NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Old college threads.
User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:08 pm

So maybe I missed it somewhere, but what exactly is the UT-K tournament going to be? Is that a qualifier for ICT as well or just a dead end prize for winning your ACUI i.m. tournament (and therefore a "national" tournament for i.m. winners)? Is it using some separately written NAQT set? I was told at the info session for our i.m. that the winner might get sent there if the school has the money.
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu

User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Frater Taciturnus » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:14 pm

Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote:So maybe I missed it somewhere, but what exactly is the UT-K tournament going to be? Is that a qualifier for ICT as well or just a dead end prize for winning your ACUI i.m. tournament (and therefore a "national" tournament for i.m. winners)? Is it using some separately written NAQT set? I was told at the info session for our i.m. that the winner might get sent there if the school has the money.
Its sectionals dude
George Berry
georgeberry.vcu@gmail.com
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:16 pm

Zip Zap Rap Pants wrote:what exactly is the UT-K tournament going to be?
UTK has bid to host a normal SCT site. Note that whether or not your campus has the money to send one or more teams from the campus IM tournament to Knoxville is a completely separate question from your existing club's attendance at SCT. (We had Virginia teams in mind when we decided on the attendance policy; it is nearly certain that there will be one or more SCT sites closer to William and Mary than Knoxville.)
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
at your pleasure
Auron
Posts: 1670
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:56 pm

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by at your pleasure » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:20 pm

MicroEStudent wrote:
bt_green_warbler wrote:I'm referring that to R., since the question clearly has no simple answer!
I appreciate it. It is just a possibility at this point, but I'd rather consider it now rather than later.

I know how complex it was to set up the first year. It took a three hour conference call to hammer it out and it ended up with the most staff I've ever seen for a match.

Since it was CBI, there was the moderator, judge and scorekeeper. Add in two ASL interpreters, a computer operator and a clock operator and you had 7 staff for one room!

What ended up happening is that CBI loaded the questions on to a CD using PowerPoint, but removing any spelling, computational math tossups and bonuses and music tossups, but not bonuses. The moderator would begin reading the question at a very fast pace as the computer operator released the tossup word by word on a computer monitor that only the deaf player could see. When someone would buzz in or if the moderator had finished reading, the operator would blank out the screen. If the other team negged, the operator would restart the question. If the deaf player signaled, he was recognized by pointing instead of the archaic CBI name and school. The clock would run for two seconds, then it would stop as he was signing his answer to the interpreters which could take several seconds if there was any confusion.

If we got a bonus, the computer mechanism would work as before, blanking out between bonus parts. Due to the communication barrier, we got the traditional 5 seconds conferring time, plus 2 untimed seconds (they would stop the clock) for the first answer and 1 additional second for each additional answer. The other team received this additional time as well if they wanted.

So yes, it was not a simple situation at all and it removed any rhythm from the game. Add in incompetent staff and it once took 75 minutes to play one round one year.
What sort of hearing loss are we dealing with?
Douglas Graebner, Walt Whitman HS 10, Uchicago 14
"... imagination acts upon man as really as does gravitation, and may kill him as certainly as a dose of prussic acid."-Sir James Frazer,The Golden Bough

http://avorticistking.wordpress.com/

User avatar
Galstaff, Sorceror of Light
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 2211
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 5:40 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Galstaff, Sorceror of Light » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:27 pm

There was a player on a VHSL team at States last year with an interpreter. Mr. Pickrell may be able to provide some details on how they worked that out logistically.
Sarah Angelo Luongo,
Maggie L. Walker Governor's School 2010 / UVA 2014 / VCU School of Education 2016
President, PACE
Subject Editor, NAQT
Member, ACF

User avatar
MicroEStudent
Rikku
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by MicroEStudent » Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:30 pm

Doink the Clown wrote: What sort of hearing loss are we dealing with?
For that player it was 100% loss. Other players at the intramural tournaments were anywhere from 20%-100% loss.

Approximately 1200 students at RIT have some sort of hearing loss. RIT as a whole is about 16000 students.
Nathaniel Kane
RIT '09, '11 (BS Microelectronic Engineering, MS Microelectronic Engineering)

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:28 am

bt_green_warbler wrote:
nobthehobbit wrote:And, for that matter, what if a school's QB club puts in a bid to host, and the ACUI Region also bids to host at that school?
We've not seriously considered this situation. Obviously, the ideal solution is that they agree in advance of SCT who goes to ICT, then cooperate to run the tournament. Insofar as the question is: what if the entities are unable or unwilling to do that? I'm not sure what we do then; I'll see if R. has any thoughts on the matter.
R. writes:

"We would consider them as separate bids and choose the one that we thought was likely to run the better tournament. At any rate, we don't have a policy that "forbids" either ACUI or student groups from bidding if the other has submitted a bid."
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
nobthehobbit
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:18 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by nobthehobbit » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:46 am

Sorry if this sounds nitpicky and largely irrelevant to 99% of situations, but I think that the more that's asked and answered now, when there's little rush to do so, the less that has to be asked and answered later when it's a week from SCT.

1. With regards to the "home or closest SCT" policy, how would a situation like Rochester's in 2006 be handled? They fielded teams at three different Sectionals, and the outlier, Fred Bush playing D1 solo at Texas, earned them a D1 ICT bid.

2. (Note: I don't know if Fred was on exchange that term/year, but it did raise this question in my mind.) What is NAQT's policy on exchange students? For instance, if a UBC student was on exchange at Arizona State, and ASU attended Sectionals, could the UBC student play as part of an ASU team at SCT (and, possibly, ICT), or would they have to play as UBC? Also, since ASU's SCT (probably one in California) would not be the home SCT for UBC or (probably) the closest to UBC, if that student were required to play as UBC, would they have to receive an exception from NAQT to do so?

3. Will there be any expectation that ACUI Regions (or anyone else) hosting offer discounts for things like buzzers, staff, and clocks? It's only recommended in the host requirements, but it's generally expected that tournament hosts will offer such discounts, and an ACUI Regional coordinator may not know that.

Again, sorry if this seems nitpicky.
Daniel Pareja, Waterloo, Canadian quizbowl iconoclast

Stats zombie.
William Lyon Mackenzie King wrote:There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:07 am

nobthehobbit wrote:Sorry if this sounds nitpicky and largely irrelevant to 99% of situations, but I think that the more that's asked and answered now, when there's little rush to do so, the less that has to be asked and answered later when it's a week from SCT.
No worries, that's certainly a good idea.
nobthehobbit wrote:With regards to the "home or closest SCT" policy, how would a situation like Rochester's in 2006 be handled? They fielded teams at three different Sectionals, and the outlier, Fred Bush playing D1 solo at Texas, earned them a D1 ICT bid
Certainly this is the kind of situation that would be referred to the new committee. Not remembering the details of Rochester's situation, I'm not at all sure what we would do with a similar setup in the future.
nobthehobbit wrote:What is NAQT's policy on exchange students? For instance, if a UBC student was on exchange at Arizona State, and ASU attended Sectionals, could the UBC student play as part of an ASU team at SCT (and, possibly, ICT), or would they have to play as UBC? Also, since ASU's SCT (probably one in California) would not be the home SCT for UBC or (probably) the closest to UBC, if that student were required to play as UBC, would they have to receive an exception from NAQT to do so?
This isn't explicitly addressed by our eligibility rules, but I would imagine that most exchange students are registered for courses at their host institution and would qualify to play with that school per C.2. "A player establishes a student affiliation at an institution for a given competition year by registering in at least one course normally offered for degree credit during the competition year at that institution." Note also C.7: "A player may appear for only one squad in a given competition year. If a player has or will have a student affiliation with more than one school or campus in a given competition year, the player must choose the squad for which s/he will play." Since SCT and ICT are within two calendar months of each other, even exchange students would in almost all situations maintain eligibility between them. It would, I suppose, be possible for an exchange student to arrive or depart between the two tournaments if one or both of the schools involved were on a less common academic calendar (such as a quarter system). Situations like that would be covered under C.12. (write to NAQT asking for an exception at least one week before the tournament in question).
nobthehobbit wrote:Will there be any expectation that ACUI Regions (or anyone else) hosting offer discounts for things like buzzers, staff, and clocks? It's only recommended in the host requirements, but it's generally expected that tournament hosts will offer such discounts, and an ACUI Regional coordinator may not know that.
That's exactly why the recommendation is in the hosting guidelines.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

monomandan
Kimahri
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:38 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by monomandan » Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:44 am

bt_green_warbler wrote:
nobthehobbit wrote:With regards to the "home or closest SCT" policy, how would a situation like Rochester's in 2006 be handled? They fielded teams at three different Sectionals, and the outlier, Fred Bush playing D1 solo at Texas, earned them a D1 ICT bid
Certainly this is the kind of situation that would be referred to the new committee. Not remembering the details of Rochester's situation, I'm not at all sure what we would do with a similar setup in the future.
As Rochester's president at the time, we sent teams to Montreal and to College Park as they are approximately equidistant, and we had interest from within our club in attending both sites, and enough players to be able to do so (2 teams to UMD, one to McGill, if memory serves). The decision was partially based on an international student not being able to travel to Canada, as well. I believe I checked with NAQT at the time to be sure this was acceptable. Fred was living in Texas at the time, but was still enrolled in a PhD program at UR (I think, he knows better than I. He was a student, is the point), so he attended the regional closest to his home.

Not sure how similar situations will be handled under ACUI/NAQT, but just wanted to give a background to that particular instance.

- Dan Blake
Former President, UR Thelion Society
Dan Blake
Former President, University of Rochester Thelion Society

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:12 pm

Thanks, Dan. Here's what we would do with that situation now:

1. Rochester would normally be expected to attend the SCT site at McGill (both the site in Region 2, and that geographically closest to Rochester).

2. Teams that wished to go somewhere else would write to us asking for exceptions.

2a. An international student unable to travel to Canada would not, of course, thereby be prohibited from competing in SCT; nor would it be fair to make such a student play without teammates. Therefore we would have granted you an exception to send one team to an American site, and probably encouraged you to attend the closest one (in this case Yale rather than Maryland, but the difference in travel time/cost is not significant).

2b. Since Fred was enrolled at Rochester but resident elsewhere, we would probably have approved his exception as well, ending in the same result (a Fred solo team at the southwestern SCT).

Edit: spelling
Last edited by Important Bird Area on Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Matt Weiner » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:45 pm

Is there a stated rationale for the "closest" policy? In all my time in quizbowl, which I think encompasses ten SCTs by now, I've only heard of one team ever gaming the system by intentionally going to a faraway SCT because they thought it would be weak enough for them to win, out of perhaps 1500 or more teams who have played SCT in that timespan. It seems that when teams go to the not-closest SCT, it's almost always because they found it more convenient due to having free lodging with an acquaintance there or some reason like that.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 1:49 pm

Matt Weiner wrote:Is there a stated rationale for the "closest" policy? In all my time in quizbowl, which I think encompasses ten SCTs by now, I've only heard of one team ever gaming the system by intentionally going to a faraway SCT because they thought it would be weak enough for them to win
It is to prevent this scenario from happening in the future, something that ACUI has expressed concerns about.
Matt Weiner wrote:when teams go to the not-closest SCT, it's almost always because they found it more convenient due to having free lodging with an acquaintance there or some reason like that.
We anticipate that exceptions for this reason (saving money on lodging) would be granted in almost every case; indeed, I anticipate that the overwhelming majority of requests will center on precisely this point.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
marnold
Tidus
Posts: 705
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: NY

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by marnold » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:18 pm

So let's say some hypothetical team with a lot of players and a lot of money decided they want to game the old system in some arbitrary year - let's say last year. They sent one team in each division to two different (though both nearby) sites, hoping that the two weaker teams would win the weaker sites, get autobids and not have to worry about S-values at stronger sites. So if I'm interpreting your exchange with Matt correctly, the committee would not be inclined to approve requests of that nature in the new system, right?
Michael Arnold
Chicago 2010
Columbia Law 2013

2009 ACF Nats Champion
2010 ICT Champion
2010 CULT Champion
Member of Mike Cheyne's Quizbowl All-Heel Team

Fundamental Theorem of Quizbowl (Revised): Almost no one is actually good at quizbowl.

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:25 pm

marnold wrote:the committee would not be inclined to approve requests of that nature in the new system, right?
That would be correct.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
nobthehobbit
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:18 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by nobthehobbit » Fri Nov 06, 2009 2:42 pm

marnold wrote:So let's say some hypothetical team with a lot of players and a lot of money decided they want to game the old system in some arbitrary year - let's say last year. They sent one team in each division to two different (though both nearby) sites, hoping that the two weaker teams would win the weaker sites, get autobids and not have to worry about S-values at stronger sites. So if I'm interpreting your exchange with Matt correctly, the committee would not be inclined to approve requests of that nature in the new system, right?
To follow up on this, if one of those sites was their home SCT and the other was the geographically nearest SCT, and the club felt they could win outright at both sites, would the club require approval from the committee to field teams at both sites, since they are allowed to attend both normally without approval?
Daniel Pareja, Waterloo, Canadian quizbowl iconoclast

Stats zombie.
William Lyon Mackenzie King wrote:There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:14 pm

nobthehobbit wrote:would the club require approval from the committee to field teams at both sites?
No.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:02 pm

Will any and all graduate students still be eligible to play NAQT events like they are currently?
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 2027
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by jonpin » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:11 pm

This may have been assumed in prior questions/answers, but just to confirm: Will NAQT continue to allow a school to send an unlimited number of teams to SCT and (pending qualification) ICT?
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15, '17; ACF '14, '17, '19; NHBB '13-'15; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:17 pm

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:Will any and all graduate students still be eligible to play NAQT events like they are currently?
Minor eligibility changes remain to be finalized, but we do not anticipate any change in grad student eligibility.
jonpin wrote:just to confirm: Will NAQT continue to allow a school to send an unlimited number of teams to SCT and (pending qualification) ICT?
naqt.com wrote:Schools will continue to be allowed to send as many teams as they want to Sectionals.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:20 pm

What kinds of minor eligibility changes are still on the table?
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:30 pm

I'm not going to release the details of ongoing discussions between NAQT and ACUI.
naqt.com wrote:The strategic partnership agreement does not, however, cover every policy detail; most of those are still under discussion, but we hope to come to a final agreement by December 1 so we can let teams and advisers know exactly how this year's championship events will work.
When this is final, I'll announce it here.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
nobthehobbit
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:18 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by nobthehobbit » Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:08 am

A few more questions...

1. How will the ICT bidding process work? Will it be like the SCT bidding process, where both Regions (with a school in mind) and clubs (and other entities, as indicated at the host call page) can bid?

1a. If a Region wins its bid to host ICT, would local schools that provide staff be compensated (as per the host call announcement) as if those schools had bid?

2. Will proximity of existing clubs be considered in evaluating SCT bids? To reuse an example, if Region 14 bids to host at the University of Saskatchewan, most PNW clubs would not find it easy to get there; would that be considered in evaluating their bid?

3. If in a future year it's decided that a Region should have two (or more!) Sectionals, will teams in that Region be allowed to attend either (and also the geographically closest Sectional should that be distinct from any "local" Sectional)?

4. Related to #3, if in a future year it's decided that a Region will not have a "home" Sectional, will that whole Region be assigned another Region's Sectional as their "home" for that year (and its clubs able to attend that or the closest one), or would all clubs in that Region have to attend the Sectional geographically closest to them (barring exemptions)?

5. Going back to the exchange student thing, as I understand it (perhaps someone who's actually been on an exchange program can correct me), students from Univ A on exchange at Univ B take Univ B courses for Univ A credit; if I'm understanding you and the eligibility rules correctly, they thus establish an affiliation with Univ A and would have to play as a Univ A team at Sectionals (even though they'd likely be practicing with Univ B's teams and may have played independent tournaments with Univ B teams). Is this interpretation (notwithstanding my questions below) correct?

5a. What about a Univ A student who's on exchange at Univ B from the start of NAQT's competition year and remains until after ICT? They wouldn't have taken a single course at Univ A in that time, though all their Univ B courses would have earned them Univ A credit. What affiliation would they establish, and, if it were normally Univ A, how likely would it be that NAQT would grant them an exemption to have Univ B affiliation for that year (say, a student from Univ A with no club gets interested at Univ B, but is too new to want to play solo, even in D2), and vice versa (say, a student from Univ A on exchange at Univ B who wants to be eligible to play with Univ A teams at ICT and feels comfortable playing solo at SCT, or staffing it)?

Thanks.
Daniel Pareja, Waterloo, Canadian quizbowl iconoclast

Stats zombie.
William Lyon Mackenzie King wrote:There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:30 am

nobthehobbit wrote:1. How will the ICT bidding process work? Will it be like the SCT bidding process, where both Regions (with a school in mind) and clubs (and other entities, as indicated at the host call page) can bid?
We don't yet know what the bid process will look like for the 2011 ICT (or at least I don't; maybe R. will chime in).
nobthehobbit wrote:Will proximity of existing clubs be considered in evaluating SCT bids?
Yes; obviously any SCT site well away from existing circuit teams would be expected to produce enough new teams from that area to have a viable tournament. Of course we would be open to providing a second site within the region if the first were inconvenient for a large number of teams.
nobthehobbit wrote:If in a future year it's decided that a Region should have two (or more!) Sectionals, will teams in that Region be allowed to attend either (and also the geographically closest Sectional should that be distinct from any "local" Sectional)?
I don't know; my instinct is that we would probably allow that. It is unlikely that any Region will have two SCT sites in 2010.
nobthehobbit wrote:Related to #3, if in a future year it's decided that a Region will not have a "home" Sectional, will that whole Region be assigned another Region's Sectional as their "home" for that year (and its clubs able to attend that or the closest one), or would all clubs in that Region have to attend the Sectional geographically closest to them (barring exemptions)?
Unclear; we'll decide on policy when this happens (and this, as I've mentioned, has a good chance of happening this year).

As for exchange students: I have no idea what our actual policy is, and was speculating (perhaps unfoundedly) in my earlier response. I'll ask R., but in the absence of an actual case it might be weeks before we make a decision. (I'll guess offhand that we have probably never had a case of an exchange student where *both* universities competed at SCT.)
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
nobthehobbit
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:18 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by nobthehobbit » Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:52 am

bt_green_warbler wrote:As for exchange students: I have no idea what our actual policy is, and was speculating (perhaps unfoundedly) in my earlier response. I'll ask R., but in the absence of an actual case it might be weeks before we make a decision. (I'll guess offhand that we have probably never had a case of an exchange student where *both* universities competed at SCT.)
Actually...

At The Most Meaningless Sectional Ever, my teammate Everett was an exchange student from Minnesota who was there from the start of September, which is when UBC starts classes. (I think she was from UMinn, though I don't know what campus.) I don't know if Mike Whitaker (who ran the UBC club and that SCT) cleared it with NAQT so that she could actually play with us; that said, neither UBC or SFU earned an ICT bid based on play anyway, and UBC didn't use the host bid it received (which it took in D1), so from my point of view it's a "no harm, no foul" situation (and three Sectionals ago, and both UBC and SFU are now dead anyway). (Incidentally, NAQT's stats for UBC from that SCT are pretty badly mangled; some games give us a negative bonus conversion, while others give us a conversion over 30.) As I recall, Everett had played QB in high school, but not in university to that point, and I don't know if she got involved when she went back to Minnesota; looking through likely SCT results, I don't see her name.

Anyway, it's entirely possible that her home university played at SCT that year.
Daniel Pareja, Waterloo, Canadian quizbowl iconoclast

Stats zombie.
William Lyon Mackenzie King wrote:There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Sat Nov 07, 2009 2:01 am

nobthehobbit wrote:(Incidentally, NAQT's stats for UBC from that SCT are pretty badly mangled
If you (or anyone) has an accurate version, please send it along and we'd be happy to update the website.

I'll ask R. for a clarification about exchange students; barring a specific case at the 2010 SCT, this will likely go into a file of "less urgent items to be resolved by summer 2010."
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
nobthehobbit
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:18 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by nobthehobbit » Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:18 pm

Another not-entirely-unrealistic scenario, this one having to do with automatic bids:

In (say) 2011, Univ A's club has 2 D1 teams qualify for and attend ICT. At the start of the 2011-2012 competition year (or at least before SCT bidding begins), Univ A's club finds out it has an influx of new players and, since it knows its Sectional will likely be large and wanting to get its new players playing SCT rather than staffing it (and, perhaps, because it thinks it can earn more than 2 bids playing), Univ A's club does not want to host SCT in 2012. Its ACUI Region has other ideas, and bids to host SCT at Univ A (and, not knowing the club's situation, may be counting on it to provide staff). Now:

1. If the Region wins its hosting bid, how many automatic bids go to Univ A and who decides how they're used, in particular whether one's put into D2? (This again goes back to the earlier bit about not wanting to give clubs perverse incentives not to staff.) After all, ACUI had (presumably) nothing to do with the club's success the previous year.

2. Could the club ask NAQT not to have Sectionals hosted at Univ A (perhaps citing its many new players)? Would that be likely to have any effect on the success of the Region's bid? Could the Region be asked to transfer its hosting bid to another school?
Daniel Pareja, Waterloo, Canadian quizbowl iconoclast

Stats zombie.
William Lyon Mackenzie King wrote:There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:29 pm

We don't yet have a policy for that hypothetical; we'll make a decision when it happens.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1813
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Susan » Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:19 pm

Lately, I've been happy to see NAQT using player surveys to make changes in its distribution and policy (most notably the recent decision to eliminate comp math from the HSNCT). Will NAQT continue to use player surveys to see how it's meeting the needs of its players? If so, what will the influx of a whole bunch of new-to-the-circuit quizbowl teams (and players) do to the survey results? How will NAQT balance satisfying the existing circuit with introducing new teams to quizbowl?
Susan
UChicago alum (AB 2003, PhD 2009)
Member emerita, ACF

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Mechanical Beasts » Sun Nov 08, 2009 1:49 pm

myamphigory wrote:Lately, I've been happy to see NAQT using player surveys to make changes in its distribution and policy (most notably the recent decision to eliminate comp math from the HSNCT). Will NAQT continue to use player surveys to see how it's meeting the needs of its players? If so, what will the influx of a whole bunch of new-to-the-circuit quizbowl teams (and players) do to the survey results? How will NAQT balance satisfying the existing circuit with introducing new teams to quizbowl?
One key is that if new high school quizbowl teams simply don't understand quizbowl to include computational math, they don't mind its absence. Analogously, new college teams won't miss [distributional concession often made to new teams--perhaps extra trash or something] if they don't know what they're missing.
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:47 pm

Great question, Susan. It's not something I (personally) have thought about, in part because it's a matter of long-term distributional change (think: 2012 SCT). In particular: right now our policy is that Division I and Division II tournaments have the same distribution. What kind of change might show up on those surveys when we have a sudden influx of new players concentrated in one of the divisions? I'll ask R. for his thoughts on the matter.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:48 pm

myamphigory wrote:Lately, I've been happy to see NAQT using player surveys to make changes in its distribution and policy (most notably the recent decision to eliminate comp math from the HSNCT). Will NAQT continue to use player surveys to see how it's meeting the needs of its players? If so, what will the influx of a whole bunch of new-to-the-circuit quizbowl teams (and players) do to the survey results? How will NAQT balance satisfying the existing circuit with introducing new teams to quizbowl?
R. writes:

"NAQT doesn't blindly follow survey results, but we do value input from all players and will continue to collect it in survey form as one part of our decision-making process."
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
nobthehobbit
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:18 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by nobthehobbit » Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:32 am

Will the ACUI have any role on the Scheduling Committee?
Daniel Pareja, Waterloo, Canadian quizbowl iconoclast

Stats zombie.
William Lyon Mackenzie King wrote:There are few men in this Parliament for whom I have greater respect than the leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. I admire him in my heart, because time and again he has had the courage to say what lays on his conscience, regardless of what the world might think of him. A man of that calibre is an ornament to any Parliament.

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:02 pm

We haven't talked about that, but it's entirely possible that an ACUI representative might join the Scheduling Committee in the future.

Obviously ACUI will be consulted to find good dates for SCTs, though we fully expect that the "first-or-second weekend in February" pattern will continue.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

STPickrell
Auron
Posts: 1501
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Vienna, VA
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by STPickrell » Fri Nov 20, 2009 1:48 pm

First off, congratulations to R., Jeff, and the rest of the NAQT team. This is a landmark moment in collegiate quizbowl.

I hope that similar competitions in other countries (e.g. Iceland's Gettu Betur and Lithuania's Protmusis) might one day attend ICT or HSNCT.

Jeff and Sarah, regarding the hearing-impaired student:

The VHSL was informed of a similar issue the Friday before the state tournament (it seems the coach and AD both thought the other had told us.) What that team had done was have an interpreter sign the matches with a copy of the questions.

I saw two possible issues: (1) that the signer would be reading the question faster than the reader -- this proved 100% unfounded -- and (2) the signer had access to the questions with the answers. This student, however, was apparently able to speak clearly, so the full system Nate describes was not needed.

I would at the least require that tournament hosts be notified in advance so that accommodations could be made. (The VHSL adopted this policy at last year's Advisory Committee meeting.) In addition, being an interpreter is TIRING on the hands.

A properly-prepared PowerPoint presentation could also work and provide questions in 'real-time.' I do like how the system Nate describes was set up to blank when someone buzzed in.
Shawn Pickrell, HSAPQ CFO

User avatar
MicroEStudent
Rikku
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:20 pm

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by MicroEStudent » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:04 pm

STPickrell wrote: Jeff and Sarah, regarding the hearing-impaired student:

The VHSL was informed of a similar issue the Friday before the state tournament (it seems the coach and AD both thought the other had told us.) What that team had done was have an interpreter sign the matches with a copy of the questions.

I saw two possible issues: (1) that the signer would be reading the question faster than the reader -- this proved 100% unfounded -- and (2) the signer had access to the questions with the answers. This student, however, was apparently able to speak clearly, so the full system Nate describes was not needed.

I would at the least require that tournament hosts be notified in advance so that accommodations could be made. (The VHSL adopted this policy at last year's Advisory Committee meeting.) In addition, being an interpreter is TIRING on the hands.

A properly-prepared PowerPoint presentation could also work and provide questions in 'real-time.' I do like how the system Nate describes was set up to blank when someone buzzed in.
Our deaf teammate at CBI Regionals was not oral, so he had to sign his answers. This did result in some misinterpretations as well as situations that required clock stoppages (e.g. there was a toss up with an answer of Johns Hopkins, and there was a debate between the interpreters if my teammate had signed the "s" in Johns) Jeff sent me an e-mail with a possible solution to this, if the situation occurs, that would require at least 2 staff per room instead of the ridiculous number we had before. Also, the odds of having rounds last over an hour (like we had at one poorly run Regionals) are minimized.

I sent an e-mail to the college activities people, but I don't expect a response until December as we are now in our between quarters break. If we end up just paying out of pocket again, we would be a team of four hearing people.
Nathaniel Kane
RIT '09, '11 (BS Microelectronic Engineering, MS Microelectronic Engineering)

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Fri Nov 20, 2009 10:58 pm

MicroEStudent wrote:Jeff sent me an e-mail with a possible solution
Might as well share this, since it was basically just me brainstorming potential fixes.
I wrote:The way to do this would be as follows:

-For that room and that room only, scrap the clock in favor of untimed 20/20 (has no effect on stats or qualifications, as if a robot moderator somehow managed to read exactly 20 tossups every round).

-Write a program that projects the tossup text on a screen, not line by line but word by word (conserves pyramidality).

-The deaf player has the option to write the answer down (I would guess something like "five seconds to either write on paper or type on a disconnected laptop.")
Comments and corrections welcome, as I'm sure this situation will (eventually) happen at some future SCT.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Sun Devil Student
Rikku
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:05 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Sun Devil Student » Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:42 am

Matt Weiner wrote:Is there a stated rationale for the "closest" policy? In all my time in quizbowl, which I think encompasses ten SCTs by now, I've only heard of one team ever gaming the system by intentionally going to a faraway SCT because they thought it would be weak enough for them to win, out of perhaps 1500 or more teams who have played SCT in that timespan. It seems that when teams go to the not-closest SCT, it's almost always because they found it more convenient due to having free lodging with an acquaintance there or some reason like that.
On behalf of one of those weak teams, I have another few questions / hypothetical situations:

1) According to these rules, schools normally have a choice of two Sectionals (their home region's one, or the geographically closest one). But what if their home region's SCT is, by coincidence, also geographically closest? Would this school be permitted to attend the next closest SCT, or would this school, unlike most other schools, be restricted to attending only one Sectional?
If the latter is true, it seems unfair that some teams are allowed to choose which of two SCTs is easier for them to win, while others have no choice as to which SCT they attend. However, we'd better find out about the rules (whatever they are) now as opposed to after we buy our SCT plane tickets!

2) Suppose a school is hosting the official SCT for their ACUI Region. This school's D1 team is staffing, but the D2 team has to compete since the D1 team is using the autobid. Would this school's D2 team be permitted to choose whether to attend the "geographically closest" neighboring SCT or their "home region" SCT (which is being hosted by their own D1 colleagues)?

3) Suppose a school wishes to enter multiple (say, three) D2 teams, which is explicitly allowed. This school requests permission to send each team to a different SCT (this needs your committee's approval to allow attendance at more than two SCT's). The motivation is *not* to "game" the system by sending weaker teams out of their way to weaker SCT's. Rather, this school is splitting off a team to attend a *stronger* SCT that is neither geographically closest nor home-region. This school wishes to risk attending a tougher SCT rather than have two teams at the same SCT and risk fratricide. Is this an "acceptable" (sportsmanlike) motive that would be granted an exception by your committee?

At the 2009 SCT held at UCLA, fratricide directly cost Caltech a D2 ICT bid (their A-team would have been in contention for 1st or 2nd place had they not lost one game to their B-teammates). So this is a very real concern, and if schools are not granted exceptions to avoid the same thing happening to them, then that would be a huge disincentive to field more than one D2 SCT team, even if it is supposedly allowed. I find this to be counter to your objective of increasing SCT participation throughout the ACUI regions, but perhaps I've misunderstood your stated objectives.

4) Suppose a school's D2 team applies for an exception to attend an SCT that is not one of the two they are normally allowed to attend. They do so because their two "normally allowed" SCTs have weak fields and this team thinks they can win a tougher and more distant SCT (and have more fun doing so). Suppose this D2 team is indeed a strong team. Would your committee be willing to humor their request?

5) Same situation as #4, except that this D2 team is weaker and has a different motivation. This team would have a hard time winning their own region's (mediocre-field) SCT, let alone a stronger-field SCT. They want to attend the tougher (distant) SCT, not because they think they can win it (they know they can't) but because they think the stronger field will give them a higher S-value and thereby increase their chance to qualify for ICT. Would your committee grant this team's request?

---------------

Obviously, #4 doesn't apply to my team's situation (yet - maybe in another 10 years, though...), however, the others might, and I'm sure there are other teams for which all these situations might apply.

The answers to these questions will tell me and my squadron what the new rules and playing field are, and that will in turn affect ASU Quizbowl's overall dispositions next semester (and other similarly situated schools', as well). So, if you guys can tell us what we're allowed to do, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks for your attention.
Kenneth Lan, ASU '11, '12, UIC '17
The University of Illinois at Chicago
-stranger in a strange land (2013-)
The Sonoran Desert quizbowl ecosystem
-activist/advocate (2010-2013)
The Arizona State University Quizbowl Club
-elder statesman (2011-2013)
-coach (2009-2011)
-club president (2008-2011)
-founder (2007-)

User avatar
Wall of Ham
Rikku
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:28 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Wall of Ham » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:02 am

Cornell is both in the Eastern Canada Region, and is closest geographically to the Canadian SCT (unless its in Quebec City or something). However we usually travel to Boston or Pittsburgh because it is difficult to have passports and stuff ready for every member of our team that wants to go to SCT. Will we continue to be allowed to attend the SCT(s) in the US?
Barry
Cornell

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:19 am

Wall of Ham wrote:Cornell is both in the Eastern Canada Region, and is closest geographically to the Canadian SCT (unless its in Quebec City or something). However we usually travel to Boston or Pittsburgh because it is difficult to have passports and stuff ready for every member of our team that wants to go to SCT. Will we continue to be allowed to attend the SCT(s) in the US?
Quite possibly, assuming that the distances are close enough to make this claim plausible.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:53 am

Sun Devil Student wrote:Would this school be permitted to attend the next closest SCT, or would this school, unlike most other schools, be restricted to attending only one Sectional?
If the latter is true, it seems unfair that some teams are allowed to choose which of two SCTs is easier for them to win, while others have no choice as to which SCT they attend.
That's right, those teams (barring the unusual cases referred to the committee) will have only one choice. But note that that one choice will be the closest (and thus probably the most convenient) SCT site. We believe that this policy is less unfair than potential alternatives (such as allowing teams with large budgets to roam the country in search of additional autobids).
Sun Devil Student wrote:Suppose a school is hosting the official SCT for their ACUI Region. This school's D1 team is staffing, but the D2 team has to compete since the D1 team is using the autobid. Would this school's D2 team be permitted to choose whether to attend the "geographically closest" neighboring SCT or their "home region" SCT (which is being hosted by their own D1 colleagues)?
I don't understand this question; the neighboring SCT can't be the geographically closest, because the travel distance between a D2 house team and an SCT hosted by the D1 team is zero.
Sun Devil Student wrote:Rather, this school is splitting off a team to attend a *stronger* SCT that is neither geographically closest nor home-region. This school wishes to risk attending a tougher SCT rather than have two teams at the same SCT and risk fratricide. Is this an "acceptable" (sportsmanlike) motive that would be granted an exception by your committee?
I very much doubt we would grant an exception in this case. In particular, it really doesn't matter to us at all whether University B is beaten by its own A team or by Stronger State A, B, and C. (This case strikes me as very counter-intuitive: why is the team spending more time and money on a trip that it knows will reduce its chances of qualification?)
Sun Devil Student wrote:At the 2009 SCT held at UCLA, fratricide directly cost Caltech a D2 ICT bid (their A-team would have been in contention for 1st or 2nd place had they not lost one game to their B-teammates). So this is a very real concern, and if schools are not granted exceptions to avoid the same thing happening to them, then that would be a huge disincentive to field more than one D2 SCT team, even if it is supposedly allowed. I find this to be counter to your objective of increasing SCT participation throughout the ACUI regions, but perhaps I've misunderstood your stated objectives.
As above: it doesn't matter for qualification whether your own A team or some other randomly-selected team beats you. Play your strongest A team, and trust that your B team will answer enough questions to have a high S-value.
Sun Devil Student wrote:They do so because their two "normally allowed" SCTs have weak fields and this team thinks they can win a tougher and more distant SCT (and have more fun doing so). Suppose this D2 team is indeed a strong team. Would your committee be willing to humor their request?
I would consider it unlikely; there are numerous venues for such a team to play stronger fields, such as ICT itself and ACF Regionals.
Sun Devil Student wrote:This team would have a hard time winning their own region's (mediocre-field) SCT, let alone a stronger-field SCT. They want to attend the tougher (distant) SCT, not because they think they can win it (they know they can't) but because they think the stronger field will give them a higher S-value and thereby increase their chance to qualify for ICT. Would your committee grant this team's request?
No. The existing S-value system, and whatever revisions are made to the S-value in 2010 and beyond, are specifically designed to render this kind of venue-shopping ineffective.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Sun Devil Student
Rikku
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:05 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Sun Devil Student » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:54 am

bt_green_warbler wrote:
Sun Devil Student wrote:Suppose a school is hosting the official SCT for their ACUI Region. This school's D1 team is staffing, but the D2 team has to compete since the D1 team is using the autobid. Would this school's D2 team be permitted to choose whether to attend the "geographically closest" neighboring SCT or their "home region" SCT (which is being hosted by their own D1 colleagues)?
I don't understand this question; the neighboring SCT can't be the geographically closest, because the travel distance between a D2 house team and an SCT hosted by the D1 team is zero.
Ok, I was wondering about this. So this does mean that since ASU is hosting an SCT, ASU is not allowed to send teams anywhere except to ASU's own SCT. (Right?)
bt_green_warbler wrote:
Sun Devil Student wrote:Rather, this school is splitting off a team to attend a *stronger* SCT that is neither geographically closest nor home-region. This school wishes to risk attending a tougher SCT rather than have two teams at the same SCT and risk fratricide. Is this an "acceptable" (sportsmanlike) motive that would be granted an exception by your committee?
I very much doubt we would grant an exception in this case. In particular, it really doesn't matter to us at all whether University B is beaten by its own A team or by Stronger State A, B, and C. (This case strikes me as very counter-intuitive: why is the team spending more time and money on a trip that it knows will reduce its chances of qualification?)
That's not my issue. What if University A gets beaten by University B? (see below) That's what we'd be spending the time and money to avoid, because we are absolutely not going to arrange for our B team to lose to our A team on purpose.
bt_green_warbler wrote:
Sun Devil Student wrote:At the 2009 SCT held at UCLA, fratricide directly cost Caltech a D2 ICT bid (their A-team would have been in contention for 1st or 2nd place had they not lost one game to their B-teammates). So this is a very real concern, and if schools are not granted exceptions to avoid the same thing happening to them, then that would be a huge disincentive to field more than one D2 SCT team, even if it is supposedly allowed. I find this to be counter to your objective of increasing SCT participation throughout the ACUI regions, but perhaps I've misunderstood your stated objectives.
As above: it doesn't matter for qualification whether your own A team or some other randomly-selected team beats you. Play your strongest A team, and trust that your B team will answer enough questions to have a high S-value.
I'm worried that our B team will upset our A team (by bad luck) and that the A team will fail to make the finals of our SCT because of the extra loss. That is exactly what happened to Caltech A at the 2009 SCT. If your policy is designed to discourage us from having a B team at all, then it's working. But I don't understand the rationale for discouraging B teams, given that they are a crucial way to allow new and younger players to get involved in the great game of quizbowl.

This may not be as much an issue when the A team is way better than the other ones, but any A team we could deploy is only slightly better than any potential B team, so we can't enter a B team without risking a potentially fatal upset to the A team. Entering an additional team should never have to decrease our overall chances of getting an ICT bid, but if we have to put both our teams at the same SCT, I believe that is what will happen.

Region 13 is totally new to NAQT and with this weak of a field there is no way the second place team at ASU's SCT will have a high enough S-value to get an ICT bid (not unless a whole bunch of good teams from SoCal invade us, in which case they'd likely take all the S-value bids and make this a moot point for us).

Therefore, (barring the "Californian invasion"), even if we enter two house teams at our own SCT, only one of them can qualify and I feel that pitting them against each other for that one ICT bid would be a horrible thing to do. These enthusiastic new recruits signed up to play for ASU against other colleges, not to fight each other for a glory that should belong to all of ASU together. This is why I am asking permission on their behalf to enter separate tournaments. If Region 13 had a strong and vibrant circuit with many well-established and experienced teams - like California does - I would not be asking you this.
bt_green_warbler wrote: No. The existing S-value system, and whatever revisions are made to the S-value in 2010 and beyond, are specifically designed to render this kind of venue-shopping ineffective.
If you guys can make venue-shopping ineffective, that would be great. Here at ASU, we expect maybe 6-10 native Region 13 teams, but are also logistically planning for a potential invasion by Southern California D2 teams trying to snatch an easy autobid from the nascent and still defenseless Mountain West (Region 13). It would make sense, especially if the California SCT turns out to be in San Francisco, and I personally wouldn't mind having my D2 people play against teams like UCSD or UCLA (these teams do have a lot to teach us, as they are more experienced) - though I would feel sorry for the Region 13 teams that are newly formed and just aren't ready for this kind of opponent yet. In any case, I'm going to try to have 10 rooms and 20 staffers ready for this, in case our field gets that big. If it doesn't, it's better to be over- than under-prepared anyway.
Kenneth Lan, ASU '11, '12, UIC '17
The University of Illinois at Chicago
-stranger in a strange land (2013-)
The Sonoran Desert quizbowl ecosystem
-activist/advocate (2010-2013)
The Arizona State University Quizbowl Club
-elder statesman (2011-2013)
-coach (2009-2011)
-club president (2008-2011)
-founder (2007-)

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5471
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Important Bird Area » Thu Nov 26, 2009 1:13 pm

Sun Devil Student wrote:Here at ASU, we expect maybe 6-10 native Region 13 teams, but are also logistically planning for a potential invasion by Southern California D2 teams trying to snatch an easy autobid from the nascent and still defenseless Mountain West (Region 13).
It is likely that there will be a southern California SCT site, in part because NAQT would like to avoid such a scenario. More generally, I think it would be great if there were enough demand within California to have separate northern California and southern California SCTs. It would save everyone a bunch of driving up and down interstate 5, but there haven't been enough northern California teams to make it viable in the past. Maybe in 2011.
Sun Devil Student wrote:So this does mean that since ASU is hosting an SCT, ASU is not allowed to send teams anywhere except to ASU's own SCT. (Right?)
Right.
Sun Devil Student wrote:This may not be as much an issue when the A team is way better than the other ones, but any A team we could deploy is only slightly better than any potential B team, so we can't enter a B team without risking a potentially fatal upset to the A team. Entering an additional team should never have to decrease our overall chances of getting an ICT bid, but if we have to put both our teams at the same SCT, I believe that is what will happen.
I don't think that last scenario is mathematically possible, or at least I've never heard of anyone else expressing this concern (much less forbidding their novice players to play).

Consider the two cases:

1. The A team is much stronger than the B team. In this case the chance of fluke upset is small, and the A team may very well be strong enough to shrug off the extra loss and earn a bid anyway. (Believe me, I've been on the receiving end of this.)

2. The scenario proposed above, in which the A team is only slightly better than the B team. In this case the B team's upset doesn't reduce your school's chances of qualifying, because it increases the chance that the B team will earn a bid in its own right. The case is similar for both "B team beats the A team in the finals to win the autobid" and "B team surges past A team to claim fourth place over fifth, becoming the bubble team for the S-value bids." (And yes, in cases of evenly balanced teams your club should discuss in advance "who goes to ICT if we win X number of bids.")


If we see evidence that the ICT qualification system is substantially suppressing SCT participation by novice Division II teams, we will seriously consider moving to an open-field ICT.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Sun Devil Student
Rikku
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:05 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Sun Devil Student » Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:07 pm

bt_green_warbler wrote:
Sun Devil Student wrote:This may not be as much an issue when the A team is way better than the other ones, but any A team we could deploy is only slightly better than any potential B team, so we can't enter a B team without risking a potentially fatal upset to the A team. Entering an additional team should never have to decrease our overall chances of getting an ICT bid, but if we have to put both our teams at the same SCT, I believe that is what will happen.
I don't think that last scenario is mathematically possible, or at least I've never heard of anyone else expressing this concern (much less forbidding their novice players to play).

Consider the two cases:

1. The A team is much stronger than the B team. In this case the chance of fluke upset is small, and the A team may very well be strong enough to shrug off the extra loss and earn a bid anyway. (Believe me, I've been on the receiving end of this.)

2. The scenario proposed above, in which the A team is only slightly better than the B team. In this case the B team's upset doesn't reduce your school's chances of qualifying, because it increases the chance that the B team will earn a bid in its own right. The case is similar for both "B team beats the A team in the finals to win the autobid" and "B team surges past A team to claim fourth place over fifth, becoming the bubble team for the S-value bids." (And yes, in cases of evenly balanced teams your club should discuss in advance "who goes to ICT if we win X number of bids.")
The problem for us is that the 4th-place-over-5th scenario doesn't apply to us. Our SCT's field is so weak that mathematically there can only be one qualifier, namely the *1st* place team. The B team doesn't benefit by placing 4th instead of 5th. The A team, however, gets hurt (a lot) by placing 3rd instead of 2nd-with-a-chance-at-1st (pending the finals results). In the latter case, the A team has a chance to win the autobid, although if they lose the finals they'd still not qualify, but that is better than not even having a chance.

The A team could potentially finish with one of the top two records (and thus go into the top-two-team advantaged finals series to fight for the autobid). What I'm worried about is that only one fluke happens and that's the B team beating the A team, thus pushing the A team into 3rd place so that they *miss the finals* and don't get to contest for the autobid.

Our B team would not be that much worse than the A team but the difference is noticeable and the B team definitely would not win that 1st place slot unless there's a series of several flukes. So they almost certainly don't benefit at all by spoiling the A team.

Even the second place team, not to mention the third, won't have a high enough S-value simply because this part of the circuit isn't developed yet. If you were to let the crack California teams in, then the stronger field might give us one or two S-value bids in addition to the winner's (auto)bid, but I don't see any other way our Region 13 SCT would produce an S-value bid.

So basically, until this region's circuit becomes stronger there will be a disincentive for each school to enter more than 1 team; but how will the region ever become stronger unless more players (more teams) compete?

SCT is going to be what holds this region together. All of us in Region 13 are hundreds of miles of mountain-and-desert terrain separated from *any* other tournament in the country.

I guess my grandiose plan of trying to bring three ASU teams to ICT looks like it can't happen under the new rules. That's perfectly fine; I don't expect NAQT or ACUI to cater to my personal vision. However, I'm more concerned about the perverse incentives (and undeserved risks) to schools wanting to enter more D2 teams in regions with, in practice if not in theory, only 1 available ICT bid (namely, the autobid).

It may be that ASU's case is very unusual and that no other new team in the country is being subjected to these perverse incentives. I would hope that's the case, for the sake of every other new school's B team members (even if it doesn't help my own people). But truly, Caltech got gypped last year and I'm sure they aren't the only ones, past or future.

What would an open-field ICT system look like? Does this simply mean "anyone who wants to attend can" (like with ACF Nationals)?
Kenneth Lan, ASU '11, '12, UIC '17
The University of Illinois at Chicago
-stranger in a strange land (2013-)
The Sonoran Desert quizbowl ecosystem
-activist/advocate (2010-2013)
The Arizona State University Quizbowl Club
-elder statesman (2011-2013)
-coach (2009-2011)
-club president (2008-2011)
-founder (2007-)

User avatar
setht
Auron
Posts: 1168
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:41 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by setht » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:36 pm

Sun Devil Student wrote:The problem for us is that the 4th-place-over-5th scenario doesn't apply to us. Our SCT's field is so weak that mathematically there can only be one qualifier, namely the *1st* place team. The B team doesn't benefit by placing 4th instead of 5th. The A team, however, gets hurt (a lot) by placing 3rd instead of 2nd-with-a-chance-at-1st (pending the finals results). In the latter case, the A team has a chance to win the autobid, although if they lose the finals they'd still not qualify, but that is better than not even having a chance.

The A team could potentially finish with one of the top two records (and thus go into the top-two-team advantaged finals series to fight for the autobid). What I'm worried about is that only one fluke happens and that's the B team beating the A team, thus pushing the A team into 3rd place so that they *miss the finals* and don't get to contest for the autobid.

Our B team would not be that much worse than the A team but the difference is noticeable and the B team definitely would not win that 1st place slot unless there's a series of several flukes. So they almost certainly don't benefit at all by spoiling the A team.

Even the second place team, not to mention the third, won't have a high enough S-value simply because this part of the circuit isn't developed yet. If you were to let the crack California teams in, then the stronger field might give us one or two S-value bids in addition to the winner's (auto)bid, but I don't see any other way our Region 13 SCT would produce an S-value bid.

So basically, until this region's circuit becomes stronger there will be a disincentive for each school to enter more than 1 team; but how will the region ever become stronger unless more players (more teams) compete?

SCT is going to be what holds this region together. All of us in Region 13 are hundreds of miles of mountain-and-desert terrain separated from *any* other tournament in the country.

I guess my grandiose plan of trying to bring three ASU teams to ICT looks like it can't happen under the new rules. That's perfectly fine; I don't expect NAQT or ACUI to cater to my personal vision. However, I'm more concerned about the perverse incentives (and undeserved risks) to schools wanting to enter more D2 teams in regions with, in practice if not in theory, only 1 available ICT bid (namely, the autobid).

It may be that ASU's case is very unusual and that no other new team in the country is being subjected to these perverse incentives. I would hope that's the case, for the sake of every other new school's B team members (even if it doesn't help my own people). But truly, Caltech got gypped last year and I'm sure they aren't the only ones, past or future.
I don't really understand this concern. Yes, it is possible that a school's B team will beat its A team and that both teams will not make it to a finals match or earn bids based on S-values. It is also possible that a school's B team will beat some other school's teams, clearing the A team's path to the title match (or clearing the B team's own path to the title match). Unless there's reason to believe that a school's B team is both particularly effective against its A team and particularly ineffective against teams from other schools, there should be no disincentive to fielding A and B teams; in fact, it should make it more likely that the school will earn at least one bid.

-Seth
Seth Teitler
Formerly UC Berkeley and U. Chicago
Member and Chief Editor, NAQT
Emeritus member, ACF

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8411
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Matt Weiner » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:02 pm

Yeah, this seems like a weird concern that maybe misunderstands what (in my estimation) the point of a national championship tournament is. If your team really is depending on the outcome of one match with your B-team to get the 26th spot in Division II, then it's no great injustice for the ICT to exclude you. Caltech didn't "get gypped" by this scenario; Caltech was the 39th best team in a division that excludes the 30 best teams to begin with, so they didn't qualify outright for a national championship tournament. Big deal. There are lots of other tournaments to play, and a team could also use the significant amount of money that it would take to send teams to 2 or 3 Sectionals to go to ICT as a standby team.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

Sun Devil Student
Rikku
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:05 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Sun Devil Student » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:38 pm

setht wrote: I don't really understand this concern. Yes, it is possible that a school's B team will beat its A team and that both teams will not make it to a finals match or earn bids based on S-values. It is also possible that a school's B team will beat some other school's teams, clearing the A team's path to the title match (or clearing the B team's own path to the title match). Unless there's reason to believe that a school's B team is both particularly effective against its A team and particularly ineffective against teams from other schools, there should be no disincentive to fielding A and B teams; in fact, it should make it more likely that the school will earn at least one bid.
In my observations so far, my D2 B team is indeed more effective against my D2 A team than against any other school's team. So, yes, this is precisely an issue for us.
Matt Weiner wrote:Yeah, this seems like a weird concern that maybe misunderstands what (in my estimation) the point of a national championship tournament is. If your team really is depending on the outcome of one match with your B-team to get the 26th spot in Division II, then it's no great injustice for the ICT to exclude you. Caltech didn't "get gypped" by this scenario; Caltech was the 39th best team in a division that excludes the 30 best teams to begin with, so they didn't qualify outright for a national championship tournament. Big deal. There are lots of other tournaments to play, and a team could also use the significant amount of money that it would take to send teams to 2 or 3 Sectionals to go to ICT as a standby team.
Well, Caltech A was 3rd place in the tournament, but if they hadn't lost to Caltech B, they would have been tied for first place and would have had a chance to beat UCLA and/or ASU in tiebreakers to increase their S-value (by becoming 2nd place) and therefore qualify (or even win the autobid by being 1st place). However, they were denied that chance because the loss to Caltech B put them 1 game behind ASU and UCLA. If you guys can tell me why this is actually a good thing, I'm all ears.

(I also tip my hat to Caltech for so graciously hosting the new ASU recruits at ACF Fall this year, despite what happened to them last year.)

Also, our student government is much more likely to give us money to attend two different SCT's (our own, and a neighboring region's) than to give us money to be a standby ICT team that might not even play. So this might well decide *whether* we actually *have* that money or not! (Obviously, this isn't really your responsibility to worry about; I'm just pointing out that we don't control our own funding in the way you implied.)
Kenneth Lan, ASU '11, '12, UIC '17
The University of Illinois at Chicago
-stranger in a strange land (2013-)
The Sonoran Desert quizbowl ecosystem
-activist/advocate (2010-2013)
The Arizona State University Quizbowl Club
-elder statesman (2011-2013)
-coach (2009-2011)
-club president (2008-2011)
-founder (2007-)

User avatar
dtaylor4
Auron
Posts: 3733
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by dtaylor4 » Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:06 pm

Sun Devil Student wrote:
setht wrote: I don't really understand this concern. Yes, it is possible that a school's B team will beat its A team and that both teams will not make it to a finals match or earn bids based on S-values. It is also possible that a school's B team will beat some other school's teams, clearing the A team's path to the title match (or clearing the B team's own path to the title match). Unless there's reason to believe that a school's B team is both particularly effective against its A team and particularly ineffective against teams from other schools, there should be no disincentive to fielding A and B teams; in fact, it should make it more likely that the school will earn at least one bid.
In my observations so far, my D2 B team is indeed more effective against my D2 A team than against any other school's team. So, yes, this is precisely an issue for us.
Matt Weiner wrote:Yeah, this seems like a weird concern that maybe misunderstands what (in my estimation) the point of a national championship tournament is. If your team really is depending on the outcome of one match with your B-team to get the 26th spot in Division II, then it's no great injustice for the ICT to exclude you. Caltech didn't "get gypped" by this scenario; Caltech was the 39th best team in a division that excludes the 30 best teams to begin with, so they didn't qualify outright for a national championship tournament. Big deal. There are lots of other tournaments to play, and a team could also use the significant amount of money that it would take to send teams to 2 or 3 Sectionals to go to ICT as a standby team.
Well, Caltech A was 3rd place in the tournament, but if they hadn't lost to Caltech B, they would have been tied for first place and would have had a chance to beat UCLA and/or ASU in tiebreakers to increase their S-value (by becoming 2nd place) and therefore qualify (or even win the autobid by being 1st place). However, they were denied that chance because the loss to Caltech B put them 1 game behind ASU and UCLA. If you guys can tell me why this is actually a good thing, I'm all ears.
Because teams with better records are better?

I get it, you're scared of your A-team getting jobbed. The best way to prevent this is to get better at quizbowl, not attempt to have rules put into place to where you can avoid having the teams play each other.

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Mechanical Beasts » Thu Nov 26, 2009 7:19 pm

Yeah; if your B team was some other team's A team, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because sometimes you have to deal with teams you think you're better than who match up well against you. But no one would let you or they be pushed to another sectional for the purpose.

Actually, that takes me to the real issue here: if you're worried that this will affect your A team (and you think you're decisively better than your B team, or else this argument would be nonsense) then prevent a player or two from your B team from attending, for the good of your A team. Now you've met your goal, and the only team you've been unfair to is your own.
Andrew Watkins

Sun Devil Student
Rikku
Posts: 308
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 12:05 am

Re: NAQT's agreement with ACUI

Post by Sun Devil Student » Thu Nov 26, 2009 8:18 pm

Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:Yeah; if your B team was some other team's A team, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because sometimes you have to deal with teams you think you're better than who match up well against you. But no one would let you or they be pushed to another sectional for the purpose.
No, because you and they are from different schools and you have no reason not to try to deny the other school's team an ICT bid (you want it for yourself). That's just a good, spirited competition between rival institutions. But civil wars are different, and potentially more destructive to the fabric of a new quizbowl organization.
Crazy Andy Watkins wrote: Actually, that takes me to the real issue here: if you're worried that this will affect your A team (and you think you're decisively better than your B team, or else this argument would be nonsense) then prevent a player or two from your B team from attending, for the good of your A team. Now you've met your goal, and the only team you've been unfair to is your own.
I don't see the unfairness in allowing teams from the same school to play in different regions and not have one team spoil the other's chances for the home region's only available ICT bid, especially when these are weak-to-marginal teams that could not possibly do any harm in a stronger region. If ASU was a very strong team trying to infiltrate weaker SCT's, then obviously that would be a different issue, but we're not.

It might be that there is some obvious answer to any veteran player and that I'm missing the obvious because I'm new to the circuit. So, sorry if I'm wasting your time, but I'd appreciate your enlightenment.

I'm not on the (D2) A team, by the way (though I should be, given my skill level); I'm stuck in D1 where I'm really not good enough to belong. I'm trying to get better, but given only a couple months to do so, I can't guarantee providing a worthy opponent for you veterans. (ASU will have only one D1 team this year; that's all we have.) As always, if you guys have any advice to help us become better opponents that you could actually have fun playing, I'm all ears.
Kenneth Lan, ASU '11, '12, UIC '17
The University of Illinois at Chicago
-stranger in a strange land (2013-)
The Sonoran Desert quizbowl ecosystem
-activist/advocate (2010-2013)
The Arizona State University Quizbowl Club
-elder statesman (2011-2013)
-coach (2009-2011)
-club president (2008-2011)
-founder (2007-)

Locked