Is high school quizbowl in Missouri salvageable?

[Matt Weiner]

You're fine. Those posts were made in my guise as thread creator, not board staffer. Sorry if that was unclear.

[Gautam]

Giant post requiring us to outline SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of how terrible rules have affected people and asks whether the situation is THAT SERIOUS

Look, man, in the rest of this country there are several high-schoolers who like to participate in summer tournaments and collegiate tournaments. People also like to be able to participate with collegiate teams. Chris Carter (cdcarter on this forum, student from South HS in Minneapolis) has attended several U of Minnesota practices, and Maggie Walker HS people were attending some VCU practices over the summer. Also, you may have absolutely no idea of the market for summer tournaments and collegiate tournaments in Missouri, because you have not considered the fact that some tyranical nonsense rules have made the idea of attending such tournaments and practices entirely not worth it due to all the sanctions and stuff that *could* be imposed. There were people like Dees who were bold enough to disregard this nonsense, did what he wanted, and became good. Dees and co. also attended good tournaments that were out of the 250 mile range (how stupid is that) and got to compete with other people, which I am sure aided them.

People who care about this game will spend the money and put in the effort to go to tournaments they know will help themselves or their teams. When you actively threaten teams and enact laws which prevent them from pursuit their QB interests automatically shields them from the world of quizbowl out there that is changing rapidly (for the good), people start considering whether or not it is worth it to take the risk and play a good, accessible collegiate tournament. This situation is dangerous to the quiz bowl community.

Finally, the point of good quizbowl is not just about "better team winning the game." It's about giving participants ample opportunity to both use the knowledge they have acquired and also to help them learn new things out there. Questions Galore and its analogues are as bad as they've been described because they do not promote learning and knowledge acquisition.

[Charbroil]

That's alright--I did email Matt, as requested. I'm sorry if I mixed some of my questions with other points I was trying to make which, I hope, are less dependent on a detailed knowledge of national Quiz Bowl which I may lack.

And yes, the post was a touch long. I do apologize--like I said, I didn't separate the issues that were broader Quiz Bowl knowledge relevant and the ones that weren't.

That being said, I'm not so much asking for specific examples of how "terrible rules have affected people"--I know that MSHSAA's rules have serious problems--so much as specific evidence of some of the allegations that have been made, which seem to go farther than just bad rules about travel, etc. "[Mocking] players on other teams for events in their personal lives," "an attitude of entitlement and seek to "level the playing field" by making every aspect of the game a complete random draw," and "This means, for example, that someone who participates in ACF Fall and then tries to play in MSHSAA States can get his school's football team disqualified from competition" are issues that seem to go beyond just a few bad rules and seem to indicate almost a culture of corruption--yes, yes, dramatic, overused cliche statement--which I would like more specific examples to believe in.

And of course, there's the statement about Missouri teams not being able to participate in national tournaments during the school year. Could you by any chance show where it says that?

These issues are ones, I think, that are ones I can raise regardless of how much I know about good Quiz Bowl, and I think are relevant to this thread...seeing as how they were posted as part of the post that began the thread.

[Mechanical Beasts]

Having played a few college tournaments now with good college players, I realize that though I'm nothing special at the moment, I'm a hundred times the player both in terms of knowledge and in terms of strategy (when I'm awake) that I was in high school. If I had had the sense to play ACF Fall and Regionals throughout my high school career, I would have done much better and learned much more from high school quizbowl. But I didn't.

The knowledge that I should go to these tournaments was there, and the opportunity was there. Paul Litvak, the summer before my senior year and the last year, I guess, that he was at CMU, explicitly told me to do so. I didn't, and I did worse my senior year than my junior year. Quizbowl would have been more fulfilling and everything had I not been stupid. You're speaking having never (I hope!) played a college tournament, and you'd deny people the opportunity to choose to be stupid like me (or to choose to be smart, like the top quizbowlers in the nation)? I think that's a bad idea.

[Jeremy Gibbs Paradox]

I have been involved in some way with MSHSAA quizbowl since 1996 and I have some points I would like to add to all this.

First, everything Matt Weiner said: absolutely correct. Would I have agreed with him in 2000 when I was fresh out of high school? No. Does it diminish anything I ever did when I played for Boonville MO? Absolutely not. Those of us who played in MO and has success and currently do are doing the best they can with what was provided them.

However, it has become increasingly obvious that there are teams that are not satisfied with the status quo. They would like to do more extensive travel, play at national championships, compete against diverse fields with teams from many states. Instead of asking how the current restrictions matter, or if they are serious, shouldn't we ask why have them at all? What possible purpose do they serve? Instead of forcing teams to grovel for permission to attend a national tournament they are honored to qualify for and show the whole country the best of what the state has to offer, why do we subject them to a tortuous process that degrades their accomplishment by making them feel as if they are lucky MSHSAA grants its blessing this time? Instead of the most complicated form system I've ever encountered (and I took the Missouri Bar Exam) to legitimate one's competition with out-of-state teams, should we ask, why is this protocol even necessary or desirous?

There have been multiple Missouri programs that have become interested in the formats and question providers the rest of the country has to offer. As someone who played in MO at a time when we were not so fortunate, I salute them and encourage them onward. The sad fact of the matter is that the rules MSHSAA has enacted has when taken literally formed a suicide pact amongst its activities wherein should one activity fall out of line all are sanctionable. Though no one yet to my knowledge has attempted to enact these sanctioning provisions, they undoubtedly have a chilling effect on people's activity. My God, these are supposed to be the best and the brightest kids in the state. And instead of allowing you all to show that off, whomever came up with this decision sold the contract to the lowest bidder. Do you know what happens when you sell a contract to build a house to a firm with cutthroat rates? A house that falls in on itself. And that is what Missouri is coming to fast.

Instead of fostering intellectual endeavors, the state activities' association effectively or intentionally retards them with a Byzantine structure of regulations far larger than any state in the country. Instead of allowing experiments in national competition and encouraging teams in their success, the state activities' association has adopted an attitude of seeming hostility in intensive regulation. To paraphrase Harry Blackmun, the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.

[Frater Taciturnus]

a. He or she shall neither practice nor compete as a member of a non-school team or as an individual participant in organized non-school competition that meets the MSHSAA academic competition definition. A competition shall be considered “organized” if any of the following conditions exist: competition is scheduled and publicized in advance, official score is kept, individual or team standings are maintained, official timer or game officials are used, admission is charged, teams are regularly formed or team rosters are predetermined, squad members are dressed in team uniforms or a team is privately or commercially sponsored. Further, competition which is either directly or indirectly sponsored, promoted or administered by an individual, organization, or any other agency shall be considered organized.

ACADEMIC COMPETITION: Academic Competition can be characterized as competition in which subject matter in multiple academic disciplines is used. This activity features head to head academic team competition,
quick response answers, time limits on questions and use of recognition systems by participants. Note: The current Academic Competition
disciplines are: science, mathematics, social studies, literature, fine arts/performing arts, language arts, and miscellaneous/vocational education.

Hey you know what mACF totally doesn't sound like? That.

(Credit to Auroni on discovery of the Missouri rulebook)

EDIT: hey look Auroni also posted this!

[Jeremy Gibbs Paradox]

The truly terrifying thing is that by this loose a definition, my regular trivia night team that I play on at least 6 times a year during the school year would be off limits to a high schooler in Missouri. This is especially appalling as many of the events I specifically go to are for the benefit of local charities and scholastic extracurriculars.

[Horned Screamer]

I know this point was brought up in one of those long ago Charles Hang posts, but NKC attended the HSNCT last year before the school year was out for this reason alone - we were supposed to be out of school before Memorial Day, but our snow days forced us to go over. If we had originally been scheduled to go to the Wednesday after Memorial Day, we would have had no case for MSHSAA to let us go, but there is a precedent of letting teams who are affected by snow days still go to nationals, especially if they have registered (which I believe was the situation with us).

[Horned Screamer]

But first, a disclaimer. I must admit, I don't know how Quiz Bowl is run outside of the state of Missouri. Perhaps it is some sort of utopia where every single match is won based on which team knows more, etc., etc. In any case, you'll have to forgive my ignorance.

It is a whole lot closer to that than you seem to think possible given your tone.

Okay, so this is rather annoying. However, is it really that serious? First of all, the number of teams that would be interested in going (and thus that would be affected) to summer tournaments is tiny. Certainly, this doesn't seem to be a reason to call High School Quiz Bowl in Missouri lost--nor is it a problem worth getting so excitable about.

And yes, I realize that the teams penalized by this rule are those that are the best, and that this is an unfair penalization of such teams. However, may I ask how many tournaments there are in the summer in any case? And besides that, there is no restriction of participation in open tournaments, etc.

Matt isn't talking about summer tournaments - he's talking about the tournaments held inbetween August and the middle of October, and then tournaments held after districts and especially after state (which in other places is a very wide bunch of events) There are no real high school summer tournaments beyond national events. Also, please never play the "who cares about this stuff" card when I'm involved in arguing with you, the reason we are on a quizbowl board is to discuss the improvement of quizbowl and this matter does affect teams who would be interested in expanding their schedule.

As Alex said, uncool, but not really the end of the world. May I ask how many teams are really penalized by this? And how much damage does this rule actually do to teams' performances?

Well, we will never know now will we? I know I volunteered my time at Hickman to come help assist their team with their practices because I know how to make a team better, and they refused me because they were afraid of this rule. That's one team lost on it right there. There's a whole goldmine of experience high schoolers can get from going to college practices that will never be exploited - just look at what goes on with VCU or UMD or Minnesota.

First of all, as Alex said, this is only during the regular season. Again, how many teams are going to do that anyway? And would the lure of being able to participate in such tournaments really improve the Quiz Bowl situation? How?

Well here's the thing - I felt the "lure" of open tournaments last year. And do you know what? They provided me an outlet to play at a higher level and be beaten by much better teams than I would ever meet in high school. Going to these tournaments taught me all kinds of facts and inspired me to study so much that I helped NKC get 5th in the nation. The team that got first in the nation, Whitman, also sent multiple players to multiple college and open events throughout the year. You seem to drastically miss the point that just because the majority doesn't care to do such things doesn't mean the minority at the top has the right to be restricted. We can not bring the top of quizbowl down to the median.

Yet again, how many teams are going to do that anyway? And would the lure of being able to participate in such tournaments really improve the Quiz Bowl situation? How? I realize that the lure of such tournaments might prompt some teams to improve more than they have already...but given that most teams can't even improve to compete effectively in Missouri, I doubt that .

Yet again, you miss the point that just because the majority of teams doesn't care we shouldn't take away the small minority the right to do this stuff. I know for a fact if North Kansas City had the opportunity to attend a major tournament in the DC area we would have gone in a heartbeat. But we never got that opportunity thanks to MSHSAA. We never got to see what a truly nationally competitive team was until we went to nationals, and that is simply unfair to anyone who wants to take their team to the top. It then improves the situation by allowing the top teams here to see the other top teams and learn what it is they need to do to improve from that. This then makes the chances of Missouri teams bringing home the national trophies a lot higher than it would have been any other way.
As to your practicing effectively statement - do you want to know why teams in Missouri can not practice effectively? It is because they either don't know about or don't pay attention to the major resources out there that contain quality questions. It is because they are so busy preparing for their conference championship help on Triple Q abortions that they don't really know how to become deep, well rounded, knowledgeable players. If you change the format and publicize the resources, then of course many more teams will be able to practice more effectively.

Alright...Missouri Quiz Bowl involves math. I fail to understand why that's really a problem. A real study in liberal arts does involve math--in fact, two of the seven traditional liberal arts incorporated math (being arithmetic and geometry). As for the length of a game...alright, I'm not really qualified to evaluate the problem with that.

Matt will probably send you an email over it, but the quizbowl consensus among major forces is that computational (note: not theoretical) math is a fundamentally different skill than what quizbowl tests. This thread is not the place to elaborate on that any further, and if you want to take it up privately that's fine, or you can just browse through the archives for more discussion of it to see where we are coming from. Also, notice the presence of theoretical math! That stuff is fine.
The length of MSHSAA games are quite literally the hindrance to making the MSHSAA format friendly to pyramidal questions. games that are already 45 minutes long with one liners become over an hour long as the question length increases. This wears people out. Around the rest of the country, most tournaments use straight 20 tossup/20 bonus formats (or similar formats that are timed) that average about 20 minutes and which have just as many points possible in them (and much better built in differentiators of skill as the tossups can then be pyramidal and the bonuses can have a clearly marked easy-medium-hard structure), accomplishing the function of a game much more efficiently and more accurately.

This is, I admit, very annoying, because the district assignments are actually not arbitrary (implying randomness), but are actually geographic (for the most part...some are rather odd), and certain areas are simply more inclined to hold tougher Quiz Bowl teams than others. This is hardly something to describe as indicating that Missouri Quiz Bowl is non-salvageable, though--it only affects very few teams, and given that your whole argument is that Missouri teams should avoid MSHSAA sponsored events anyway, I fail to see how it is a critical problem.

It is a critical problem because it shows that MSHSAA does not truly care about their state title awarding the best teams. Most other states with these problems have mechanisms built in to allow multiple teams if they are qualified to advance to state. Also, you seem to think that it is only some specific individual points Matt is making that are why he claims Missouri is unsalvageable. Maybe, like, notice that there are a ton of points? If all he had were one of these points, that would be nothing, but the fact that he has so many is what's prompting this thread.

Again, very, very annoying if the questions written by QG are as bad as they've been described, however, I think that issue has been significantly exaggerated. Yes, there is a significantly greater chance of poor teams advancing farther than they should with bad questions. Certainly, poor questions inhibit good scoring and are generally frustrating. However, in an overwhelming number of cases, the better teams still wins the game--and wasn't that the point all along? Only in situations where the teams were already fairly close to one another in ability do problems arise, and the number of those situations are, as far as I have ever seen, fairly limited.

Questions Galore is so bad it can not possibly be exaggerated. Do not pass judgement on those of us who know what is going on with their quality like that - the reason so many people are furious is because these questions are nothing but an insult. Also, you will be shocked at how much easier it is for significantly worse team to beat a better team on awful questions. My junior year we had serious trouble beating Liberty, losing to them twice I think, and losing to Savannah at least once. Then when nationals came aroundafter the prelims Liberty went 4-6 scoring 185.5 ppg and being ranked 103rd, Savannah went 5-5 with 186 ppg ranking 78th, and NKC went 8-2 with 317.5 ppg seeded 9th. After a whole year of struggling against those teams at local events, it came out that they had nowhere near the depth to be competitive on a quality national set that we had. This is pretty wild evidence to me that there was nothing short of a massive leveling of our knowledge going on in local events, and is great proof that just because you can do really well on Missouri stuff doesn't mean you can at a real tournament.

I already outlined why you were wrong about the after school policy -it's pretty explicitly banned to go to nationals before your school is let out unless you have extenuating circumstances, which NKC had.

I suppose this is theoretically true. May I ask whether this has actually happened before?

This did not happen in quizbowl, but I know Grandview had some similar problem with another activity around 2003 or so. Also, the point is that it is an everpresent threat to make sure teams dont step out of line, because if they jeopardize their school's athletics they will lose their school's support.

Also true, but how often does rejection for no apparent reason actually occur? And how often is approval "withheld in order to punish people for criticizing the MSHSAA?"

Truman State attempted to host a tournament in Fall 2005 and it was rejected for no apparent reason.

Examples of this being...? (Specifically, though you can omit the actual names)

I know at least one coach who has gone out of his way to insult me in person. Generally, the coaches in Missouri are wrapped up in issues that shouldn't be affecting quizbowl, like asserting their authority and making sure to traint heir kids to protest everything and spend time practicing buzzer reflexes instead of actual quizbowl coaching.

The participation restrictions and the questions are, as I've mentioned, unfortunate. However, Gibbs brought up a legitimate point with this "best three teams" comment. This simply isn't the grandiose problem you are portraying. As I mentioned earlier, the vast majority of problems mentioned above apply only to top teams restricted to going to all of the tournaments they wish to go to, or restricted from going to tournaments of the quality they hope for. This is a problem, but I fail to see how this somehow ruins Missouri Quiz Bowl when most teams in Missouri can't even competently play the tournaments, however badly written, that do exist. That's a problem that merits a title of "ruining Missouri Quiz Bowl," in my mind, far more than the problem of the top teams being restricted.

Of course it is a very gigantic, "grandiose" problem! Nowhere else are teams so actively cut down as here! The reason why the "best three teams" logic is infuriating is because it tells you "hey, you guys who actually care about making the quizbowl world more competitive and productive, screw you, we don't care that you want to get the best experience you can out of this game because the rest of us don't care." Coach Gibbs's continued refusal to advocate rules that most teams don't care about but a vocal few do simply because there is a silent majority is nothing short of being an unnacceptable representative of quizbowl, and is something I find inexcusable (especially since he actively solicits input on these things! My God, how deceptive is that?)
You are correct that the biggest flaw in Missouri today is the prevalence of bad tournaments. However, the matter is much more complex than you seem to think it is. The reason there are bad tournaments is because of the MSHSAA format, the fact nobody good writes for the MSHSAA format, the fact that so many coaches are keen to gaming the system and refusing to look at other alternatives, the fact that the people supposedly voicing our concerns have continually lied to us, etc.

I'm going to refrain from quoting the next two paragraphs in their entirety for the sake of brevity, but the point of them seems to be that MSHSAA should let schools play at whatever games they wish and that a revolution is necessary to bring that about. However, let's try to put all of this in context. The problem simply is not so grandiose as to require such an effort. Alright, a few top notch teams are being stifled to a degree, and some more lower level teams occasionally feel MSHSAA's negative influence. Is it really that important?

You are so wrong! If you were anywhere else in the country right now you would be looking at us and thinking "God, what an awful situation that is."

What I believe to be the real problem in Missouri Quiz Bowl--and possibly Quiz Bowl all around the United States, though I am not in a position to judge--is the fact that rather than being a popular activity, with an audience that encompasses a significant portion of the public outside of the part of the public that actually plays, it is an activity which is overwhelmingly limited to an elite--the elite which, I would guess, is represented on this message board. The concerns of this elite are overwhelmingly those that are represented in the list of complaints that have prompted this thread, and I feel that if that is so, then we have missed the overall purpose of improving Quiz Bowl.

Quiz Bowl should not be improved for the sake of some sort of "Quiz Bowl aesthetic" which, while benefiting the elite few who do enjoy Quiz Bowl, really doesn't help the greater population which gains nothing from such an improvement. Rather, I believe that Quiz Bowl should be improved with a mind towards what will improve participation in the activity, and in turn, what will allow more people to enjoy the benefits of what Quiz Bowl brings to a participator. As the originator of this thread has mentioned, the purpose of Quiz Bowl is to promote the "liberal arts canon" and "advocate for...intellectual growth" in turn to aid students in their goal of being better students.

Your logic here is awful. let's condense it - "We should be willing to make quizbowl demonstrably worse just so teams that otherwise don't care show up to it." That's pretty much teh worst idea ever. Of course quizbowl needs to be a meritocracy for teams to succeed - they need to be willing to show the desire necessary to learn more deeply and broadly. That is what we are saying. If you think that is elitist, then I have no problem with quizbowl being that. But by providing good questions and quality competition to all teams, in addition to numerous free online practice materials and the ability for players to improve to a certain extent just through listening well to their teachers everyday or going and reading books means that we are providing teams at all levels these opportunities.

What I feel would best promote such a goal would be to, yes, improve question quality. However, it is also to work to promote the sport at every level. As the originator of this thread mentioned, there is action to be taken if one is "a proponent of good quizbowl at any level--student, coach, or alumnus." That action isn't to make it easier for the elite teams to compete to their heart's content , though--thought of course that would certainly be nice. That action, rather, is to attempt to promote actions which make Quiz Bowl enjoyable at every level, both at the level of the State and National championships, and at the local level, by promoting Quiz Bowl as an activity not for some sort of nerdy elite, but as a fun activity which anyone with a reasonable interest in academic knowledge can enjoy.

What is it that makes this incompatible with lifting the participation bans? Absolutely nothing! You are right, we need to do all we can to promote a healthy environment in our backyard, which I think everyone has been doing. But we also need to promote the game at all levels, which means in addition to providing local teams a healthy outlet to compete, we provide the most motivated of those teams a chance to go prove themselves against stronger teams at stronger tournaments. Then as those teams return to the local events and improve, other teams can see the improvement and work themselves to become better, then they may become motivated to travel. Then all of these teams are more motivated and improve the competitiveness of the game nationally.

It's worth explaining how such a post about the overall focus of Quiz Bowl came to be in a discussion of poor formatting in Missouri. The reason for this discussion of the overall focus of Quiz Bowl is because statements such as the one below, and the mentality which engendered it, are simply counterproductive to what I believe to be the point of Quiz Bowl and its promotion, as mentioned.

Creating such absurdity in relation to quizbowl is what football coaches do. I don't know if Missouri will ever recover from it...if you are a proponent of good quizbowl at any level--student, coach, or alumnus--then the football-lovers do not have your best interests at heart.

The problem being, of course, that football is a national sport with a following in the dozens of millions, while Quiz Bowl certainly isn't. Football has its following because its promoters do not only come from the absolute pinnacle of ability and thus only dwell upon what can improve the situation for teams at that pinnacle, rather, its promoters emphasize what can improve the experience of players at all levels, an emphasis which I feel is lacking in discussions so far, other than a focus on better questions, of course. It's this sort of elitism, of "good Quiz Bowl for good Quiz Bowl's sake, with other issues ignored" which I feel is far more problematic to the future of Quiz Bowl than the detailed problems with MSHSAA's organization and bylaws. There's no value in acting as if football coaches are ignorant fools who have their hearts set on destroying good Quiz Bowl.

You once again have no idea what you're talking about here. MSHSAA is an organization run by athletic directors and coaches. They took over quizbowl because principals voted on it in the mid-90s and decided it made things simpler to run if they controlled a few non-athletic things as well. The reason this is a problem, and why Matt talks about football coaches like this is because they do not understand the activity and have shown nothing but interest in forcing football style rules onto us that level the field and promote nothing that good quizbowl promotes. I know at one MSHSAA meeting an official questioned why quizbowl even needs tournaments as opposed to simply creating a schedule of dual matches and then playing districts! People like this are who control us, and given their insistence on thinking their ways are right and refusal to show any interest in learning why quizbowl does not need sports based rules, they are consistently NOT acting with our best interests at heart. (Stacy Schroeder, the Academic Competition liaison from MSHSAA, is a volleyball coach! She has no experience with quizbowl beyond that she goes to help run state once a year and signs some papers in her office!)

*********************************************************************
In summary:

The arguments presented against MSHSAA are misguided because of their excessive emphasis on issues pertaining to only a few teams.

This excessive focus on issues pertaining to a few teams is misguided because the purpose of Quiz Bowl--or any activity--is to become as popular as possible (within reason) so that as many people can partake of its benefits.

And many of the statements that have been made seem to have no concrete examples backing them up.

However, commentators have hit upon one of the critical problems with Missouri Quiz Bowl--poor question caliber. That is a problem that I feel can be solved, not by a boycott of MSHSAA--which, you have to admit, would be difficult and rather unlikely to succeed anywhere in the near future--but by finding a source of questions in the Missouri format and supplying them at a lower cost than someone like Questions Galore. I realize that this is easier said than done, but given the wide variety of Quiz Bowl enthusiasts available around here, I'm sure that a method could be found.

I hope you understand why the conclusions you are drawing are wrong after this.

[BuzzerZen]

(when I'm awake)

which is always. Watch out, quizbowl, because Andy Watkins doesn't sleep.

[theMoMA]

I think we should keep in mind that this thread is about trying to change quizbowl in Missouri, not argue or counterargue about whether it's actually currently okay or not.

[Charbroil]

Okay, first of all, thank you Charles Dees for addressing my comments point by point.

The overall point I was trying to make was, though, that in my mind it is much more important to bring up the median quality of Quiz Bowl in Missouri than to become angry about restrictions that affect the top teams. Let's consider this: the overwhelming majority of the points which have been brought up about how awful MSHSAA is--and I acknowledge that they're valid points--are about only the very smallest percentage of teams at the very pinnacle of Quiz Bowl ability in Missouri. In contrast, a team like mine, Francis Howell Central, definitely falls into the "silent majority" previously mentioned. We go to only one non MSHSAA format tournament per year, most everyone on the team couldn't care less about Quiz Bowl format wars, and no one on the team even knew that Quiz Bowl had national tournaments until last year, never mind getting angry about not being able to attend. And, I have to admit, more or less everyone on the team has Quiz Bowl as an activity secondary to others, or at best as just one of several most important activities. You can say that we're as much the definition of your apathetic, bad question playing team as any.

And yet, without teams such as ours and without the efforts of teams like ours to popularize the sport (thus building up a groundswell of support for reform), a reform process is not going to succeed. And if you want to appeal to teams like ours, you can't have the emphasis on issues that deal only with the tiny minority which this thread began with. You have to focus on the issue that--as Charles himself said--is the most serious: question quality. That's why I was less than supportive of the points brought up at the beginning of this thread, not because they're not legitimate points. But they're points that aren't going to appeal to the "silent majority."

And that's my overall point--that instead of thinking of how to give MSHSAA "the finger" and trying to stop working with them--really, rather useless because very few people will go along--there needs to be grassroots work to improve question quality, to popularize Quiz Bowl (to give it greater influence in discussions about activities). That's what's going to draw the enthusiasm of the "silent majority," not questions of travel restrictions or collegiate play.

[Horned Screamer]

Apathy is no excuse!

[Matt Weiner]

To the extent that this relates to the question at all, no, I do not agree with the idea that there is any real conflict between the proper interests of good quizbowl and the proper interests of the middle-tier teams. The problem is one of attitude. Coaches do not want good questions, because coaches fear that good questions will actually allow better teams to consistently beat weaker ones. The same attitude produces all the other problems in Missouri, including the travel restrictions and so on. I brought up all the problems because, collectively, they demonstrate my point about the fundamental philosophical flaw in Missouri and the way that the benefits of good quizbowl are not being made available.

Until you get rid of the procedures and people who think travel restrictions are a good idea, you will never get rid of the procedures and people who think bad questions are a good idea, and thus no one, of any competitive level, will get the intellectual benefit of good questions.

[DumbJaques]

The ratio of arguments espousing the will/benefit of a "silent majority" to arguments that can in any way be logically considered is 1:Dogopoly.

Really, even considering the whole point by point back and forth Matt has already forbid be conducted here, I feel like the whole argument misses a basic precept. That precept is thisL Gross injustices are being perpetrated on students who embody everything we as members of an intellectual/educational/quizbowl community should want to promote. Opportunities are being unfairly (and in some cases, just insanely) denied to students, and it's wrong. It's immaterial whether these issues apply to fewer students than, for example, the issue of questions galore sucking in a black hole sense.

The point of this thread is, as I understand it, to discuss how to address these fundamentally horrible injustices. So far all the concern I've heard for the "silent majority" is baseless or misguided, but it's sort of irrelevant to the central issue.

[Sir Thopas]

And that's my overall point--that instead of thinking of how to give MSHSAA "the finger" and trying to stop working with them--really, rather useless because very few people will go along--there needs to be grassroots work to improve question quality, to popularize Quiz Bowl (to give it greater influence in discussions about activities). That's what's going to draw the enthusiasm of the "silent majority," not questions of travel restrictions or collegiate play.

We're only giving them the finger because they have repeatedly, and for no reason other than spite and pettiness, refused to work with us in our attempt to work with them and, god forbid, communicate with them in a civil manner. One of Matt's more polite missives was responded to with a screed that would have been hilarious if not sad that began with "YOUR ARE WRONG". We're all so fed up with MSHSAA that we're just done with them. All grassroots attempts, too, have been stifled due to the attitudes of domineering coaches and the like. This thread has already cataloged all these; I'm not going to go through them again.

You seem to think that a governing body like MSHSAA is necessary for a thriving high school circuit. There are plenty of examples to the contrary throughout the nation. And since they've proved impossible to work with, we're left with no other option but to stop trying, because our efforts are getting us nowhere.

[alexdz]

Again, I will say that I still agree with the general mood here. I am, however, inclined to see some of what Charles (Charbroil) is saying here, to an extent.

MSHSAA has effectively stifled the kind of quiz bowl that teams such as NKC want to attend. That is not a point of contention among us. Arbitrary mileage limits, restrictions on tournament dates, sanctions on other school activities, forbidding teams to attend open or collegiate tournaments and practices, and things like that are completely ridiculous rules that, as you have said, forbid the best teams to get better.

What Charles wants is MSHSAA to not ignore the teams who can't afford the time or money to go to those tournaments. By sponsoring district, conference, and state competition, those schools have an opportunity to compete - and maybe not at the level that good teams do, but at the very least they are getting to compete, which is what I am going to assume is MSHSAA's main focus.

We need to work with MSHSAA, not give them the finger. I'm a Type B, and I won't deny that. If we can avoid aggression, I believe we should. The attitude I perceive here is the opposite. Yes, MSHSAA needs reworking, most definitely. But notice the word I chose. Reworking. Not ignoring, not a hostile attitude. Statements have been brought up in the general vein of "They have repeatedly chose to not work with us." While this may be true, why does that necessarily mean that we have to stop trying? Is it an issue of time (we have to save QB now)? Is it an issue of ease (why should we work)?

If that means MSHSAA just drops most of their requirements, by disassociating the activities (QB in addition to band and speech/debate) sector from the sports, then I am willing to work with them on that. Like it has been said, MSHSAA is run by ADs and principals. Maybe we should take a look at getting a dedicated person in MSHSAA to run the activities part of it. At least they would have a better viewpoint than someone who basically got stuck with overseeing activities as well as sports.

So, I guess to respond to the titular question, I would say yes. But it's going to take a lot of work, a grass-roots effort, and time.

[Matt Weiner]

What Charles wants is MSHSAA to not ignore the teams who can't afford the time or money to go to those tournaments. By sponsoring district, conference, and state competition, those schools have an opportunity to compete - and maybe not at the level that good teams do, but at the very least they are getting to compete, which is what I am going to assume is MSHSAA's main focus.

No one's saying everybody needs to be traveling out of state all the time. Again, the issue is that the bias against good teams compromises the experience for everybody. "No playing in tournaments in Minnesota" is ideologically motivated by the same factors that lead to "no getting rid of math calculation" or "no using pyramidal tossups." And when you don't have good questions, you don't have any intellectual benefit to the activity. To fix one problem, fix them all at the source.

[Mechanical Beasts]

What affects middle-tier teams and elite teams both: the decisions of the MSHSAA. They both choose poor question providers that hurt everyone and propose irrational anti-competitive restrictions that hurt the few. There is absolutely zero conflict between helping everyone and helping the elite teams. The tasks don't overlap completely, because truly elite teams will choose a college tournament over MSHSAA, and because teams of middle ability will benefit less from the loosening of travel restrictions (until the median MSHSAA team is equivalent to the median mid-Atlantic team, certainly). But that doesn't mean that the job is any harder or less worthwhile!

[The Laughing Cavalier]

As an outside observer, here's the thing I don't understand about the pro-MHSAA points: if no one's going to travel outside the state, why have a rule against it? If college experience doesn't matter, why prohibit it? Etc. for most of the rest of the rules addressed here. Those people who've expressed views disliking "quizbowl for quizbowl's sake" should logically be opposed to "rules for rules' sake," which a lot of these seem to be. Also, Charbroil, in regards to your frequent use of the word "sport" to describe quizbowl, it isn't one and that's why so many of us have a problem with the regulations put on it as if it were.

[Mechanical Beasts]

As an outside observer, here's the thing I don't understand about the pro-MHSAA points: if no one's going to travel outside the state, why have a rule against it? If college experience doesn't matter, why prohibit it?

To explicitly provide the answer that your questions imply: out of a twisted fear that another Charlie Dees will someday arise, get good, and try to take Missouri quizbowl with him.

Diana Moon Glampers doesn't exist because there are Harrison Bergerons to be handicapped. Diana Moon Glampers exists to ensure that no Harrison Bergerons can ever develop and threaten the perverse status quo.

[Kuandian Manchu Autonomous County]

I will concur with MLWGS-gir. Quizbowl is fundamentally a different game from the sort that I am strating to feel that Missouri wants to foist on people who want to play quizbowl.
quick take
Sports-designed with flash and excitemnt for the spectator in mind. Hence, single-elim(to raise the stakes of a game0.
quizbowl-designed for the enjoyment of the participants. Hence, round-robins (to give players more quizbowl for their time and money)
very big difference.
I would like also to respond to those who argue that foucusing on the good teams does not help the rest. I would like to propose the "virtuous cycle of curicuit growth"
1-good teams seek to increase their edge by college practices, question writing, and so on
2-teams below those, in order to remain competive, strengthen their effort.
this contiues down to the lowest level of the game, until the intial means no longer provide the good teams with an edge, and the cycle repeats. All teams improve, the median goes up, and people are happier.

[jbarnes112358]

I wonder if a network of people with the knowledge and skill to write good questions would be willing to put in a bid for the MO contract pro bono publico. The group could charge, say, a nickel a round to undercut Questions Galore and all the other low quality question mills out there. Once coaches, and especially players, experience really good competition, we can hope they would never want to go back to the bad stuff.

[Bad Boy Bill]

I wonder if a network of people with the knowledge and skill to write good questions would be willing to put in a bid for the MO contract pro bono publico. The group could charge, say, a nickel a round to undercut Questions Galore and all the other low quality question mills out there. Once coaches, and especially players, experience really good competition, we can hope they would never want to go back to the bad stuff.

I pledge questions to this effort. I'm willing to write computation if they really want it.

[ihavenoidea]

I agree with Mr. Barnes, and would like to contribute like Mr. Tressler

[The Laughing Cavalier]

I wonder if a network of people with the knowledge and skill to write good questions would be willing to put in a bid for the MO contract pro bono publico. The group could charge, say, a nickel a round to undercut Questions Galore and all the other low quality question mills out there. Once coaches, and especially players, experience really good competition, we can hope they would never want to go back to the bad stuff.

I pledge questions to this effort. I'm willing to write computation if they really want it.

Willing to help with lit, art, and myth if this actually happens.

[STPickrell]

This need not be entirely a charitable effort.

I made close to $200 a match from my 36 conference/tournament matches while charging $80 for my 19 state series matches. This came out to over $155 a match. I suspect my customer base would have only grown, and could have been bigger if I had marketed aggressively.

I charged $300 for conferences for as many of the matches as they needed. For tournaments, I charged $35 a match if the hosts provided me score sheets.

Combine this with potential re-use in Illinois and you can make fairly good money.

The key is to regard the state series as a loss leader. The real money is from conferences and tournaments. The key is to produce enough questions to satisfy demand.

I am not 100% sure of the tax law, but since questions are a 'good,' I do not see why it couldn't be tax deductible to the tune of $1 a question or thereabouts if the question writing is fronted by a charity of some sort.

I will assess what I can do in the summer and will be more than happy to contribute questions.

[Horned Screamer]

I think having the state provider NOT provide any other MSHSAA format sets would probably be the best thing to do for the regular circuit, as teams that would otherwise insist on hosting events written by the provider are forced to turn to other alternatives, and the writers could easily say "if you are interested in using our questions, go use NAQT, HSAPQ, or good housewritten sets instead, as those will approximate ours well." I don't see any reason to market more sets on bad formats than one would absolutely have to.

[ether a go-go]

In the 1990s, questions were provided for free to the state Illinois tournaments in exchange for the writer owning the rights to the questions. The writer heavily marketed old questions as practice materials and also wrote other tournaments and made good money.

I don't think, however, that that model or Shawn's model is the way to go now. The goal used to be for writers to write questions that rewarded teams who were familiar with their questions, but that is no longer the case.

If a lot of people are willing to contribute questions, this can work, but this would be a serious effort. The state series is a lot of questions with a given format and distribution, and doing it for one or two years would produce minimal results. Don't think about this unless you are willing to be vastly underpaid by MSHSAA year after year and be happy about it. Also, it sounds like the bid for 2008-09 has been dealt with, so you're all talking about 2009-10.

[Horned Screamer]

Right, this couldn't work until the 2010 season anyway. I remember sending out an email when the bidding opened up and got a fair amount of responses in the positive, but that gradually morphed into an HSAPQ project that got denied (or ignored or lost) by MSHSAA.

[Terrible Shorts Depot]

I am greatly intrigued by Dr. Barnes's idea to write questions. I would be willing to contribute my (admittedly minimal) expertise.

[Captain Sinico]

To say "These rules only affect elite teams" is to beg the question. The existence of these rules is a primary cause (along with the proliferation of bad questions) of the lack of elite teams.
Further, I challenge those saying such things to demonstrate how the repeal of these rules would adversely affect non-elite teams.
Finally, consider that the argument "These issues only affect elite teams" can (indeed, frequently is) used against good questions: "Only elite teams want good questions. Bad questions only hurt elite teams; the silent majority is perfectly happy with them/prefers them to good questions." It's easily seen, then, that the common attitude "It's okay/good/necessary/imperative to hamstring and hobble those who want to excel by working hard to know more" that's at fault. Therefore, if you believe in good questions, you ought to be just as against these rules and against the organization whose conduct reflects that attitude as I am (and Matt, Charlie, etc. are.)

MaS

Edit: clarified what I meant about the 'it only affects elites' argument against good questions.

[jrbarry]

Some thoughts on this topic.

State high school associations (like MIssouri) predate quiz bowl. Their rules predate quiz bowl. The REAL objective should NOT be to change HS association rules that are absurd. Rather, it should be getting quiz bowl out from under those associations altogether. That is certainly possible as in Georgia's case. We not only flooded our GHSA with applications to travel to tournaments all over the nation, we also lobbied their Board of Directors to let us go our own way. Coaches of athletic teams and athletic directors do not really want to regulate an activity they do not understand. We created a problem for them and then lobbied to get out from under their quasi-control.

I learned this strategy from a close pal of mine who was, in those days, both our head fball coach and AD plus our region's rep on the GHSA Board.

Of course we (GA hs quiz bowl coaches) had a strong consensus in those days that we did NOT want to be under GHSA's control and rules.

[ether a go-go]

Let me make explicit an argument that I would never make in economics but which is true in Quizbowl, one that has become more relevant as this thread has gone on.

Look around the country and see who is writing good questions and hosting tournaments with good questions. With few exceptions, you see elite programs. In general, the good tournaments not hosted by elite high school teams are hosted by college teams that are made up largely of former elite high school players. If you were going to make two lists, one listing the top teams and another listing the hosts of the tournaments with the best questions, there would be very significant overlap. This phenomenon is self similar in that you could make your lists at the national level, within large regions, within states, or within metropolitan areas, and you would get the same results. Furthermore, it has been true historically. There are exceptions, but the correlation is strong.

When you clip the wings of elite teams, who hosts tournaments with good questions that the rest of the teams can play at? Who writes good questions that the rest of the teams can play on? Without experience, how do the good teams learn how to differentiate between good questions and very good questions? How do they experience good quizbowl, which is much more significant than reading about it on the internet?

From a logical standpoint, a mediocre team can host a good tournament. From a historical standpoint, that's generally not what happens.

[Matt Weiner]

Some thoughts on this topic.

State high school associations (like MIssouri) predate quiz bowl. Their rules predate quiz bowl. The REAL objective should NOT be to change HS association rules that are absurd. Rather, it should be getting quiz bowl out from under those associations altogether. That is certainly possible as in Georgia's case. We not only flooded our GHSA with applications to travel to tournaments all over the nation, we also lobbied their Board of Directors to let us go our own way. Coaches of athletic teams and athletic directors do not really want to regulate an activity they do not understand. We created a problem for them and then lobbied to get out from under their quasi-control.

I learned this strategy from a close pal of mine who was, in those days, both our head fball coach and AD plus our region's rep on the GHSA Board.

Of course we (GA hs quiz bowl coaches) had a strong consensus in those days that we did NOT want to be under GHSA's control and rules.

Absolutely true. If the MSHSAA did not have jurisdiction, these problems would be moot--people who wanted good tournaments could make them happen and Missouri could go the way of Georgia and the other states where steady improvement has been the norm. The issue is that it seems most coaches in Missouri are being selfish and perpetuating the system because it gives them a better chance of winning.

[First Chairman]

My own question on this discussion: does the MHSAA control ALL quiz bowl or academic competition formats in Missouri? I find that practically impossible to do so. If one runs a format that is unlike the MHSAA's sanctioned state quiz bowl championship format, technically it should not have any jurisdiction over it. Take for example, Academic Decathlon. Currently there is no state director so any participating school who wants to compete at nationals should contact the national office for qualification procedures. MHSAA cannot possibly claim it controls teams that could compete at Decathlon nationals (held in April) because the format involves 9-person teams, multiple-choice tests, essays, speeches, etc. It would be similar to CBI claiming ownership of NAQT's format even though the clock times are different and there are powers for NAQT. So to what extent is there a legitimate right to regulate quiz bowl?

[Sir Thopas]

My own question on this discussion: does the MHSAA control ALL quiz bowl or academic competition formats in Missouri?

Yes.

I find that practically impossible to do so.

You're wrong. They're megalomaniacal. End of story.

[Awehrman]

My own question on this discussion: does the MHSAA control ALL quiz bowl or academic competition formats in Missouri?

No, they do not. This is one of the many loopholes that teams in Missouri use to get around some of MSHSAA's rules. There are several competitions that do not count as "academic competition." Single subject tournaments like science knowledge bowl, and history bowl do not count. When I was in high school, we considered going to your (Dr. Chuck's) Biography tournament, because it would not technically count as quizbowl either, but Cleveland was a bit far off. Similarly MSHSAA does not control Science Olympiad, Beta Club, Academic Decathlon, etc. Also, NKC regularly plays in a tournament at Maple Woods Community College in Kansas City in a format that does not use buzzers. It's one of the oldest tournaments around, but its lack of buzzers makes it exempt from MSHSAA's definition of academic competition. I used to argue that any tournament that did not have math calculation was not quizbowl under MSHSAA's rules either (which specifies 20% of the questions must be calculation), but I don't think anyone ever tested that line of reasoning. MSHSAA defines quizbowl as (I'm paraphrasing) a contest between two teams on multiple subjects using buzzers.

[Horned Screamer]

I have tried to follow the no math calculation logic before, but as long as it has multiple subjects (not to mention almost all tournaments have math in some form even if it's not calculation), it falls under the MSHSAA heading of quizbowl.

[David Riley]

I've mellowed a bit in my old age re forming a Stalwartr Sons of Scholastic BVowl Secession movement, but this is why I never understood people who said we were bound to IHSA in Illinois quiz bowl...there is a lot of Speech/Debate and Drama that is outside of IHSA, even though those activities are part of IHSA as well. But quiz bowl in Illinois has vastly improved ove the last ten years or so, even though we still have a lot further to gol.

[Kenneth Widmerpool]

I wonder if a network of people with the knowledge and skill to write good questions would be willing to put in a bid for the MO contract pro bono publico. The group could charge, say, a nickel a round to undercut Questions Galore and all the other low quality question mills out there. Once coaches, and especially players, experience really good competition, we can hope they would never want to go back to the bad stuff.

I pledge questions to this effort. I'm willing to write computation if they really want it.

Willing to help with lit, art, and myth if this actually happens.

those and history if something goes on

[intothenegs]

I wonder if a network of people with the knowledge and skill to write good questions would be willing to put in a bid for the MO contract pro bono publico. The group could charge, say, a nickel a round to undercut Questions Galore and all the other low quality question mills out there. Once coaches, and especially players, experience really good competition, we can hope they would never want to go back to the bad stuff.

I pledge questions to this effort. I'm willing to write computation if they really want it.

Willing to help with lit, art, and myth if this actually happens.

those and history if something goes on

I'd be willing to do music and geography for this.

[Horned Screamer]

I'd be shocked if MSHSAA were enthusiastic at the prospect of recent high school graduates writing for them, especially for a conglomerate that is not a real company. You would have to either organize under the veneer of an organization to get your best bet with this, and then either lie about your contributors and pay them under the table or probably have some problems with getting MSHSAA to approve something that unprofessional.

[Kenneth Widmerpool]

I'd be shocked if MSHSAA were enthusiastic at the prospect of recent high school graduates writing for them, especially for a conglomerate that is not a real company. You would have to either organize under the veneer of an organization to get your best bet with this, and then either lie about your contributors and pay them under the table or probably have some problems with getting MSHSAA to approve something that unprofessional.

I wouldn't have any problems organizing under the guise of a company, although yeah it would require some signifcant effort to coordinate.

[ether a go-go]

Also, if history teaches us anything, it is that when a bunch of people agree to write questions some of them will not come through. It would be cool if some people could pull it off, and I would be willing to contribute myself, but don't enter this lightly.

[Horned Screamer]

Yeah, also it's something on par with 23 rounds of 50 tossups and 20 bonuses each.

[ihavenoidea]

I assume these tossups and bonuses are not like CO questions? In which case they should not be too strenuous.

[Kuandian Manchu Autonomous County]

I don't really have the time to write during the school year much, but I have some previously-written questions I could contribute.

[Horned Screamer]

No they aren't, but I can't see any excuse not to try to emulate things like the PACE style sets VCU produces or other good high school events (5-6 lines 12 TNR).

[ihavenoidea]

No they aren't, but I can't see any excuse not to try to emulate things like the PACE style sets VCU produces or other good high school events (5-6 lines 12 TNR).

Of course that would be the ideal, but would MSHSAA accept those questions? I was more under the impression that they'd only accept 2 - 3 line questions with inordinate amounts of computation.