AlphaQuizBowler wrote:First of all, I'd like to thank NGCSU for hosting the tournament--it was fun to get a chance to play a college tournament not too far from Alpharetta. Logistically, I would say the tournament ran well. The readers were generally good. Getting 9 rounds in by 5 pm is fairly timely, especially when you consider that we waited until 9:30 for NCSU, who didn't show up.
I would like to thank you for the commendation regarding the timeliness of our tournament and the general quality of our readers.
AlphaQuizBowler wrote:There were some issues, though, that seriously affected the tournament. The first is that, after we lost NCSU from what was a 9-team field the decision was made to continue with the printed 9-team schedule, leading to a situation where 2 teams had byes each round. This wouldn't have been so bad if the teams had been at least allowed to play an unofficial game, but instead the team scheduled to play NCSU was forced to play a game against empty chairs where the score was counted in the official stats. This room inevitably held up each round because teams would sit on every tossup to ensure maximum points scored. It also led to a really anticlimactic final two rounds for us, since we had a bye and then the empty-chairs round.
As the Tournament Director in question, I made the call to respect NCSU's commitment to attend. Because of this, I assumed that they might show up a round late. Or two rounds late. Or even at lunch time, if they had some serious issues. While this ended up not being the case, it was a decision made with respect to a team who had made a commitment to attend. I would have felt that it was in poor taste to exclude them in the event of their arrival. Perhaps this was not the best decision to make, but it was (to me) the right and sporting one.
AlphaQuizBowler wrote:The one thing, though, that was completely unacceptable was how the final placement was determined. UGA and USC finished with 1 loss each, and GT and Chattaretta finished with two losses apiece. But no tiebreaker games were played (though UGA and USC decided to stay to play a final after the TD offered a room and another round of questions); instead, ties were broken by some weird statistic related to the "quality" of a team's wins, and which essentially rewarded teams that had lower margins of victory. Thus Georgia Tech was awarded the 3rd place trophy despite Chattaretta holding all 3 commonly-used tiebreakers (PPG, PPB, and head-to-head) over them. The same situation happened between USC and UGA. When I asked the reasoning behind this, the TD responded with something along the lines of "This is the tournament director's final ruling."
I must disagree with your use of the word "unacceptable." I find this entirely too strong a word for this instance.
I feel that I am being misrepresented in your portrayal whereby I "offered a room and another round of questions," when in fact, I had made the promise at the beginning of the day that the entire set of MUT questions would be made available for all interested teams present, even if we did not count them all towards the results of our tournament.
I also wish to comment regarding my "TD fiat" at the end of the tournament. To my knowledge, all parties who were taking issue with the scorekeeping system had been informed of the "quality" (which, after consultation amongst the North Georgia Team, will be renamed 'difficulty rating') system. This is not a weird statistic, nor is it an arcane one. It is something that is very grounded within mathematics and good sportsmanship (something I believe that we at North Georgia, as the Leadership Institute, should strive to promote within the Quiz Bowl Community). I shall elaborate more on this 'difficulty rating' in a following post.
AlphaQuizBowler wrote:I offer this criticism because I'd like to see NGCSU continue to host tournaments in the future, and I think that those future tournaments can be even better. Most of the quirks of this tournament seem to come from the staff's unfamiliarity with some common practices of quizbowl tournament directing; along that vein, I think it would be good if they attended some nearby college tournaments to see how other schools do things.
Again, I must thank you for your concern and your criticism. We ourselves would like to continue growing within the Quiz Bowl Community and would like to continue hosting tournaments for the benefit of local and regional teams.
I will add that a good deal of the quirks noticed from my position dealt with a transition to a paperless tournament. We did have some issues getting the stats system working quickly in the morning because this was our "trial run" for a paperless tournament. However, I believe most of those technical difficulties were sorted out after lunch.
DarkMatter wrote:That would have been the immature thing to do. We want to encourage NGCSU with constructive criticisms, not slander them and make them disinterested in hosting again. Thankfully, USC and UGA resolved things after the fact, which was the right thing to do. I don't know if anyone at all agrees with the situation between Chattaretta and Georgia Tech, but congratulations to them for not only showing that they can compete with teams like USC but for showing that our region has great potential for the future. Maybe a good thing for NGCSU to have done beforehand would have been to consult someone with TDing expertise to make sure they knew exactly what they were doing, but they're honestly trying to promote good quizbowl. No, you don't invent strange statistics to determine placing at a tournament. Absolutely not. But as a TD it is your responsibility to know what the standard tiebreakers are, most definitely. It sounds to me like NGCSU will be a fine tournament host if it gets these little things straight.
I also thank you for your kind and welcoming words.
As TD, I am aware of some of the more standard tiebreakers are, but I also feel that our 'difficulty rating' system better captures the essence of sportsmanship. Perhaps in the future, we shall merely test the waters by providing this statistic as a background one, while relying on more traditional methods to determine winners.
DarkMatter wrote:Also, no negs? That's mighty curious. That should lead you to think that they needed some advice with regards to rules, which, from this discussion, is obviously the case.
I will admit fault at this; I had been under the impression that negs were only used when they were offset by the allure of powers. After discussing with several teams about the benefits and drawbacks of including them in a tournament, we at North Georgia will most certainly consider their inclusion in future college events. However, I do not feel (and I shall not name names) that it is appropriate for a team to demand
that future tournaments include negs.