Point allocation on tossups/bonuses; what's fairer

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

One difference from NHBB to standard 20/20 format is that the majority of our points are available off of tossups, whereas in most other formats, it's only 1/3 or 1/4, depending on whether power is used. Since bonuses aren't connected to tossups in most formats (though not NHBB) in terms of subject matter, many games can come down to what subject happens to pop up on a bonus, and this also leads to issues if bonuses are of varying difficulty, which we all know is often the case.
So, I resolve that 60 second rounds aside (see current thread on NHBB forum), our format, insofar as it is more tossup heavy, is more focused on what to me at least is the most essential part of qb (ringing in with the buzzer on tossups), and is somewhat fairer in this respect.
Anyone want to debate this? What about the idea of 5 point bonus questions, so that in a 15 point power format, at least the TU/Bonus split is 50/50 pointwise? Throwing this out there...

[ether a go-go]

Because tossups determine control of the bonuses, they generally determine the winner of the match even when they are only one-fourth of the points available. Even if the tossups were worth 0 points in 20/20 format, they would still be extremely important because controlling the bonuses is extremely important. If the bonuses were worth fewer points, they would essentially become a waste of time--matches are already won and lost for the most part on tossups.

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Because tossups determine control of the bonuses, they generally determine the winner of the match even when they are only one-fourth of the points available. Even if the tossups were worth 0 points in 20/20 format, they would still be extremely important because controlling the bonuses is extremely important. If the bonuses were worth fewer points, they would essentially become a waste of time--matches are already won and lost for the most part on tossups.

Sure, though I don't think if they were halved it would make them a waste of time - they would still be half the points. Again, this isn't meant to necessarily advocate a shift from 30 point bonuses, I'm just throwing the point out there, since I think it's kind of interesting to debate.
One other thing with NHBB and use of an unconventional format: many people on this board are continually amazed as to why many teams still shy away from pyramidal formats. Well, one thing is that many people actually like a more varied approach to the game. You wouldn't know it from who posts on the forums, but this is not an uncommonly held viewpoint. I think at some level compromising slightly in terms of what makes the game fun for them (e.g. a varied format) is a price worth paying in order to appeal to new teams. There need to be more bridges of all sorts to new schools/schools playing non-pyramidal. Our format may be different, but most seem to like it, and it leaves the important stuff (e.g. good content, pyramidality, etc.) intact.

[Charles Martel]

Illinois Masonic Bowl uses an even weirder format: 8 15 point tossups in the 1st and 3rd quarters, and 8 3x10 point bonuses in the 2nd and 4th quarters, with control alternating (and rebounds). In addition to legitimate complaints in the past about the pyramidality, distribution, and academic quality of lit and fine arts, all of which will probably improve this year, some have argued that this format is inherently flawed. I'm not really sure what to think about the format.

[dtaylor4]

Illinois Masonic Bowl uses an even weirder format: 8 15 point tossups in the 1st and 3rd quarters, and 8 3x10 point bonuses in the 2nd and 4th quarters, with control alternating (and rebounds). In addition to legitimate complaints in the past about the pyramidality, distribution, and academic quality of lit and fine arts, all of which will probably improve this year, some have argued that this format is inherently flawed. I'm not really sure what to think about the format.

This isn't exactly true. The Masonic rules can be found here.

In short, it's 6 tossups, 8 bonuses, 6 tossups, 8 bonuses, 4 tossups. No negs, all TUs and bonuses are IHSA format (15pt tossups, bonuses are 3x10 and rebound en masse).

[ether a go-go]

The format changed this year. Adam described last year's format, and Donald described this year's.

Also, there is a history of people claiming that they dislike mACF because the format is too uniform/boring and then not taking advantage of opportunities to play good questions in a four-quarter format, or disliking good questions in a four-quarter format. HSAPQ produced some four-quarter sets, and, if I remember correctly, the teams that like good quizbowl preferred mACF, and the teams that like bad quizbowl preferred bad questions, so there was no market for those sets.

[Kyle]

I don't think it's right to ask what is "fairer" in this particular circumstance. It seems to me that a quizbowl game could be fair no matter what the point values are so long as the questions are well written. All the point values are arbitrary, after all. This is the reason that nobody complains that it's unfair whether you have powers or not, even though having powers slightly over-values tossups relative to bonuses. It's also the reason that nobody complains about the British format of having 5-point bonus parts, even though that really over-values tossups relative to bonuses (well, I complain, but not on the grounds that it's unfair, since it's perfectly fair). It seems like the question you should be asking is whether you find it more important to emphasize the sort of skills that are tested by tossups or bonuses. Do you care more about rewarding how people work as a team or rewarding deep knowledge of particular individuals? Regardless, I think it's totally "fair" to mess around with the arbitrary point values.

[Scaled Flowerpiercer]

Also, there is a history of people claiming that they dislike mACF because the format is too uniform/boring and then not taking advantage of opportunities to play good questions in a four-quarter format, or disliking good questions in a four-quarter format. HSAPQ produced some four-quarter sets, and, if I remember correctly, the teams that like good quizbowl preferred mACF, and the teams that like bad quizbowl preferred bad questions, so there was no market for those sets.

As a team that was brought up on Chip's four quarter format and finds NHBB's four quarter format to be very good, I do have a couple comments on the idea of HSAPQ's four quarter format.

Though I never played their four quarter format, just by looking at it, it appears that the set is only rather artificially four quarters. The format is:
Q1: 10 tossups
Q2: 10 tossups with 20pt bonuses
Q3: 10 questions "team rounds" (like 60 second rounds, without the 60 seconds)
Q4: 10 tossups

Quarters one and four are identical, and the tossups in quarter two are identical to those in quarter one, just with bonuses attached. Other than in quarter 3, there is very little variety in the game compared to other four quarter formats.

Questions Unlimited / NAC has the following format
Q1: 16 5 & 10 point tossups
Q2: 8 5 & 10 point tossups, though only enough are read to get to 4 5-10-15-20 point bonus rounds
Q3: 60 second rounds with 10 questions / 20 point bonus for sweeping
Q4: 20 15 & 20 point tossups (ostensibly harder than previous rounds)

NHBB format:
Q1: 10 short, but pyramidal tossups
Q2: 10 longer pyramidal tossups with 15/10 power and 1-question bonuses
Q3: 60 second rounds with 8 questions / 20 point bonus for sweeping
Q4: 10 longest pyramidal tossups with 30/20/10 power

Each of these formats have four quarters which are entirely distinct from the other three, allowing for true variety in the games. Though there are many complaints to be made about the actual questions, etc. of the NAC format, it allows for a lot of diversity of game play, which can help to add a little bit of excitement to quizbowl, which, when done right (which I think the NHBB format does / would do better maybe without 60 second rounds depending on your opinion), can benefit the game by adding fun without sacrificing any fairness, etc. HSAPQ's four quarters just don't actually offer much variety, unlike these formats. (Also, I may have messed up on some of the numbers for the NHBB format, but the gist is certainly there)

Personally, I have found that long tournaments can sometimes be tiring to players, leading to a worsening of play (I saw this especially at the recent Hills West tournament where the one-sidedness of many games adding to the monotonousness of games) whereas I believe that even that slight quarterly change up in the game can help to add some "fun" (without "funn") into the game, and alleviate the potential for games to bore players.

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Just to clarify, there's no power in second quarter NHBB rounds this year. Next year, we're going to reevaluate both the 2nd and 3rd quarters, but the goal will be to continue to have a slightly different feel to each part of the match. I strongly believe that newer teams and less gifted teams in particular like this approach (though I liked it every bit as much when Ridgewood peaked nationally around #5 in 1999) and nothing I've seen at over 20 NHBB tournaments and over 20 other tournaments over the last 2 years would make me change my mind. Since these are the vast majority of all teams that exist, that's why NHBB is the way it is for high school. For college, though, I'm fine with 20/20, since it's clear that that's what most people who will play the set will prefer.

[jonpin]

Just to clarify, there's no power in second quarter NHBB rounds this year. Next year, we're going to reevaluate both the 2nd and 3rd quarters, but the goal will be to continue to have a slightly different feel to each part of the match. I strongly believe that newer teams and less gifted teams in particular like this approach (though I liked it every bit as much when Ridgewood peaked nationally around #5 in 1999) and nothing I've seen at over 20 NHBB tournaments and over 20 other tournaments over the last 2 years would make me change my mind. Since these are the vast majority of all teams that exist, that's why NHBB is the way it is for high school. For college, though, I'm fine with 20/20, since it's clear that that's what most people who will play the set will prefer.

Could you clarify what this year's fourth-quarter rules are? I know last year, state bowl was 20 the whole way, then at nationals it was going to be 20/15/10 but actually wound up as 15/10. I'm seeing 10-point tossups with 20-powers and 30-supers thrown out; is that accurate?

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

30-20-10 3 level power in the 4th quarter this year. No power in any other 1/4.