Ben Dillon wrote:(For example, shouldn't negs be disregarded once power is off?)
Ben Dillon wrote:Question #1: If you accept the theory that should be powers, does that necessitate that there should be negs?
Ben Dillon wrote:Question #2: If you accept the theory that the points earned should vary during the course of a tossup, doesn't that argue that points subtracted should also vary? (For example, shouldn't negs be disregarded once power is off?)
Interesting thoughts. Let me add this one:
How much of a discouragement are negs to very inexperienced teams? For example, I read a match a few years ago where a team ended the game with -5 points. They were rather distraught, and understandably so, I think. How much can this stifle a team's early development? I know that several people out there would pretty much tell them to "buck up", but let's be serious and realistic about this.
ILoveReeses wrote:To really make things confusing, I have heard of the "neg rule" where if you neg, the OTHER team gets 5 more points (rather than your own points being deducted).
ILoveReeses wrote: I would think we could have a similar rule where if a team hits the -20 mark, we just stop the game.
AdamL wrote:ILoveReeses wrote: I would think we could have a similar rule where if a team hits the -20 mark, we just stop the game.
I'm guessing you picked the number -20 somewhat arbitrarily, but that would be pretty harsh at times. I'm sure there are teams around (mine included) that have had scores of -20 and came back to win the match.
AdamL wrote:[Contrary to what some people seem to be suggesting, unless I'm misreading] I think the +5s and -5s you get from powers and negs are pretty significant in comparison to the 40-point [potential] tossups-bonuses, and especially since it's typically more like 30-35 points assuming 20-25 PPB conversion. As other people mentioned, there have been plenty of matches where the difference was made by powers and negs (that is, matches where the outcome-by-score would've been changed had there been no powers or negs). I think that I am pretty bitter (biased) about this issue though, because in a certain match at Weekend of Quizbowl, during which some of the bonuses were difficult to convert more than 10ish, making an amount of 10 points feel very hard-earned, we ended up negging ourselves into oblivion down the stretch and lost by a small margin. I think in that match we had maybe 7 or 8 negs, and the other team had very few, and if we'd had those 35-40 points back we would've won.
cvdwightw wrote: A single neg-5, in and of itself, is relatively insignificant compared to a potential 80 point swing on every question. Unless it's a tie game going in to the last question or maybe you're up by 5, the neg is typically not what kills you
cvdwightw wrote:I counter that if you had answered four more bonus parts correctly, the negs would have ultimately been irrelevant.
AdamL wrote:I'm not seeing how they're ever irrelevant... other things equal, a team would have to answer 4 more bonus parts correctly just to make up for the penalties than if there had been no penalties at all. I agree with you on most points, in case you got the impression that I took issue with your whole post (I mean, it's kind of the "if you answer more questions, you'll win" argument), I'm just saying that the -5 quantity matters.
Adam, I'm assuming that you're referring to your game against my team at Weekend of Quizbowl.
wowitsquinthaha wrote:Negs help upsets happen. Great teams can lose games to far inferior teams because of negs.
wowitsquinthaha wrote:And that is the reason I hate negs.
wowitsquinthaha wrote:It can build confidence among unlikely teams to study harder and get better.
everyday847 wrote:Moreover, I'm pretty sure that if I wasn't trounced by Solon and DCC at my first ever tournament, I wouldn't have seen how much better I can get. I don't think upsets make you motivated to work harder; I think they breed complacency.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest