This is ACF rules and not NAQT rules, though if I understand you correctly Caltech decided to add a single-elim playoff on top of the playoff round robin. Please see the Richard Montgomery tournament thread for why this is a bad idea. NAQT does not have an official stance on who wins tournaments, though for all the college tournaments it's that the top two teams play a final; if one team has a better record it's best 2-out-of-3 with a one game advantage for the team with the better record, otherwise it's one game.ihavenoidea wrote:So Caltech, when a team clears the field by at least two games, they win the tournament. What was the necessity of the single elimination play off? RB is undefeated through out prelims and playoff round robin, yet they get 2nd because they lost one game to a team that had lost 2 games to them earlier in the day? (correct me if I'm wrong)
This is amazing. "Let's copy every bad idea from the Richard Montgomery tournament, except the don't-actually-start-playoffs-until-some-ungodly-hour part." Like, did Keith quit RM quizbowl because he had to fly across the country to run the Caltech team?ihavenoidea wrote:2 brackets of 8 for prelims, round robin. Reseed after lunch into two new brackets of 8. 1 plays 3, 5, 7. 2 plays 4, 6, 8 (essentially four brackets of four with top bracket being 1, 3, 5, 7 and bottom bracket being 10, 12, 14, 16). Then they reseed everyone. Top four goes into a single elimination playoff. 1v4, 2v3. Winner plays winner, loser plays loser. Essentially the top 4 is ranked from their performance in the single elimination only.
ihavenoidea wrote:So Caltech, when a team clears the field by at least two games, they win the tournament. What was the necessity of the single elimination play off? RB is undefeated through out prelims and playoff round robin, yet they get 2nd because they lost one game to a team that had lost 2 games to them earlier in the day? (correct me if I'm wrong)
warpoet wrote:That's the way CalTech always runs their tournaments, or sometimes without the second round robin...
ihavenoidea wrote:warpoet wrote:That's the way CalTech always runs their tournaments, or sometimes without the second round robin...
That has nothing to do with the validity of the scheduling.
ak47 wrote:Let's not make too big of a deal about this. It was a solid final match, and Santa Monica came out on top in that game (deservedly so). Though I also find the scheduling/winner decision somewhat confusing and nonsensical, whatever happened happened. Onward we go.
warpoet wrote:That's the way CalTech always runs their tournaments, or sometimes without the second round robin...
cvdwightw wrote:or from places like West Virginia where this kind of thing is common.
cvdwightw wrote:warpoet wrote:That's the way CalTech always runs their tournaments, or sometimes without the second round robin...
it is not the way that Caltech "always" runs their tournaments, as Jordan or Noah would tell you if they found this thread.
My bad, Fred.Fred Morlan wrote:cvdwightw wrote:or from places like West Virginia where this kind of thing is common.
That ain't how it is in West Virginia, either.
manary wrote:I was a freshman last year, there was only 1 dedicated person (matthew feldman) in QB, so he and I worked our butts of to get it somewhere. We are continuing to do that. Unfortunately, NO ONE else helps us (= anyone from the past). We have to beg anybody older than a sophomore to play for us, and usually they don't even if we give them cash (except for Jim thanks!). It may seem like Caltech used to be cool, and I'm sure it used to be better. Unfortunately no one gives us any hints on what to do, such as "Oh Micah, don't do single elimination." Where I come from (Missouri!) it's the norm, so I do what I know.
Concrete criticism is good, please send it to me. Telling me to make it more like Jordan or Noah or whoevertheblankelse used to do it is not helpful.
Return to High school area archives
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], MSN [Bot] and 0 guests