The Quizbowl Resource Center

by **Horned Screamer** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:36 pm

Next time you update the blog I would be interested to hear more fully elucidated evaluations of the teams towards the top to hear your thoughts.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 10:15 pm

Oh, okay! I'll try to do that next time.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:49 pm

Due to crappy stuff going on, I haven't been able to really work on an update in awhile. I hope to get some more info up in the next few days. I think at this point in the season, we're just largely shuffling teams around, though I'm sure a few more new teams will appear in the rankings before we're completely done.

by **sir negsalot** » Sat Apr 02, 2011 7:14 pm

Richard Montgomery B merits strong consideration in the next rankings

by **Smuttynose Island** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:02 am

For what it's worth, TJ B was missing it's best NAQT player at VA States today and was essentially a three man TJ C at VCU Spring.

EDIT: Thank you for the compliment Raynell.

by **Transparent Pudding** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 12:24 am

waddle1 wrote:For what it's worth, TJ B was missing it's best NAQT player at VA States today...

...and still beat TJ A and MW A. This was a derpy set, but still you guys did a great job.

by **Edward Powers** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:49 pm

DERPY?

Word of the year?

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 10:55 pm

A new update is being prepared.

by **Mewto55555** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:01 pm

Are you taking into account derpiness?

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Thu Apr 07, 2011 11:19 pm

Please, that's the most important value in the rankings.

by **Coach G** » Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:47 am

Fred, PACE seeding committee, and others interested in rankings/seeding - I assume you take into account when a team is missing regular starting players at a tournament. Can you always tell this from the stats, or would it be helpful for coaches/players to send you specific instances when this happened? For example, Auburn was missing two starters (#1 player Lloyd, and Filip, who helps a lot with bonus points in history) at the Loyola Ultima tournament; we also may be missing a starter or two at one or two of the upcoming tournaments prior to PACE NSC.

by **dtaylor4** » Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:10 pm

Coach G wrote:Fred, PACE seeding committee, and others interested in rankings/seeding - I assume you take into account when a team is missing regular starting players at a tournament. Can you always tell this from the stats, or would it be helpful for coaches/players to send you specific instances when this happened? For example, Auburn was missing two starters (#1 player Lloyd, and Filip, who helps a lot with bonus points in history) at the Loyola Ultima tournament; we also may be missing a starter or two at one or two of the upcoming tournaments prior to PACE NSC.

This can be extrapolated from the rosters posted when stats go up.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:52 am

Coach G wrote:Fred, PACE seeding committee, and others interested in rankings/seeding - I assume you take into account when a team is missing regular starting players at a tournament. Can you always tell this from the stats, or would it be helpful for coaches/players to send you specific instances when this happened? For example, Auburn was missing two starters (#1 player Lloyd, and Filip, who helps a lot with bonus points in history) at the Loyola Ultima tournament; we also may be missing a starter or two at one or two of the upcoming tournaments prior to PACE NSC.

My focus when it comes to rankings is to evaluate a team at its strongest against the other teams at their strongest. Obviously, if you're a team that has been missing a good player all year, that makes it more difficult to judge.

That said, if I were to seed the NSC or the HSNCT or whatever, I would appreciate knowing what the planned roster for a team is well ahead of time, so I can compare that with the results that are out there.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:54 am

In other news, I just finished the "beta" version of my rankings. The last thing I have to do is go back through, give everything another eyeballing, check for new teams that could possibly enter the rankings, and then publish it.

Oh, and let me put just a little bit of a teaser here: there's a shake up in the top five.

by **Down and out in Quintana Roo** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:59 am

Because the stats don't make it very clear, here was what happened at RM's tournament yesterday:

http://results.scobo.net/SQBS.aspx?org= ... =standings

The RM House team was the best team on the day, mostly. It ended up being the best House team i can ever remember in a competition (i thought your best players weren't supposed to play in that?) and pretty much it was Arun getting at least ten tossups a game without ever negging once the entire tournament; naturally, their games didn't count though. Montgomery Blair appeared to be in the early running for first place, but their best player left sometime in the afternoon (Daniel H.) and they preceded to lose to two B teams to finish the day (including their own). GDS only had Oliver and Alex for the whole morning and won just two games, then the troop of Jared, Jordan, and Daniel showed up in the afternoon as they dominated the rest of the day. CR and Whitman kept their same players all day, and Chris Manners was Chris Manners of Quince Orchard all day and won the tournament playing solo. And both TJ teams were completely different than any TJ A or B team this year: not a single "regular" A Team player and only possibly one "regular" B Team player was there for the entire day.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:05 am

I'm kinda glad that my cutoff for stats was April 2nd then!

by **Edward Powers** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:12 pm

Fred,

Now that you've revealed the brilliantly derpish essence of your ranking procedure, when is the next great unveiling? Quizbowl nation awaits!

by **Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:35 pm

Carangoides ciliarius wrote:It ended up being the best House team i can ever remember in a competition (i thought your best players weren't supposed to play in that?)

I think so long as you have enough good staffers, anything goes*. Of course, experienced players are likely to be more experienced in staffing, but if you've got enough visiting workers and space I say go for it.

*Well, don't rotate your players so much that the house team's stats are all over the place like we did at EFT.

by **Transparent Pudding** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:14 pm

List of wrestling-based comic books wrote:
Carangoides ciliarius wrote:It ended up being the best House team i can ever remember in a competition (i thought your best players weren't supposed to play in that?)

I think so long as you have enough good staffers, anything goes*. Of course, experienced players are likely to be more experienced in staffing, but if you've got enough visiting workers and space I say go for it.

*Well, don't rotate your players so much that the house team's stats are all over the place like we did at EFT.

Basically, what happened was, we had all of our readers and a stats person, and whoever was left was put on our house team. This just happened to include Arun. I wasn't aware that this was such a faux-pas and I apologize to whomever felt wronged by this. I didn't know about this "rule" because it's so rare for HS tournaments to have house teams (Charter is an exception--they win the JV division of their tournament almost every year) therefore it's never really been an issue.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:28 pm

In my opinion, if you have sufficient staff to run the event competently, it's okay to have a house team.

by **ether a go-go** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 1:31 pm

There is no rule against fielding a strong house team at a tournament. The only "rule" is that your first priority should be running a good tournament. If you run a good tournament, which seems to be what happened here, then everybody should be grateful and has no reason to care how well your team does or who plays on it.

In other words, I agree with Fred.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:27 pm

Here we go.

by **Horned Screamer** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 3:53 pm

It ended up being the best House team i can ever remember in a competition (i thought your best players weren't supposed to play in that?)

Man, you keep posting nonsense that you made up! Here's the Chrzanowski thought process:
I MUST POST POST POST POST POST

by **Mr. Scogan** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 4:07 pm

Camp Hill @ #72 is a good choice. Having played them at Battle of the Burgh, they were a very balanced and quick team. Them and Rocky Grove (PA) will definitely be a contender for the Small School title.

by **sssssssskkkk** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 5:44 pm

I just wanted to note that IMSA was missing one player each from ADVANTAGE (on GSAC), Loyola Ultima (on BATE), and MUT at Notre Dame, albeit they were not the same person each time.

by **Renesmee LaHotdog Voight** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:03 pm

CavsFan2k10 wrote:Camp Hill @ #72 is a good choice. Having played them at Battle of the Burgh, they were a very balanced and quick team. Them and Rocky Grove (PA) will definitely be a contender for the Small School title.

Over Lisle and George Mason? I think not.

by **theflyingdeutschman** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:07 pm

Jeremy Gibbs Freesy Does It wrote:
It ended up being the best House team i can ever remember in a competition (i thought your best players weren't supposed to play in that?)

Man, you keep posting nonsense that you made up! Here's the Chrzanowski thought process:
I MUST POST POST POST POST POST

... says the person with 4683 posts.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:29 pm

Certainly wouldn't want someone posting too much...

Anyway, let's keep it on subject, please.

by **Mr. Scogan** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:33 pm

SirT wrote:
CavsFan2k10 wrote:Camp Hill @ #72 is a good choice. Having played them at Battle of the Burgh, they were a very balanced and quick team. Them and Rocky Grove (PA) will definitely be a contender for the Small School title.

Over Lisle and George Mason? I think not.

Lisle and George Mason are really good, however I will maintain that both Rocky Grove and Camp Hill can/will go far. They are very divine and fast, two characteristics of amazing teams.

by **Edward Elric** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:36 pm

CavsFan2k10 wrote:They are very divine.

huh?

Also from having seen Lisle play almost the entire year, I can say with confidence that they are a very good team, definitely having a good shot at the small school title.

by **Mr. Scogan** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:49 pm

Edward Elric wrote:
CavsFan2k10 wrote:They are very divine.

huh?

Also from having seen Lisle play almost the entire year, I can say with confidence that they are a very good team, definitely having a good shot at the small school title.

I didn't use the right word, I'm trying to say that it's not like their a one man team (actually Rocky Grove primarily is), that they can rotate in anyone and still put up big numbers. Diverse, maybe?

No doubt Lisle and George Masons are the favorites to win the Small School title, I'm simply saying that Camp Hill and Rocky Grove shouldn't be counted out.

by **Mewto55555** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 6:57 pm

CavsFan2k10 wrote: Diverse, maybe?

Lack of diversity is a big problem in quizbowl, good for them!

by **Mr. Scogan** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:24 pm

Mewto55555 wrote:
CavsFan2k10 wrote: Diverse, maybe?

Lack of diversity is a big problem in quizbowl, good for them!

Diversity in numbers, not a different type of diversity I think your insinuating.

by **Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:29 pm

Perhaps versatile? Flexible?

by **Charles Martel** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:30 pm

I think you mean to say they have depth.

I don't think Lisle has been fully tested yet since in Illinois, they're at least a tier below Carbondale, and more than a tier below IMSA, Ig, Loyola, OPRF, Stevenson, and Auburn. They almost never choke as favorites (to my knowledge, they've only lost to New Trier once before winning the second match of an advantaged final). They've come close to pulling off upsets of better teams (Blew a 175 to -10 lead against us at Huskie Bowl), but it's hard to evaluate their skill since there is a big gap between them and the next best team in Illinois.

With regards to my team (IMSA), we have been missing a different A-team player at each of the last three tournaments in his stats. IMHO, our IHSA performance better represents what our complete team can do. I dream of the day when IHSA stats can be included in quizbowl rankings.

EDIT: Clarity
EDIT 2: $Tournaments /neq teams$

by **Mr. Scogan** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:51 pm

whitesoxfan wrote:I think you mean to say they have depth.

I don't think Lisle has been fully tested yet since in Illinois, they're at least a tier below Carbondale, and more than a tier below IMSA, Ig, Loyola, OPRF, Stevenson, and Auburn. They almost never choke as favorites (to my knowledge, they've only lost to New Trier once before winning the second match of an advantaged final). They've come close to pulling off upsets of better teams (Blew a 175 to -10 lead against us at Huskie Bowl), but it's hard to evaluate their skill since there is a big gap between them and the next best team in Illinois.

With regards to my team (IMSA), we have been missing a different A-team player at each of the last three tournaments in his stats. IMHO, our IHSA performance better represents what our complete team can do. I dream of the day when IHSA stats can be included in quizbowl rankings.

EDIT: Clarity
EDIT 2: $Tournaments /neq teams$

Depth is the word I am looking for.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:31 pm

Oh, and I just spent ten minutes to put together the list of teams eligible for the HSNCT small school title, in order of how likely they are to win it. I'm sure this will be highly scientific and accurate.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:32 pm

And today is officially the busiest day for the blog. :party:

by **sacagawea** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:43 pm

What do you see in St. Mark's? Granted their good stats at state, they jump 15 spots after placing 3rd and posting 22.48 ppb, and losing thrice to lower ranked teams at their latest tournament (at which they played at full strength)?

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:49 pm

I mainly see their stats and how they're very good compared to the rest of the nation.

by **sacagawea** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 10:53 pm

It seems as though what they have on bonus conversion they lack on the buzzer.

by **Grams's Go-Go Boots** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:03 pm

They've averaged 4 powers per game over their last two tournaments, that's not exactly awful.

by **Down and out in Quintana Roo** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:24 pm

Fred wrote:They've averaged 4 powers per game over their last two tournaments, that's not exactly awful.

This right here is the reason why i like power-marked sets, so you can see this sort of stat compared to other teams. I would have loved to have seen those sorts of numbers in the Yale set but no dice. Sure, you can find this sort of thing out on anecdotal evidence ("hey, just how early was Hunter buzzing on those tossups?") but it's a lot nicer to have actual statistic evidence of it instead.

by **sacagawea** » Sun Apr 10, 2011 11:40 pm

Cutting to the chase, Cistercian played with its full team from last year's HSNCT for the first time this year. This same team will be playing at both PACE NSC and HSNCT. In our full truly full strength tournament, we soundly beat the 25th ranked team (St. Marks) soundly, thrice. Additionally, we out-convert them on bonuses (23.69 to 22.48). Further, we destroy them in 15pg (5.5 to 4.4) despite having to play the top team in the nation (LASA A) thrice (oh, and the 25th team in the nation thrice, playing 50% of our games against top 25 teams). Now, to quote Stephanie Ferguson, I ask, "Where is the Love?"

Edited: added fact that we had to put up power stats against St.Marks in addition to LASA

by **Emily Krok** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:26 pm

Hey, why isn't my team from last year ranked? We put up some decent stats against some great teams and I think we deserve to be ranked despite the fact that none of us play anymore. Please rectify this immediately.

by **Cassian** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 3:29 pm

James, I think the biggest problem that Fred (and the people who vote in the polls) have had in ranking Cistercian is that you guys have only very rarely played with your full team this year. We in Texas know that Cistercian is a good team, but it's difficult to pin down where you are in relation to the LASA teams, Seven Lakes and St. Mark's because we've not really seen you and Vimal play together against those other teams very often. In the end though, I wouldn't worry too much about it - I'd guess Cistercian is poised to make nice runs into the playoffs of both HSNCT and NSC this year, regardless of where you guys are ranked.

by **etchdulac** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:44 pm

Cassian wrote:James, I think the biggest problem that Fred (and the people who vote in the polls) have had in ranking Cistercian is that you guys have only very rarely played with your full team this year. We in Texas know that Cistercian is a good team, but it's difficult to pin down where you are in relation to the LASA teams, Seven Lakes and St. Mark's because we've not really seen you and Vimal play together against those other teams very often.

I think this is the right idea. And I think it might help the situation to point out which results that Fred has involve which players. I know there were just two of you at both the Terrapin Mirror and ACF Regionals.

by **Kenneth Widmerpool** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:20 pm

Just stepping in with a reminder that banking everything (amount of practice, strategies against other teams) on your team's place in some set of rankings, however detailed they may be, is the wrong way go to about preparing for nationals. I've seen countless posts in this thread and out of it suggesting that teams are taking the rankings incredibly seriously and as indicative of what's actually going to shake out at nationals. It's not, so stop worrying, stop posting about getting shafted a few places, and go study.

by **anderson** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 8:50 pm

I'll just leave this here...

by **nadph** » Mon Apr 11, 2011 11:53 pm

Cassian wrote:James, I think the biggest problem that Fred (and the people who vote in the polls) have had in ranking Cistercian is that you guys have only very rarely played with your full team this year. We in Texas know that Cistercian is a good team, but it's difficult to pin down where you are in relation to the LASA teams, Seven Lakes and St. Mark's because we've not really seen you and Vimal play together against those other teams very often. In the end though, I wouldn't worry too much about it - I'd guess Cistercian is poised to make nice runs into the playoffs of both HSNCT and NSC this year, regardless of where you guys are ranked.

I feel like this can't be the full story - our team, which has played a total of 0.5 tournaments with a "full lineup" (part of ACF Regionals) and 2 tournaments with three out of the four (Regionals and Cal Classic), is somehow ranked 8th.

every time i refresh i have a new name wrote:Just stepping in with a reminder that banking everything (amount of practice, strategies against other teams) on your team's place in some set of rankings, however detailed they may be, is the wrong way go to about preparing for nationals. I've seen countless posts in this thread and out of it suggesting that teams are taking the rankings incredibly seriously and as indicative of what's actually going to shake out at nationals. It's not, so stop worrying, stop posting about getting shafted a few places, and go study.

This is absolutely true and should be kept in mind by anyone posting in this thread.

The Quizbowl Resource Center

Who is online