the same room during the tryout sessions. Perhaps a preliminary round with separate rooms can be utilized and those with good enough stats will move on to a "final" room with 8-16 people.

Kahloon wrote:

grayson77 wrote:For example, if I am in a room with an assortment of specialists and generalists, I will likely get many of the lit questions.

The tryouts should discriminate between those who know the most amongst a group of specialists rather than a generic group of participants as that will certainly be the case at nationals. It is for this reason that we should attempt to have as many people as possible in the same room during the tryout sessions. Perhaps a preliminary round with separate rooms can be utilized and those with good enough stats will move on to a "final" room with 8-16 people.

Adding to this, the top 4-6 (or even 8) should move on from each room so preliminary placements won't drastically affect the results.

I don't see any problem with having around 16 people playing at once.
That will be the best way to see who's knowledge overlaps.

grayson77 wrote:I don't see any problem with having around 16 people playing at once.
That will be the best way to see who's knowledge overlaps.

Or 32 people!

Huang wrote:

grayson77 wrote:I don't see any problem with having around 16 people playing at once.
That will be the best way to see who's knowledge overlaps.

Or 32 people!

That would work, seeing that you guys have a sufficient buzzer.
Has anyone thought that we way need to talk to the management at the Galt House/KAAC in order to procure a room for this tryout.

And I understand that if their knowledge gets completely overshadowed by someone it's useless. It's unrealistic, however, that we would take three lit specialists and expect them all to see significant playing time.

So let's use specific people to make this easier on me (bearing in mind that I have no idea how the group of people compare to each other only having worked with one of them). Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Again, I understand that putting everyone in one room can give us a lot of valuable information. My contention is that we could gather more statistically meaningful information by separating into smaller groups and rotating those groups.

I'm not trying to come up with a way to get a bunch of generalists on the team instead of specialists. I am interested in learning about ALL of the strengths and weaknesses that each person would bring to the team. I don't believe that one big free for all is the best way to acquire that information.

Coach K wrote:And I understand that if their knowledge gets completely overshadowed by someone it's useless. It's unrealistic, however, that we would take three lit specialists and expect them all to see significant playing time.

At that point, there's not much point in rotating people in and out(we are talking ACF format) and it's just being complicated for the sake of being complicated.

Coach K wrote: Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Then Scott shouldn't be on the team if there is a better combination of players that encompasses his knowledge...

Coach K wrote:It's unrealistic, however, that we would take three lit specialists and expect them all to see significant playing time.

We wouldn't be taking three lit specialists. We would only be taking one. The one who scores the most points in literature. The max we would take would be maybe 2 lit specialists (4th spot is open for any subject) but that's unlikely since it's preferable to double up on science or history. Unless of course that second lit specialist has useful generalist knowledge too.

Coach K wrote: So let's use specific people to make this easier on me (bearing in mind that I have no idea how the group of people compare to each other only having worked with one of them). Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Hypothetical Scott may compare favorably as an individual player, but his net benefit to the team would be zero. "Being really great" (I think you're defining it someone being good but not the best) isn't really useful for a team that has players that are better at whatever player X is "good" at. So I'm not sure exactly how hypothetical Scott would be contributing more to the team overall. Hypothetical Jack and hypothetical Victor getting early buzzes and converting hard bonus parts is much more valuable than hypothetical Scott getting late buzzes and failing to convert hard, and maybe even middle, bonus parts.

Kahloon wrote:

Coach K wrote: Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Then Scott shouldn't be on the team if there is a better combination of players that encompasses his knowledge...

It takes all three players combined to overshadow Scott. All three of those players wouldn't be in at the same time because we'd be sacrificing either History or Science. Which means you play either Jack + Victor (loses out on the Arts), or Jack/Victor + Dowell (loses out on Lit). In which case Jack/Victor + Scott gives you roughly equivalent Lit and Arts without losing out on hardly anything.

Coach K wrote: It takes all three players combined to overshadow Scott. All three of those players wouldn't be in at the same time because we'd be sacrificing either History or Science. Which means you play either Jack + Victor (loses out on the Arts), or Jack/Victor + Dowell (loses out on Lit). In which case Jack/Victor + Scott gives you roughly equivalent Lit and Arts without losing out on hardly anything.

Coach K wrote:It's unrealistic, however, that we would take three lit specialists and expect them all to see significant playing time.

We wouldn't be taking three lit specialists. We would only be taking one. The one who scores the most points in literature. The max we would take would be maybe 2 lit specialists (4th spot is open for any subject) but that's unlikely since it's preferable to double up on science or history. Unless of course that second lit specialist has useful generalist knowledge too.

Consolidating all of this, what does everyone think of the following format?

1) Split off into groups of 6-8 for prelim rounds.
2) Getting the best set (be it 8,16,32... we can figure it out later) into a separate room.
3) Report the results from the finals room and ask for the finals participants to vote for four individuals (1 lit, 1 history, 1 science, 1 best-complimenting individual)

Huang wrote:

Coach K wrote:It's unrealistic, however, that we would take three lit specialists and expect them all to see significant playing time.

We wouldn't be taking three lit specialists. We would only be taking one. The one who scores the most points in literature. The max we would take would be maybe 2 lit specialists (4th spot is open for any subject) but that's unlikely since it's preferable to double up on science or history. Unless of course that second lit specialist has useful generalist knowledge too.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make though Sandy. It's much easier to spot that useful generalist knowledge by rotating through smaller groups. If that useful generalist knowledge is in History, we may never see it with 3 or 4 good History specialists in one room.

Coach K wrote:

Kahloon wrote:

Coach K wrote: Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Then Scott shouldn't be on the team if there is a better combination of players that encompasses his knowledge...

It takes all three players combined to overshadow Scott. All three of those players wouldn't be in at the same time because we'd be sacrificing either History or Science. Which means you play either Jack + Victor (loses out on the Arts), or Jack/Victor + Dowell (loses out on Lit). In which case Jack/Victor + Scott gives you roughly equivalent Lit and Arts without losing out on hardly anything.

Uh, you realize that there would be four players a match, so it would make more sense to take Jack, Victor and Dowell since they are getting more points. So you take those 3 and give the 4th slot to someone who fills in Jack+Victor+Dowell's gaps well.

Coach K wrote:

Huang wrote:

Coach K wrote:It's unrealistic, however, that we would take three lit specialists and expect them all to see significant playing time.

We wouldn't be taking three lit specialists. We would only be taking one. The one who scores the most points in literature. The max we would take would be maybe 2 lit specialists (4th spot is open for any subject) but that's unlikely since it's preferable to double up on science or history. Unless of course that second lit specialist has useful generalist knowledge too.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make though Sandy. It's much easier to spot that useful generalist knowledge by rotating through smaller groups. If that useful generalist knowledge is in History, we may never see it with 3 or 4 good History specialists in one room.

Which is why there should just be one large room with everyone in it. The best science player would emerge, the best history player would emerge, the best literature player would emerge, and the player who scores the most points, not include those three, would be the Kentucky team. I don't see how rotating through small groups would determine this unless you do some statistical manipulations, which aren't as good as empirical results. So again, this small room setup would not be an easier way to determine the team.

Dave Breger wrote:

Coach K wrote:

Kahloon wrote:

Coach K wrote: Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Then Scott shouldn't be on the team if there is a better combination of players that encompasses his knowledge...

It takes all three players combined to overshadow Scott. All three of those players wouldn't be in at the same time because we'd be sacrificing either History or Science. Which means you play either Jack + Victor (loses out on the Arts), or Jack/Victor + Dowell (loses out on Lit). In which case Jack/Victor + Scott gives you roughly equivalent Lit and Arts without losing out on hardly anything.

Uh, you realize that there would be four players a match, so it would make more sense to take Jack, Victor and Dowell since they are getting more points. So you take those 3 and give the 4th slot to someone who fills in Jack+Victor+Dowell's gaps well.

But those three are only getting points in Lit and Arts, so by using all three at once you're sacrificing History or Science. Obviously if there's a 4th person that can get both history and science, you take those three, but it's unlikely that person exists. I'm talking about a situation where you're picking from among those 4 for two starting spots. I contend the data you would get by having multiple rooms and rotating the people in each room would give you a better picture of who fills who's gaps than one big free for all.

Huang wrote:

Coach K wrote:

Huang wrote:

Coach K wrote:It's unrealistic, however, that we would take three lit specialists and expect them all to see significant playing time.

We wouldn't be taking three lit specialists. We would only be taking one. The one who scores the most points in literature. The max we would take would be maybe 2 lit specialists (4th spot is open for any subject) but that's unlikely since it's preferable to double up on science or history. Unless of course that second lit specialist has useful generalist knowledge too.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make though Sandy. It's much easier to spot that useful generalist knowledge by rotating through smaller groups. If that useful generalist knowledge is in History, we may never see it with 3 or 4 good History specialists in one room.

Which is why there should just be one large room with everyone in it. The best science player would emerge, the best history player would emerge, the best literature player would emerge, and the player who scores the most points, not include those three, would be the Kentucky team. I don't see how rotating through small groups would determine this unless you do some statistical manipulations, which aren't as good as empirical results. So again, this small room setup would not be an easier way to determine the team.

And what about all of the questions that the other people in the big room get? What happens when several people are inevitably close?

Coach K wrote:

Dave Breger wrote:

Coach K wrote:

Kahloon wrote:

Coach K wrote: Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Then Scott shouldn't be on the team if there is a better combination of players that encompasses his knowledge...

It takes all three players combined to overshadow Scott. All three of those players wouldn't be in at the same time because we'd be sacrificing either History or Science. Which means you play either Jack + Victor (loses out on the Arts), or Jack/Victor + Dowell (loses out on Lit). In which case Jack/Victor + Scott gives you roughly equivalent Lit and Arts without losing out on hardly anything.

Uh, you realize that there would be four players a match, so it would make more sense to take Jack, Victor and Dowell since they are getting more points. So you take those 3 and give the 4th slot to someone who fills in Jack+Victor+Dowell's gaps well.

But those three are only getting points in Lit and Arts, so by using all three at once you're sacrificing History or Science. Obviously if there's a 4th person that can get both history and science, you take those three, but it's unlikely that person exists. I'm talking about a situation where you're picking from among those 4 for two starting spots. I contend the data you would get by having multiple rooms and rotating the people in each room would give you a better picture of who fills who's gaps than one big free for all.

Er, of the top four, all four would be playing in any given match at NASAT.

And what about all of the questions that the other people in the big room get? What happens when several people are inevitably close?

How to Form an All-Star Team:
1) Choose player getting the most points in science
2) Choose player getting the most points in history
3) Choose player getting the most points in literature
4) Choose the next player getting the most points in categories that those three aren't getting points in or let those three players vote for who they want on the team to compliment them

The 4th spot becomes a simple choice because everyone has seen what everyone else can contribute without the bias of inflated stats.

Dave Breger wrote:

Coach K wrote:

Dave Breger wrote:

Coach K wrote:

Kahloon wrote:

Coach K wrote: Let's say Jack and Victor are the two best lit players and Scott is the third best. Further suppose that Dowell is there and is beating Scott in arts. Scott is completely overshadowed by the combination of Jack, Victor, and Dowell, when in fact Scott would compare favorably against any of the three and could conceivably contribute more to the team overall by being really great at two areas.

Then Scott shouldn't be on the team if there is a better combination of players that encompasses his knowledge...

It takes all three players combined to overshadow Scott. All three of those players wouldn't be in at the same time because we'd be sacrificing either History or Science. Which means you play either Jack + Victor (loses out on the Arts), or Jack/Victor + Dowell (loses out on Lit). In which case Jack/Victor + Scott gives you roughly equivalent Lit and Arts without losing out on hardly anything.

Uh, you realize that there would be four players a match, so it would make more sense to take Jack, Victor and Dowell since they are getting more points. So you take those 3 and give the 4th slot to someone who fills in Jack+Victor+Dowell's gaps well.

But those three are only getting points in Lit and Arts, so by using all three at once you're sacrificing History or Science. Obviously if there's a 4th person that can get both history and science, you take those three, but it's unlikely that person exists. I'm talking about a situation where you're picking from among those 4 for two starting spots. I contend the data you would get by having multiple rooms and rotating the people in each room would give you a better picture of who fills who's gaps than one big free for all.

Er, of the top four, all four would be playing in any given match at NASAT.

Right. You're picking from the four people (Jack/Victor/Scott/Dowell) for two of the starting spots (with the other two spots going to specialists in science and history).

Huang wrote:

And what about all of the questions that the other people in the big room get? What happens when several people are inevitably close?

How to Form an All-Star Team:
1) Choose player getting the most points in science
2) Choose player getting the most points in history
3) Choose player getting the most points in literature
4) Choose the next player getting the most points in categories that those three aren't getting points in or let those three players vote for who they want on the team to compliment them

The 4th spot becomes a simple choice because everyone has seen what everyone else can contribute without the bias of inflated stats.

Unless the the same person is getting the most points in two of those three, in which case you now have two gap-filling spaces to work with instead of one.

Huang wrote:

And what about all of the questions that the other people in the big room get? What happens when several people are inevitably close?

How to Form an All-Star Team:
1) Choose player getting the most points in science
2) Choose player getting the most points in history
3) Choose player getting the most points in literature
4) Choose the next player getting the most points in categories that those three aren't getting points in or let those three players vote for who they want on the team to compliment them

The 4th spot becomes a simple choice because everyone has seen what everyone else can contribute without the bias of inflated stats.

I understand your method Sandy, I just don't believe it's that simple. My contention is that if there are two people that are close in a given area (for instance separated by a couple of points), then we need additional data to determine who better serves the team. I believe that we would get that data in a more meaningful way through smaller groups versus one large group.

Dave Breger wrote:

Huang wrote:

And what about all of the questions that the other people in the big room get? What happens when several people are inevitably close?

How to Form an All-Star Team:
1) Choose player getting the most points in science
2) Choose player getting the most points in history
3) Choose player getting the most points in literature
4) Choose the next player getting the most points in categories that those three aren't getting points in or let those three players vote for who they want on the team to compliment them

The 4th spot becomes a simple choice because everyone has seen what everyone else can contribute without the bias of inflated stats.

Unless the the same person is getting the most points in two of those three, in which case you now have two gap-filling spaces to work with instead of one.

Right, yeah. Both circumstances would be determined more accurately in the large room setup than the small room setup.

Coach K wrote: I understand your method Sandy, I just don't believe it's that simple. My contention is that if there are two people that are close in a given area (for instance separated by a couple of points), then we need additional data to determine who better serves the team. I believe that we would get that data in a more meaningful way through smaller groups versus one large group.

Or we could just play more questions between the two.