waddle1 wrote:For what it's worth, TJ B was missing it's best NAQT player at VA States today...
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.
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.
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?)
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.
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?)
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.
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
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.
CavsFan2k10 wrote:They are very divine.
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.
CavsFan2k10 wrote: Diverse, maybe?
Mewto55555 wrote:CavsFan2k10 wrote: Diverse, maybe?
Lack of diversity is a big problem in quizbowl, good for them!
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: $Tournaments /neq teams$
Fred wrote:They've averaged 4 powers per game over their last two tournaments, that's not exactly awful.
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.
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.
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.
Return to High school area archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests