Anonymous wrote:naqt is much worse than plagiarism could ever hope to be
MattNC wrote:No Hunter at all?
Edit: Actually never mind. I think someone said that Hunter would be sending their C and D teams for this, so I guess that is plausible.
Dripping Springs State Park wrote:Yeah, that was great of David and Ridgewood to do. Once my thoughts are more coherent, i.e. tomorrow, I'll post my final thoughts, but suffice it to say that while this tournament was a lot of fun and ran very well for so many teams, there were some big problems keeping it from being as good as it could be.
Production of Watchmen wrote:I am back from moderating. The tournament was going remarkably smoothly for a 101-team tournament (plus one Team USA to round out the brackets), with the first 5 rounds done by 2 PM. Perhaps it will be of interest to note that computational math toss-ups were crossed out; computational math bonuses were left in.
How the brackets were arranged I do not know.
jonpin wrote:Production of Watchmen wrote:I am back from moderating. The tournament was going remarkably smoothly for a 101-team tournament (plus one Team USA to round out the brackets), with the first 5 rounds done by 2 PM. Perhaps it will be of interest to note that computational math toss-ups were crossed out; computational math bonuses were left in.
I find this to be damning with faint praise. Having one game done by 10:30, and five games done by 2pm (when an already generous schedule says these will happen by 9:45 and 1 respectively) is not "remarkably smoothly". If you wish to defend this by saying "It's such a large tournament, it's hard to run it better", that to me says that the tournament is too large to run well.
Anonymous wrote:naqt is much worse than plagiarism could ever hope to be
nationalhistorybeeandbowl wrote:2. This tournament really should have 3 divisions next year: Elite, Regular, and JV. Each could have about 30 teams. That would allow for much closer games and smoother logistics. From a competition standpoint, I'm not sure what White Plains, for example, gains by trouncing 5 teams in the prelims by a combined total of roughly 2500-400. Or what those 5 trounced teams gain. Meanwhile, 3 divisions would also allow for less time going from room to room, since you could have 3 separate tournament HQs too. Likewise, you could have maybe a sixth round of prelims for the elite teams who tend to finish the set more quickly because they're powering half the questions, if not more.
This tournament really should have 3 divisions next year: Elite, Regular, and JV. Each could have about 30 teams.
I definitely agree with this statement. While logistically I think just Varsity-JV (or whatever 2 names people want to use) would be an improvement. Though I certainly understand the idea of Elite-Regular-JV divisions, I can see it being hard to differentiate between Elite and Regular, but I am not experienced in these things.
TDs should have discretionary power to force certain teams to play elite, if it's offered, but even that should really be reserved for obvious situations.
multiple divisions would allow for generally more fair playoffs
ProfessorIanDuncan wrote: However, divisions would get rid of some of the potentially slightly unfair prelim schedules (i had no problem with them for the most part and i must commend the people who run the tournament for making the prelim schedule as I understand it can be very difficult). One example was Seton Hall, a historically good team that can go far when it is fielding a strong team, didn't win their group because they lost to GDS "B" which as i understood it was not a true B team whereas I felt that our schedule this year didn't feel especially challenging.
Because of this we finished in the top 16 (#11 seed), however I do not feel that our A team is "elite". But that may just be the pessimist in me talking.
nationalhistorybeeandbowl wrote:Paging Jeff Hoppes - would you consider having one NAQT set be largely the same questions, with some questions replaced, and all tossups lengthened so that you effectively build an IS set off an A set (or vice versa). That way you would be able to service a larger tournament with divisions where an A set is better for newer teams, and IS for more experienced ones.
gnshsqb wrote:Though bringing six teams does make me wonder what the record for most teams is at an NAQT tournament....
bt_green_warbler wrote:gnshsqb wrote:Though bringing six teams does make me wonder what the record for most teams is at an NAQT tournament....
I'm not sure what the all-time record is, but I do know that six isn't particularly close. (Start here.)
SrgtDonow wrote:bt_green_warbler wrote:gnshsqb wrote:Though bringing six teams does make me wonder what the record for most teams is at an NAQT tournament....
I'm not sure what the all-time record is, but I do know that six isn't particularly close. (Start here.)
It wasn't an NAQT tournament, but at Dave Madden's Tri-State History Bowl, I distinctly remember playing Ridgewood K.
gnshsqb wrote:...for dealing with our somewhat ridiculous 'entourage' during the playoffs...
Dripping Springs State Park wrote:The round that had GNS B through F, Ardsley B, and Irvington A, B, and C as an audience may have been the best-attended quizbowl match I have ever played in, and I played in the finals of a national tournament (albeit a not very legitimate one).
Edward Powers wrote:... the two teams hit 15 or 16 powers combined...
Anonymous wrote:naqt is much worse than plagiarism could ever hope to be
Fred wrote:NAQT allows hosts to opt out of using the math calc TUs, if I recall correctly. They also don't use math calculation TUs at HSNCT.
Anonymous wrote:naqt is much worse than plagiarism could ever hope to be
Return to High school area archives
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests