The Quizbowl Resource Center

grapesmoker wrote:I think it's important to establish right now that Terrapin should be a closed-eligibility event. At least that much seems like something everyone in this thread agrees with (except Ryan and Bruce).

I'm being accused of some interesting things in this thread. I'm not sure I've ever had an opinion about Terrapin. I have enough trouble as it is following the Terrapin thread through all of the different mergers and date changes it's gone through over the years.

To wade into the dispute between Matt Weiner and Chris Ray, I think there is in fact something other than a binary choice. There are basically three forms that a tournament can take:

(1) Fully closed: nothing other than a team made up of people all enrolled at the same school can play.

(2) Closed, w/ exhibition rule: only teams made up of people who are all enrolled at the same school can play, but other teams can play on an exhibition basis if the TD allows them

(3) Fully open. Anyone can play, anyone can win.

My position in this thread has never been to make all tournaments (3). Rather, my position has been "hey guys, (2) is an option and I don't think it's so bad, maybe we should look at it."

As I understand it, the binary of people in this thread is actually between 1 and 2 (nobody is seriously agitating for 3). There's no real intermediate solution between those two.

My reading of the thread is that most people are arguing for (1), using (3) as a boogeyman, while Ryan Westbrook is arguing for (3).

Several arguments being made in favor of 1, such as the "legitimate winner" line used by Matt Jackson or the bringing up of 2009 Terrapin are consistent with arguing against (3) but not (2), as under (2) such evils would be eliminated.

In any event (2) is not the reality on the ground today; most modern tournaments that are being criticized for inappropriately allowing open teams to play do not impose any of the old-style "exhibition team" restrictions on the open teams, but rather allow them to play the tournament (and win) like any regular team. I'm not sure that a team has ever played on an exhibition basis since my team at Brandeis ACF Nationals. Thus it makes perfect sense for people in this thread to be using (3) as the boogeyman, because it actually is under the quizbowl bed right now.

My argument, as before, is that the exhibition team restrictions ease or eliminate many of the concerns raised by the presence of irregular teams, and that this is a gentler, more flexible policy that will allow people to enjoy quizbowl (and TDs to grow developing circuits and avoid byes while making money) without causing too much evil.

To be clear, I'm only arguing that (3) is the best option with tournaments that are not ACF-sponsored and not ICT or SCT (because the goals of those events is clearly to determine who the "best collegiate team" is - and therefore the eligibility rules should conform to that specific purpose), and not a dedicated novice event.

And even for the other events, my caveat to the rule in (3) would always be that it's fair to disallow "superteams," or at least prevent them from winning, to preserve a sensible competitive balance.


I think that set of rules is optimal because it allows for maximum participation and fair competition (which benefits good quizbowl), and those rules don't exclude players based on what I see to be arbitrary bases. I remain wholly unsympathetic to anyone who might be deterred from continuing to play this game simply because they have to play against someone who may not be in college.

Sorry that I'm not nearly as radical and demented as the caricature of myself is.

It seems to me that there is currently one unresolved problem in scheduling next year: the uncertainty surrounding the (presumably all open) tournaments that Chris, Ike, and Chicago want to write. I would like to start working towards a solution.

Here's the way I see the puzzle pieces dropping in the fall:

Collegiate Novice will occupy September, and no one else really wants it (and no other tournament fits the bill).
October will likely have two of UVA/Michigan regular tournament, Yale/UCSD/Jerry regular tournament, and Minnesota/Penn Opens.
November will almost certainly have ACF Fall and likely the other of the three mentioned for October. Delta Burke will possibly run concurrent to MO.
There is an open slot in early December.

For spring, things are more nebulous. There are up to four open prime slots (two in January, two in March). SCT and Regionals will occupy February, and ICT and Nationals will occupy April. An early May tournament could also be a possibility.

The events that are looking for homes include three stalwarts: Penn Bowl (though we're not entirely sure if it's happening), Terrapin, and MUT; and the three above-mentioned Chris, Ike, and Chicago tournaments. Gautam has also expressed interest in reviving Elvis at Wisconsin in May. So we have a max of seven tournaments vying for four or five spring slots (plus the open December slot).

Here is my solution: These tournaments can all exist with a little compromise. One can take a January/March date, one can take the early December date, and one can take the early May date (possibly working in conjunction with Gautam to host in Madison). Or two can combine. Or one can attempt to become a June/August summer open. We could even try to host MUT and an open on the same weekends under the DI/DII concept (something I think would be fun to try with MO/Delta Burke in the fall as well, and eventually something that I hope will catch on in general).

While there are many great compromise options, I do not think that all three of these tournaments can take prime spring dates. Most people have voiced a preference for occasional open tournaments throughout the school year, but not three in one semester. Furthermore, having all three in prime spring dates would crowd out traditional spring events (Terrapin, Penn Bowl, MUT) or revert us to the problem of having a death-march of spring tournaments. To me, the least invasive option would be to have one tournament in December, one on a prime spring weekend, and one in May or in conjunction with MUT. Alternately, if two of the editors agree to combine, things could resolve themselves as well.

I'm happy to have my event run in December (fall is when I'd wanted to run it anyway).

I'm flexible with any date - I like the idea of pairing Illinois Open with MUT, so I'll probably be emailing you Andrew? or Rob? about this in the near future.

Ike

For many reasons this announcement is late, but that doesn't matter much now.

Members of the Illinois ABT are collaborating on a housewrite for the coming year. This tournament will be along the difficulty lines of MUT (and Delta Burke) from the last couple of years. We plan to have this tournament written and edited by the end of the summer, so it can be run pretty much whenever. If Brown doesn't mind, we'd like to make this the next incarnation of EFT. If they do, we'll find some other name.

Is TIT not happening?

As Ike mentioned elsewhere, GAAP and MUT are being combined.

Sorry to derail the thread, but is there any more information floating around about Spring 2012 tournaments? I wanna get some good old quizbowl on before I graduate. Or the apocalypse hits. Or both.