The Quizbowl Resource Center

May as well keep all the discussion of everyone's second-least-favorite tournament to its own thread.

Maine South (AA) sectional seeds:
1. Loyola (unanimous; regional host)
2. Latin
3. New Trier (regional host)
4. Fenton
5. Maine South (regional host)
6. Fenwick
7. Oak Park-River Forest (regional host)
8. St. Ignatius

All-Sectional players?

We were still voting when I posted that.

All-Sectional and eligible for All-State consideration: Alex Kling (Latin), Greg Ramel (OPRF), Blake Tutt (Fenton), Morgan Venkus (Loyola) Andrew Wang (New Trier), Nolan Winkler (Loyola)
Also All-Sectional: Casey Bryniarski (Maine South), Andrew Groenewold (Timothy Christian), John Lotus (St. Ignatius), Greg Martin (OPRF), Tim McInerney (Glenbard East), Marcel Youkhana (Loyola)

From the Auburn Sectional, I have no clue about all-sectional voting yet.

1. Auburn
2. Kaneland
3. Belvidere North
4. Woodstock Marian
5. Stillman Valley
6. Boylan
7. Crystal lake south
8. Burlington Central

King of Carrot Flowers wrote: 2. Kaneland
3. Belvidere North

Wait, what?

Aaron beat me to it . . .

Facebook caused me to accidentally stalk Wauconda's quizbowl team's facebook group, and according to a post by coach Ducharme the North Chicago sectional went


1.Stevenson
2. Rolling Meadows
3. Fremd
4. St. Viator
5. Buffalo Grove
6. Wauconda
7. Carmel
8. Lake Zurich

Errrrrrr

Internet appliance wrote:Facebook caused me to accidentally stalk Wauconda's quizbowl team's facebook group, and according to a post by coach Ducharme the North Chicago sectional went


1.Stevenson
2. Rolling Meadows
3. Fremd
4. St. Viator
5. Buffalo Grove
6. Wauconda
7. Carmel
8. Lake Zurich

Errrrrrr

I'm just waiting to see what hilarious outcomes this seeding will produce next.

Internet appliance wrote:Facebook caused me to accidentally stalk Wauconda's quizbowl team's facebook group, and according to a post by coach Ducharme the North Chicago sectional went


1.Stevenson
2. Rolling Meadows
3. Fremd
4. St. Viator
5. Buffalo Grove
6. Wauconda
7. Carmel
8. Lake Zurich

Errrrrrr

The Members Poll says...
1. Stevenson
2. Buffalo Grove
3. Barrington
4. Wauconda
5. Rolling Meadows
6. Saint Viator
7. Fremd
8. Libertyville

so, depending on where Barrington is sent, they might have actually not screwed everything up because the top 4 seeds are actually split apart?

In the voters defense - Rolling Meadows is actively good at quizbowl, and could beat Barrington or Wauconda on any given packet and, depending on how computational math works, maybe even Stevenson?

Also - this sectional has eight teams earning Members Poll votes. Sneaky depth that you won't find anywhere else.

(fist-pump at Barrington not having to travel any distance due to being seeded 5-8)
Meadows is actually very good at IHSA format, and Fremd's facility with computational math makes them very formidable in IHSA format. Buffalo Grove smashed Meadows 520-280, but then lost to them 5 days later, 425-385... Also, Fremd nipped Buffalo Grove to win the conference pre-season tourney. Fremd pummeled Meadows at that tourney, but then got the favor returned when Meadows beat them, 430-245 at the early January quadrangular. So... the seeds might not be as silly as they sound. Barrington is 1-4 against the seeded teams this year.

From the IMSA Sectional:

(1) IMSA
(2) Wheaton-Warrenville South
(3) Wheaton North
(4) Metea Valley
(5) Downers Grove North
(6) Wheaton Academy
(7) Naperville North
(8) Geneva

The top four are regional hosts.

The All-Sectional team is:
(1) Webster - IMSA
(2) Anand - Wheaton-Warrenville South
(3) Nilo - Metea Valley
(4) Graham - St. Charles East
(5) Chetan - Naperville North
(6) Thomas - Wheaton North
(7) Emma - Downers Grove South
(8) Adam - IMSA
(9) Eric - IMSA
(10) Jeffrey - West Chicago
(11) Ned - WWS
(12) David - Glenbard North

Nilo and Emma did not play enough matches to qualify for All-State consideration.

Ballots: Teams Individuals

I feel honored to say that the IHSSBCA Members Poll has not and will not ever be plagued by such reckless self-promotion, in part because Plainfield South's coach isn't a member of the IHSSBCA, but largely because the IHSSBCA is filled with intelligent, respectful coaches. Ned and Eric got screwed out of All-State consideration - that can be fixed, thankfully - but Shreyas (Metea) deserved All-Sectional and Wheaton North probably deserved a second All-Sectional player.

Ah, well. It'll be fun watching Plainfield South get beat by 200 points by an unranked team.

As someone who was there, let me counter:
(1) I'm not sure that Ned not making automatic All-State consideration is a huge crime. Was he underrated? Absolutely. Was he a lock for All-State? I don't think so. Does he have a legitimate chance at All-State? Yes, and if I were Mr. Stankevitz, I would appeal and see how things shake out.
(2) Shreyas's numbers were not as good as most of the other players. There were players I was surprised I was not voting for, but someone putting up 4.5 TUP20H in conference matches can't really be ignored, and this year there were about five such players from non-Wheaton, non-IMSA schools.
(3) Plainfield South's coach was not delusional. She was not saying her player was the best in the Sectional. She specifically stated that she drove to IMSA tonight to try to get her player recognition. She had no realistic hope of a top-eight seed, and her only goal was to get the kid his honor. From what she said about him, I agreed that he should be All-Sectional, but most other coaches disagreed.

wait the heck, did plainfield south's coach seriously seed wheaton north above IMA?

"My scheme is intended for only honest men" --- Jean-Charles, chevalier de Borda.

Nothing's going to beat Kaneland over Belvidere North, though. You just can't beat that.

Man, according to the IHSA web site, these seeds are taking an awful long time to post... 112 years and counting!

cornfused wrote:Nothing's going to beat Kaneland over Belvidere North, though. You just can't beat that.

Belvidere North will at Sectionals.

How does one appeal?

tinioril wrote:How does one appeal?

I'm not Matt Laird so I'm not certain about all the mechanics here, but I think that your coach emails Laird, who decides (by what rationale, I do not know); if he accepts your appeal, then you're eligible to be voted for and your All-Sectional form goes into the stack with everyone else's. (If not, congratulations on All-Sectional!)

Bone seeker wrote:

tinioril wrote:How does one appeal?

I'm not Matt Laird so I'm not certain about all the mechanics here, but I think that your coach emails Laird, who decides (by what rationale, I do not know); if he accepts your appeal, then you're eligible to be voted for and your All-Sectional form goes into the stack with everyone else's. (If not, congratulations on All-Sectional!)

I'm not Matt Laird either, but I play him on TV. Brad is right, and I think in general those appeals are accepted unless it's incredibly obvious they're undeserving, which is not the case with you.

tinioril wrote:How does one appeal?

I don't know if you have talked to Mr. Stankevitz, but it sounded to me like he intended to appeal. The process for you is just a simple email from coach to Laird. I mailed your nomination form to Laird this morning, so that information will be available for the All-State voting process.

From what Coach Basque told me some of the coaches at their seed meeting seeded purely based on some statistic (I forgot what he called it) involving W/L record in comparison to games played, which might explain something.

King of Carrot Flowers wrote:From what Coach Basque told me some of the coaches at their seed meeting seeded purely based on some statistic (I forgot what he called it) involving W/L record in comparison to games played, which might explain something.

Does anyone know if weird inaccurate statistics are a common thing in seeding? Or is it just a thing in that sectional?

Edit: In case it wasn't clear inaccurate was meaning that it probably wasn't good for comparing teams, not that the numbers weren't the right numbers.

King of Carrot Flowers wrote:From what Coach Basque told me some of the coaches at their seed meeting seeded purely based on some statistic (I forgot what he called it) involving W/L record in comparison to games played, which might explain something.

That sounds a lot like the dreaded weighted win percentage. Which is win percentage plus games played divided by 100. In all, it's a really bad formula that offers no insight towards the real strength of teams.

Yeah, what Mike said. Ms. Greene told us today that some coaches used only that statistic for their seedings. As such, one AD (I believe the coach wasn't there) ranked Kaneland as #1, Belvidere North as #2, and Auburn as #3. That wasn't the only reason North got shafted, though... from what Ms. Greene indicated, there was more than one coach who ranked North below Kaneland even though "They should certainly know better." I'm guessing that this describes people who've seen North/Minarik play and (should) know that they're actually a legitimate force.

it's unfortunate, but under the circumstances, playing well (at Regionals and Sectionals) is the best revenge.

David Riley wrote:it's unfortunate, but under the circumstances, playing well (at Regionals and Sectionals) is the best revenge.

Oh, yeah, I'm not complaining. I was just indicating what I'd heard at practice.

What Mike and Abid said sounds about correct.

At our meeting, not only did they begin the ranking with the weighted winning percentage, but then coaches took well longer than the prescribed time to advocate for their teams. This allowed some coaches to wax on at length about the superior quality of the IHSA format and tournaments that his team is better at, and to somewhat flippantly disregard any NAQT style tournaments. I had been advocating for Barrington, mentioning that they had done well in regular tournaments and then opted to move up to the Uber division. They seemed to disregard if teams was playing more often in the UBER divisions. As was mentioned, we play in a very talented sectional, and some teams that were playing primarily in regular divisions ended up placed higher. . . I may sound jaded . . . At least we GOT seeded this year , , ,

Well... And you can't say that IHSA = ACF-type quizbowl events because it simply doesn't. The increased math distro is a game-changer when you have a team, say Fremd, that's very good and fast at math computation, AND knowledgeable about many of the usual quizbowl topics. Such a team, by default, will be much better than many teams they might come up against if they're claiming ~1/6 of the points available in math. Because NOW you have to get >60% of the remaining points available to beat them. We've done it, but not often. Fremd & Barrington always play IHSA format as part of our conference play and they usually beat us (at varsity, anyway).

As I said upthread, playing well is the best revenge, but Jeff does have a point re comp math.

Too bad they are not in our Masonic Sectional, we could try out our Math against them there. . . Most of my A team is also on our Math team, and they are undefeated so far this year. Not the same kind of competition I know, but helpful!

In our case, there were several small schools (last year class A) who sent their AD to the seed meeting and you could tell they were not familiar with our system. They used the dreaded power ranking number and several had Kaneland seeded 1st and North ranked as low as 6th. Other coaches from our conference were floored but it didn't make a difference to me, we are hosting a regional and if all goes well we will keep the regional plaque and will get to see Kaneland at Auburn. My players were disappointed but I told them to keep their eyes on the prize and not worry about a fairly arbitrary ranking system. BTW- This #3 ranked team knocked off Auburn for the 1st time in our school history last night to win the NIC-10 conference tournament.

Does anyone happen to know the All-Sectional results for the North Chicago Sectional?

It appears that the IHSA has decided to have some sectionals where there is one regional with three seeded teams and another regional with one seeded team. My personal favorites are the Tri-Valley and Fairfield regionals in Class A, which feature 3 of the top 6 seeds in their respective sectionals.

aji04 wrote:It appears that the IHSA has decided to have some sectionals where there is one regional with three seeded teams and another regional with one seeded team. My personal favorites are the Tri-Valley and Fairfield regionals in Class A, which feature 3 of the top 6 seeds in their respective sectionals.

Looking at those regionals, it appears to be a matter of reducing the drives for teams. The seeds are spread out all over, so doing the 1-8 2-7 3-6 4-5 match-ups would appear very hap-hazard geographically.

Did anybody else see that the IHSA is organizing a catered pasta bar for IHSA State this year? Srinivas won't have to bring a pocketful of vegetables!

What about our players on the Atkins diet? I guess they'll just have to carry in a pocket full of bacon.

I think I went to a Pocketful of Bacon concert once, back in the day.

If anyone's interested, I'm running a pool for IHSA predictions. Send me predictions for AA regional winners, AA sectional winners, and the top 4 ranked at state. Also, the tiebreaker is the total number of points scored at the state finals by the winner of the Chicago Marist sectional, so give me that, too.

Scoring is 1 point per regional winner, 3 points per sectional winner, and 4, 5, 6, and 7 for the top 4 (4th through 1st respectively).

EDIT: More details

Krusty the Clown: (sobbing) Is it a crime to bet on sporting events?
Judge: YES IT IS!
Krusty the Clown: Oh . . .

No money or anything of material value is involved, so it's not betting.

I was just kidding

whitesoxfan wrote:No money or anything of material value is involved, so it's not betting.

Then forget it. I won't do it.

You know I spend too much time on Facebook when I try to "LIKE" comments here. I'm with Jeff, what fun is a pool with no wager!

Good luck to everyone tomorrow!

Good luck today. People should not discuss individual questions in any public forum until we have confirmation that all sites did occur as planned. Check this page AND this page.

Galena Regional wrote:Warren: 108
Orangeville: 149

Stockton: 122
Scales Mound: 84

How are these scores even possible???

Mike Wong wrote:

Galena Regional wrote:Warren: 108
Orangeville: 149

Stockton: 122
Scales Mound: 84

How are these scores even possible???

Only on account of villainy!

They're probably using the old scoring rules. Guh.

edit: fixed quote