SIESTA Bowl -- 1/29/05 -- Howard High, Ellicott City, MD

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
Locked
User avatar
Howard
Yuna
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 5:42 pm
Location: Ellicott City, MD

SIESTA Bowl -- 1/29/05 -- Howard High, Ellicott City, MD

Post by Howard »

Howard High School proudly announces the Second Invitational Exhibition of Scholarly Trivia and Academics on Saturday, January 29, 2005 at Howard High School in Ellicott City, MD, convenient to Baltimore and Washington, DC.

We will be using NAQT question set Invitational Series #48 and have purchased geographic exclusivity for DC, Maryland, and Virginia. If you would like to enter but think it's possible you will have played on this question set, please go to http://www.naqt.com/assigned-packet-sets.jsp and check the tournament listing for this set. We will be using the official NAQT rules, found at http://www.naqt.com/rules.html, except that the matches will be 20 tossups long rather than being timed.

The SIESTA Bowl will be run with all teams competing simultaneously to maximize the number of games each team will be able to play. This means we will need one buzzer for every two teams that attend. The entry fee is $50 for the first team and $45 for subsequent teams from the same school, with a $10 per buzzer discount. Because it is very important for us to have sufficient buzzers, we will give multiple buzzer discounts regardless of how many teams a school enters.

To enter, please e-mail coach/contact name, school name, number of teams/buzzers, e-mail, and day and evening phone information to [email protected]. Please include "SIESTA Bowl" in the subject line so that even if gmail mistakes it for spam, I will recognize it as pertaining to our tournament. If you would prefer, you can mail the entry to:
John Gilbert
Howard High School
8700 Old Annapolis Rd.
Ellicott City, MD 21043.
Please be sure my name is on the envelope. Otherwise, I may never receive it.

John Gilbert
It's Academic Coach
Howard High School
User avatar
solidarity
Lulu
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by solidarity »

Who's registered so far? Just would like to see the field.
User avatar
Howard
Yuna
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 5:42 pm
Location: Ellicott City, MD

Post by Howard »

I've been very busy between work and making tournament preparations, so I don't have time to post it here at this moment. I may have time to do that tomorrow morning when I'm less rushed. In any event, after I type this message, I'm going to e-mail the current team list to you so you can see it.
John Gilbert
Coach, Howard High School Academic Team
Ellicott City, MD

"John Gilbert is a quiz bowl god" -- leftsaidfred
User avatar
solidarity
Lulu
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 7:05 pm
Location: Stanford, CA
Contact:

Post by solidarity »

Siesta Bowl Field:

Atholton, 1
Baltimore Polytechnic, 1
Montgomery Blair, 2
Blake, 1
Calvert Hall, 2
Charter School of Wilmington 5
Churchill, 2
James B. Dudley, 1
Fallston, 1
Gonzaga, 2
Hammond, 2
Walter Johnson, 2
Model Secondary School for the Deaf, 1
Richard Montgomery, 3
Mount St. Joseph, 3
Oakland Mills, 1
Oldfields, 1
Perry Hall, 2
Pikesville, 1
Quince Orchard, 1
Reservoir, 2
Rockville, 2
Eleanor Roosevelt, 1
Elizabeth Seton, 1
Sidwell Friends, 3
South River, 1
Spotswood, 2
State College, 2
Walt Whitman, 2
Woodrow Wilson, 2
C. Milton Wright, 2
User avatar
Howard
Yuna
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 5:42 pm
Location: Ellicott City, MD

Post by Howard »

solidarity wrote:Siesta Bowl Field:
You're a good man. I didn't even have time to check back until now. Thanks!
John Gilbert
Coach, Howard High School Academic Team
Ellicott City, MD

"John Gilbert is a quiz bowl god" -- leftsaidfred
NRScout98
Lulu
Posts: 68
Joined: Sat May 10, 2003 9:12 pm
Location: Charlottesville, VA

Post by NRScout98 »

How did the tournament turn out?
User avatar
Howard
Yuna
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 5:42 pm
Location: Ellicott City, MD

Post by Howard »

The eventual winner was Richard Montgomery A and the runner up was State College A.

There were several problems causing delays which caused the tournament to run until 7:30 PM. At this point I'm considering wholesale format changes to help prevent such things from reoccurring.

All the team representatives (except Centennial who did not provide me with their e-mail) were e-mailed full results. I still need to update the tournament database.
John Gilbert
Coach, Howard High School Academic Team
Ellicott City, MD

"John Gilbert is a quiz bowl god" -- leftsaidfred
bigtrain
Rikku
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:33 pm
Location: Bethesda, Maryland-Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Post by bigtrain »

My team (Walter Johnson) left after the second game in the preliminary rounds because we had been at the school for almost 3.5 hours and had played 2 games. Don't say we aren't hardcore, we would have lost 2 people from our A team for the last 3 rounds of the playoffs if we made it because apparently the tournament ended at 7:30. The amount of extra time swiss pairing takes doesn't seem to justify playing 1 or 2 games against good teams in the prelims.

Anyways, what was the final score? Who placed 3rd and 4th?
User avatar
Howard
Yuna
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 5:42 pm
Location: Ellicott City, MD

Post by Howard »

If I recall correctly (I don't have the scoresheet in front of me now), the final score was RichMo 395, State College 230.

Gonzaga and Eleanor Roosevelt were the semifinalists.

I agree about the unreasonable delay. I had thought that the computer program I was using would keep the pairing delay reasonable, and in actuality, the pairing time did indeed become minimal. The issue was that I needed to wait for all the games to end prior to actually making the pairings. It seemed that in the early rounds, some games were horribly slow. Additionally, we had some problems with communicating proper procedure to readers, causing some first round delays. The solution to the latter issue is easy -- just insure that people are briefed better and earlier. The former issue is not as easy. I've already sent an e-mail to all involved coaches asking for their feedback. At this point, I'm considering mainly options that do not require me waiting for the games to be complete in order for pairings to be made. There are positive and negative points to each system, which I tried my best to list in the e-mail, but the main things I'm considering for the future are:

1. Bracketed play. Set up small round robin brackets.

2. Predetermined swiss. I won't know ahead of time which teams are where, but I can teams to predetermined rooms depending on whether they've won or lost.

3. Making swiss pairings a round in advance (i.e. 5th round pairings would use results from rounds 1-3).

In any event, I respect the way you conducted yourself at the tournament and in leaving. You showed up on time (unlike several other teams). You didn't make a scene. You notified me in advance so I'd know not to pair you for the next round. And you left your buzzers with us so we could use them for the duration of the tournament. That's everything I would have asked as the director, and that's everything I would have expected from my team. Most of all, I'm sorry you guys had a horrible enough time that you wanted to leave so early in the tournament.
John Gilbert
Coach, Howard High School Academic Team
Ellicott City, MD

"John Gilbert is a quiz bowl god" -- leftsaidfred
User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8417
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

Howard wrote:2. Predetermined swiss. I won't know ahead of time which teams are where, but I can teams to predetermined rooms depending on whether they've won or lost.
I've always had an interest in this format despite only seeing it done once. It seems like an excellent way to compromise for time constraints while still maintaining the ideas that swiss pairing represents. Has anyone else had an experience with such a format? Are there any unexpected pitfalls?
User avatar
Dan Greenstein
Auron
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD

Post by Dan Greenstein »

Matt Weiner wrote:
Howard wrote:2. Predetermined swiss. I won't know ahead of time which teams are where, but I can teams to predetermined rooms depending on whether they've won or lost.
I've always had an interest in this format despite only seeing it done once. It seems like an excellent way to compromise for time constraints while still maintaining the ideas that swiss pairing represents. Has anyone else had an experience with such a format? Are there any unexpected pitfalls?
The 2003 NAQT HSNCT (at Myrtle Beach) used predetermined swiss for the first six rounds of the preliminaries. The remaining four preliminary rounds were then run using normal swiss, which meant the time per round jumped from 30 minutes to 50 minutes. Also, the PACE NSC Sunday consolation bracket uses predetermined swiss over four or five rounds.

The advantage of predetermined swiss is there are no lengthy delays. The disadvantage is the system's inflexibility. The system only works really well when the number of teams is 2^n with n rounds. The NAQT HSNCT had exactly 64 teams, so the system worked to perfection.

As seen at the PACE NSC, when the number of teams is between 2^n and 2^(n-1), there will be byes, and it takes extra effort to determine which rooms will have byes in which rounds, which prevents easy shifting of manpower away from those rooms. If the number of rounds m is greater than n, then your guiding principle of matching teams with same number of wins breaks down immediately, as the one undefeated team and one winless team will have no opponents (except each other, but the outcome would not be pretty!), and the one loss and one-win teams will have a significant chance of a rematch.[/code]
User avatar
btressler
Tidus
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: West Chester, PA
Contact:

Re: Predetermined Swiss Pairing

Post by btressler »

Matt Weiner wrote: I've always had an interest in this format despite only seeing it done once. It seems like an excellent way to compromise for time constraints while still maintaining the ideas that swiss pairing represents. Has anyone else had an experience with such a format? Are there any unexpected pitfalls?
I've used it for several tournaments since Myrtle Beach and it seems to work really well. As pointed out, it works best for powers of 2. However, you can do [floor( log base 2 of teams)] rounds without a potential rematch. Thus, if you have 16-31 teams, you can safely pair 4 rounds ahead of time. If you have 32-63 teams, five rounds can be predetermined.

Thus, I use it to get me to lunch, and then make up the remainder of the prelim rounds during lunch.

Here's a pitfall: DONT use it for a small number of teams. I used it once for a Delaware State Tournament with 9 teams. After round 4, the number one seed had already played seeds 2,3,4, and 5. Wasn't quite sure what to do then. If I had to redo that tournament, there would be some random rounds first, followed by some paired rounds.
Locked