geekjohnson wrote:a lot of players (including myself when I was in that boat) look at the transition to D1 as a sort of retirement, due to not having either the ability or more importantly the time to dedicate themselves to the game in order to be competitive against players working on their 7th national championship in their 2nd or 3rd decade of collegiate competition.
Keep in mind, to a lot of players (including myself when I was in that boat) look at the transition to D1 as a sort of retirement, due to not having either the ability or more importantly the time to dedicate themselves to the game in order to be competitive against players working on their 7th national championship in their 2nd or 3rd decade of collegiate competition.
While I mostly agree with your post, Susan, if you consider 2009 and 2010 to be in different decades (as many people do, though I'm familiar with the case for why they aren't), then Andrew Yaphe was in his third decade of collegiate competition when he won 2010 ACF Nationals.Susan wrote:Are there any national champions in any format--obviously excluding TRASH--who had a "3rd decade of collegiate competition"?
jonah wrote:While I mostly agree with your post, Susan, if you consider 2009 and 2010 to be in different decades (as many people do, though I'm familiar with the case for why they aren't), then Andrew Yaphe was in his third decade of collegiate competition when he won 2010 ACF Nationals.Susan wrote:Are there any national champions in any format--obviously excluding TRASH--who had a "3rd decade of collegiate competition"?
Susan wrote:James, I find it a little weird that you would point out hyperbole in someone else's post while including this sentence in yours:Keep in mind, to a lot of players (including myself when I was in that boat) look at the transition to D1 as a sort of retirement, due to not having either the ability or more importantly the time to dedicate themselves to the game in order to be competitive against players working on their 7th national championship in their 2nd or 3rd decade of collegiate competition.
Anyway, the "retirement" concept you mention kind of baffles me.
geekjohnson wrote: Keep in mind, to a lot of players (including myself when I was in that boat) look at the transition to D1 as a sort of retirement, due to not having either the ability or more importantly the time to dedicate themselves to the game in order to be competitive against players working on their 7th national championship in their 2nd or 3rd decade of collegiate competition. I have always been in favor of a separation of purely undergraduate (those without an undergraduate degree) players and graduate players...Just the perspective of why D2 eligibility is paramount to some, because it is probably the only legit time they "might" be able to contend for national championships, fake or not.
The "idea" of the UG title is good, but so are other theoretical concepts. The similar "idea" remained for the CC division for years, with them competing and being over matched (on average) by their 4 year counterparts.
geekjohnson wrote:It is the principle that is absurd. Although I understand that my opinion is of no consequence. The idea of an undergraduate team having to compete for their championship against teams with graduate players is more absurd than my assertion. Again, all that is needed is a simple question on the surveys.
geekjohnson wrote:It is the principle that is absurd. Although I understand that my opinion is of no consequence. The idea of an undergraduate team having to compete for their championship against teams with graduate players is more absurd than my assertion. Again, all that is needed is a simple question on the surveys.
geekjohnson wrote:It is the principle that is absurd. Although I understand that my opinion is of no consequence. The idea of an undergraduate team having to compete for their championship against teams with graduate players is more absurd than my assertion. Again, all that is needed is a simple question on the surveys.
geekjohnson wrote:The idea of it being absurd, as stated before, is due to them having disparities in experience, and levels of education.
I never implied victimization. The fact of the top teams being able to compete against the top grad players is not a validating point for the practice to continue. Some of the best college football teams could compete against the panthers as well. I maybe stupid and propagating stupid ideas, but that doesn't mean the idea isn't logical.
The fact that a lot more teams could compete in a national championship designed for them is incentive in my eyes. The teams you mention who take on the grad programs effective are not the only ones to consider. What about the teams who barely miss the cut, or never have a shot, because they would only be worthy of a bid if the graduate teams where not consider. Again, only 25% was UG last ICT. No one mentioned this. No one has said anything of the viability of having a separate UG and Graduate divisions (thus excluding the current D2 bracket), with the option of those moving up if interested, thereby letting those wanting to play in a mixed field do so, while at the same time letting those interested in playing against teams with like experience do so. I understand that the UG is something to shoot for, but it is obviously an ancillary title, with afterthoughts of the main D1 title. Call me names and whatever else you, but the idea of a D1 (Graduates) and D2(UGS) is logical, and in my stupid opinion a worthwhile venture. Also, your use of it has been that way since inception is a nice sentiment, but tradition is a poor substitute for fairness.
In fact, I think Jerry is stupid for you having the idea :)
Matt Weiner wrote:Don't like losing to grad students? Do the same thing you should do when you don't like losing to anyone else: get better. Teams dominated by James Johnson's sort of thinking are going to lose to grad students, undergrads, high schoolers, and the occasional precocious team of actual buzzer-shaped rocks because they suck, and they suck because they do not have any motivation to stop sucking, what with their bubble of even worse teams to beat on NAQT IS packets and mutually reinforcing idiots predicting an Alabama-Georgia final at ICT for the 15th straight year. There's no conspiracy, there's no unfairness, there's just you failing to man up and deal with reality.
geekjohnson wrote:Again, only 25% was UG last ICT. No one mentioned this.
geekjohnson wrote:This is me, simply, saying that the ability of the best players should not force the majority of those involved to have to play those on a different tier.
Charbroil wrote:So your argument is essentially that weak teams should never play strong ones? How does one get better, in that case, without playing the highest caliber of opposition?
Prof.Whoopie wrote:Things
Prof.Whoopie wrote:I guess you could say that *some* grad students could have an advantage in that they've been playing longer and have had more time to study things that come up in quizbowl.
Prof.Whoopie wrote:But the same could be said of undergrad freshmen verses sophomores. Surely you don't advocate stratifying competition by grade level?
geekjohnson wrote:So, instead of addressing the actual point of it being more logical or reasonable to have separations, I am now indicative of the overall suck of an entire region? The fact that my proposition is being construed as a way to avoid legitimate competition is saddening. I am also sad to observe the same stupidity endemic to "ACF IS IMPOSSIBLE" is present within those who have made the reality of quizbowl better through their ACF work.
To counter my "cherry-picking" of ICT stats, there is no identification of players being UG or Grad (outside of the top UG scorers and 8 UG teams), and since I am unfamiliar with every player's status I could not quantify such. Of course I never expected to be presenting stats in a formal manner, hence my simply ascertaining basic facts.
I am sick of some of you. Intelligence is not an excuse for being so overtly disrespectful and rancorous.
Alabama's program was founded with the intent to play quizbowl, with university support. I am sorry that whatever tournaments we went to and still go to is lacking, in your opinion. Your anger will never affect me with regards to my personal quizbowl preferences, and I seriously doubt anyone cares the amount of derogatory names or hyperbole rife examples you include us in. I simply state that players should compete with those of like experience, like undergraduates against undergraduates, and not be subjected to competing against people in their 7th year of college.
This is not a bitter apple born from losses and inability to compete against the top in my playing career. This is me, simply, saying that the ability of the best players should not force the majority of those involved to have to play those on a different tier. Your personal attacks regarding sucking and refusing to make commitment to be to compete is...insulting and expected. I did my best to improve as a player in my time, and my team did our best.
The thing is...my (and a large amount of other people's) desire for improvement was checked by reality. I did not have the time, due either to class or work, to raise myself to a level to compete in D1. The virtue of the best players being able to do this, including the same constraints, is a testament as to their being the best. The top should not be the rule of thumb. The heart of the matter is completely unrelated to that though.
The amount of work that I (and fellow officers) put in at Alabama to get our program running is unknown to you. The amount of sacrifices we made is not contained in our bios or facebook pages.
You think you occupy a place above us (and the region) due to your place within the superstructure of quizbowl, or your personal success. That your hard work and dedication in your endeavors soars above ours, because of our lack of success or attendance at the requisite tournaments? You obviously had more time and/or ability to put into your forays, because if hard work and dedication were all that was needed, then we passed with top marks.
My character assassination aside, it is only sensible that players compete against those with like experience. Undergraduates against undergraduates. This is not, again, me complaining about losing or that I suck in life, quizbowl, debate or the like. This is about fairness. I could reiterate my aforementioned points, but then I will have to do so for the next response to being afraid of graduate players taking my lunch money.
Isaacbh wrote:Prof.Whoopie wrote:I guess you could say that *some* grad students could have an advantage in that they've been playing longer and have had more time to study things that come up in quizbowl.
You could say this, because that is what he is saying.Prof.Whoopie wrote:But the same could be said of undergrad freshmen verses sophomores. Surely you don't advocate stratifying competition by grade level?
This is not what he is saying. This is a straw man.
grapesmoker wrote:You know what would happen if you came to ACF Nationals? You would have your ass handed to you by teams with way less experience than you because those teams know that if you want to win, you have to practice and care about the game.
geekjohnson wrote:The idea of it being absurd, as stated before, is due to them having disparities in experience, and levels of education. I never implied victimization. The fact of the top teams being able to compete against the top grad players is not a validating point for the practice to continue.
geekjohnson wrote:Some of the best college football teams could compete against the panthers as well.
DumbJaques wrote:To preclude this argument from continuing any farther, here is a link so that everyone can study and be equally well-prepared for ACF Nationals 2011.*
*The best part is when you get to fight Meyer Wolfsheim and the Black Sox.
Also, someone please let me know how the Waiting for Godot game is, I was too scared to play it.
Judy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:DumbJaques wrote:To preclude this argument from continuing any farther, here is a link so that everyone can study and be equally well-prepared for ACF Nationals 2011.*
*The best part is when you get to fight Meyer Wolfsheim and the Black Sox.
Also, someone please let me know how the Waiting for Godot game is, I was too scared to play it.
That game was a little short. Also, I hear the Waiting for Godot game never actually ends and that all you do is walk back and forth, with each time taking longer than the last.
Bentley Like Beckham wrote:Everyone knows The Secret Levels of Karl Gjellerup is the true way to prepare for ACF Nationals: http://www.doc-ent.com/Karl.exe.
every time i refresh i have a new name wrote:Bentley Like Beckham wrote:Everyone knows The Secret Levels of Karl Gjellerup is the true way to prepare for ACF Nationals: http://www.doc-ent.com/Karl.exe.
this is the greatest thing
geekjohnson wrote:I would hope for less vindictive or vitriol laced responses in the future, but I am unsure if that will cause my ban for whatever amount of time.
My character assassination aside, it is only sensible that players compete against those with like experience. Undergraduates against undergraduates. This is not, again, me complaining about losing or that I suck in life, quizbowl, debate or the like. This is about fairness. I could reiterate my aforementioned points, but then I will have to do so for the next response to being afraid of graduate players taking my lunch money.
User was banned for a week for repeatedly meta-commenting on other people's tone and attempting to dictate who may post and how. --the mgmt
Don't like losing to grad students? Do the same thing you should do when you don't like losing to anyone else: get better.
Oh hay we haven't seen some grad student bashing for a while. I too enjoyed this trip to 2004
Undergraduate teams, and undergraduate players, routinely go neck and neck with any opposition at any level. Even high school teams routinely beat graduate students by a lot (HIGH SCHOOL)
I'm a grad student and I have lost to a bunch of high schoolers and undergraduate teams. Being in grad school does not automatically turn you into a great player.
What makes people good quizbowl players is their ability to remember shit and recall it in questions. Dedicating years of your life to specialized study won't do anything but make you better at that specialized thing.
You get better by working to get better through such means as: writing good questions, looking up things you expect to be answers in the future and learning facts about them, reading books, and playing good questions at practice.
You do not get better by playing a schedule which mixes a stock of "skipping most tournaments" in with the rancid meat of "high school questions and trash," only occasionally ordering D2 SCT as your most challenging form of cuisine.
Oh, I see, you never thought you'd have to defend your point with actual facts so you picked the facts that only superficially even support your claim. You genius, you.
Who are these nth year students we're talking about? Last I checked the most effective players in collegiate quizbowl right now are a long list of undergrads, first-year grad student Andrew Hart, and second-year grad student Eric Mukherjee. And then Mike, who has played in one event. Maybe we're talking about Selene or something?
The hypothetical team of 45 year olds is a dumb example because it doesn't exist and never has. The closest thing was that TAMU team (which actually had only 1 player over 28, if my meta knowledge is correct) from like five years ago at this point. And they didn't even play ICT.
You know why you're getting disrespect and rancor? It's because you are just the latest iteration of the shitty player who makes terrible arguments against grad student participation based on a faulty understanding of the dynamics of the game.
You know what would happen if you came to ACF Nationals? You would have your ass handed to you by teams with way less experience than you because those teams know that if you want to win, you have to practice and care about the game.
graduate programs tend to be broader than you imply, like American History to 1865 or Military History
Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:graduate programs tend to be broader than you imply, like American History to 1865 or Military History
Is this true? Do actual, real-life history grad students study 200 years of history or an entire type of history? I've never, ever, ever, ever heard of this. The broadest my soon-to-be chem PhD program gets is that I'll be taking around five classes my first year. They'll all be organic chemistry classes, now, but...
Bartleby wrote:Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:graduate programs tend to be broader than you imply, like American History to 1865 or Military History
Is this true? Do actual, real-life history grad students study 200 years of history or an entire type of history? I've never, ever, ever, ever heard of this. The broadest my soon-to-be chem PhD program gets is that I'll be taking around five classes my first year. They'll all be organic chemistry classes, now, but...
Although history students pursuing higher education than a BA are probably extremely well-versed in all aspects of the history of their field (let's say for instance that I want to pursue a Ph.D in US History... I will probably take as many US Undergrad courses as I can fit into my schedule), it is not true to say that grad programs encompass things like "Military History". For instance, one of my TAs is pursuing a Ph.D in military history, which sounds quite broad, but her specific thesis is on the Canadian Cavalry in WWI. I would argue that Ph.D students in history are not much more, if at all more well-versed than a well-read undergrad, except in the specific thing which they're pursuing as a field of study. These fields, as stated, are not simply as broad as "military history". If I ever see a question on the Canadian Cavalry at ICT, I will shit.
[10] Identify this regiment of horse based military units based out of Alberta, which Prince Charles was part of at one point.
ANSWER: Lord Strathcona's Horse
geekjohnson wrote:Mid-tier players, who are the statistical majority, should not be precluded from leveled competition or the ICT altogether by their virtue of not being as good
Bartleby wrote:Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:graduate programs tend to be broader than you imply, like American History to 1865 or Military History
Is this true? Do actual, real-life history grad students study 200 years of history or an entire type of history? I've never, ever, ever, ever heard of this. The broadest my soon-to-be chem PhD program gets is that I'll be taking around five classes my first year. They'll all be organic chemistry classes, now, but...
Although history students pursuing higher education than a BA are probably extremely well-versed in all aspects of the history of their field (let's say for instance that I want to pursue a Ph.D in US History... I will probably take as many US Undergrad courses as I can fit into my schedule), it is not true to say that grad programs encompass things like "Military History". For instance, one of my TAs is pursuing a Ph.D in military history, which sounds quite broad, but her specific thesis is on the Canadian Cavalry in WWI. I would argue that Ph.D students in history are not much more, if at all more well-versed than a well-read undergrad, except in the specific thing which they're pursuing as a field of study. These fields, as stated, are not simply as broad as "military history". If I ever see a question on the Canadian Cavalry at ICT, I will shit.
Return to College area archives
Users browsing this forum: Sima Guang Hater and 3 guests