2015 NAQT ICT: March 28, Atlanta

[bg0296]

I will be attending as a spectator. Does anyone know of a match schedule so that I can know which teams are playing when, or will that be provided at the hotel?

I'll post the schedules once team check-in begins on Friday. Shoot me an email at [email protected] if I forget (entirely possible).

Thank you.

[jonah]

Schedules for Division I and Division II are now posted.

[Important Bird Area]

2015 ICT format document

The only significant change from the format used in 2014 is that third-place tiebreakers will now use full packets rather than half packets, where possible.

[Mewto55555]

I greatly approve of the bracket names.

[Susan]

I greatly approve of the bracket names.

I see the yellow, but where are the pigs?

[Cheynem]

A little bracketology, keeping in mind that with DII and absent players, the rankings don't fully match the seedings:

AHLFORS BRACKET
#2 Penn
#7 UCSD
#10 Yale
#14 Illinois
#20 Northwestern
Also: Maryland B, Ottawa, Central Florida. Central Florida and Ottawa have never been ranked (Ottawa was #28 in the midseason poll, Maryland B started the season at #23 but has since dropped out).

A dangerous bracket, with four top fifteen teams (only Spivak can make that claim, and like Spivak, it has three top ten teams as well). I would rank its "also-rans" a tick below Spivak's, but voters have been occasionally bullish on Maryland B and Ottawa. While the top two seeds seem strong, one could anticipate some pushes from the next three up.

CONWAY BRACKET
#1 Virginia
#7 MIT
#14 Georgia Tech
#17 North Carolina
#18 Berkeley
Also: Chicago B, Western Kentucky, Waterloo. Waterloo and Western Kentucky have never been ranked (WKU got a smattering of votes in the preseason poll). Chicago B was as high as #22, dropped to #25, and was #26 in the most recent poll. Along with Oxford, they were ranked the highest of teams out of the top 25.

An interesting bracket; if one accepts the fact that Chicago B is really a "proto-top 25" team, this is one of the deepest brackets, with six top 25 teams (that said, Chicago B's votes presumably also recognized its strong DII squad). As befits what is presumably the overall #1 seed, it's a bit top heavy bracket; only two top ten teams and only one top five team appear here. At least according to seedings, the top two teams here are clear, but it could get VERY interesting, with paper thin margins separating the next three teams in the rankings.

RUDIN BRACKET
#5 Maryland A
#6 Michigan
#12 WUSTL
#16 Minnesota
#21 NYU
Also: Carleton U, New Mexico State, and Vanderbilt. None of these teams have ever been ranked or even received votes (perhaps the Carleton that got votes in the preseason poll was Carleton U as opposed to Carleton College, it was unclear).

On paper, this is the "weakest" bracket with only two top ten teams and none from the top four, and the least acclaimed of the three "also-rans." According to the voters' admittedly razor-thin voting, Stanford should probably have been bumped up to a #1 seed. However, we also might label this bracket the "rising star" bracket, as it features a surging, new to the ballot NYU squad. Furthermore, New Mexico State and Vanderbilt's enigmatic natures could perhaps propel them to upsets. This is also I would argue a highly competitive bracket among the top three teams, although voters clearly distinguished a large gap between #5 and #6. Minnesota is missing a key player who is in DII.

SPIVAK BRACKET
#3 Chicago A
#4 Stanford
#9 Harvard
#11 Columbia
#23 William and Mary
Also: McGill, Texas A&M, and Arizona State. Both McGill and Texas A&M have received votes every poll, but have never been ranked. Arizona State has not received votes.

A fairly clear tiered bracket, in my opinion; from what I understand, the two Ivy Leagues have some personnel issues that may prevent them from marking upsets. On paper, it has four top fifteen teams, plus two consistently well respected teams from outside the top 25, but we'll see if the potential for chaos is there.

Each bracket has five ranked teams and three non ranked teams.

[Gonzagapuma1]

Great write-up, Mike.

[The Ununtiable Twine]

Given the flavor of the names, I'm presuming, contrary to popular belief, that the Conway bracket is named for noted complex analysis textbook author John B. Conway and not Game of Life creator John H. Conway. I don't think John H. Conway has ever written an analysis text. If I ruined some side bet NAQT folks were having regarding this, I apologize.

[jonah]

Given the flavor of the names, I'm presuming, contrary to popular belief, that the Conway bracket is named for noted complex analysis textbook author John B. Conway and not Game of Life creator John H. Conway. I don't think John H. Conway has ever written an analysis text. If I ruined some side bet NAQT folks were having regarding this, I apologize.

You are correct, and the only thing you ruined was my plan to name next year's brackets after ambiguous mathematician names.

[bmcke]

NAQT is doing live stats.

[Important Bird Area]

Congratulations to the University of Virginia, who defended their Division I ICT title by defeating Penn 385-345 in the second game of an advantaged final. Chicago A took third. Maryland A defeated Yale 385-260 to claim the Undergraduate championship.

In Division II, the University of Texas defeated Chicago 355-350 in the first game of an advantaged final to win the championship. Stanford finished in third place.

Complete team and individual statistics are available here.

[Important Bird Area]

Please note that the ICT is not yet clear for public discussion, as we have a number of late-season high school tournaments using the Division II ICT set. For question-specific discussion of this year's ICT, please select "2015 ICT discussion" from your user control panel to gain access to the private forum.

[naan/steak-holding toll]

Were any recordings made of games from this year? I wasn't there, but I'd be very interested in listening to the set, especially the finals games.

[jonah]

Were any recordings made of games from this year? I wasn't there, but I'd be very interested in listening to the set, especially the finals games.

I recorded a few preliminary games in Division II, but I don't think they came out. I am not aware of any other recordings.

[Adventure Temple Trail]

Were any recordings made of games from this year? I wasn't there, but I'd be very interested in listening to the set, especially the finals games.

I recorded a few preliminary games in Division II, but I don't think they came out. I am not aware of any other recordings.

What do the players' microphones during the ICT final match do, then? They don't actually carry sound into the audience, from what I can tell.

[jonah]

Were any recordings made of games from this year? I wasn't there, but I'd be very interested in listening to the set, especially the finals games.

I recorded a few preliminary games in Division II, but I don't think they came out. I am not aware of any other recordings.

What do the players' microphones during the ICT final match do, then? They don't actually carry sound into the audience, from what I can tell.

They were supposed to, but I didn't crank them up very high because I was getting feedback when I did, and for the most part the players didn't really make an effort to speak into them.

[Sima Guang Hater]

That's really unfortunate. I would have asked someone to make an iphone recording if I knew we weren't being recorded by the mic's.

[i never see pigeons in wheeling]

I recorded part of the first match of the finals on Corry Wang's phone.

[Important Bird Area]

2015 ICT photos are now available. (Please feel free to tag yourselves.)

[Charbroil]

(Please feel free to tag yourselves.)

There doesn't seem to be any way to do that, short of leaving a comment with someone's name in it?

[jonah]

(Please feel free to tag yourselves.)

There doesn't seem to be any way to do that, short of leaving a comment with someone's name in it?

I think this is fixed now; sorry about that.

[Charbroil]

(Please feel free to tag yourselves.)

There doesn't seem to be any way to do that, short of leaving a comment with someone's name in it?

I think this is fixed now; sorry about that.

Still no.

[jonah]

(Please feel free to tag yourselves.)

There doesn't seem to be any way to do that, short of leaving a comment with someone's name in it?

I think this is fixed now; sorry about that.

Still no.

Then I have no idea. Message or email me with links to photos you want tagged and whom to tag, I guess.

[Charbroil]

(Please feel free to tag yourselves.)

There doesn't seem to be any way to do that, short of leaving a comment with someone's name in it?

I think this is fixed now; sorry about that.

Still no.

Then I have no idea. Message or email me with links to photos you want tagged and whom to tag, I guess.

It works now; sorry for the confusion!