Page 3 of 3

Re: 2015 HSNCT discussion

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 4:27 pm
by Panayot Hitov
thedodgerswin wrote: I guess Div II ICT means nothing.
:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:

Re: 2015 HSNCT discussion

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:02 pm
by Ndg
thedodgerswin wrote:
Dominator wrote:
thedodgerswin wrote:It looks like IMSA had a really good day though, almost came from relative obscurity to play in the finals.
I'm not sure we can say that IMSA came from "relative obscurity". IMSA had a top 20 finish in each of the last 4 HSNCTs at that point, a streak only topped by LASA.

This sounds more like a case of a poster coming from obscurity to me.

I'd say a team that starts in position 22 would not be expected to be two rounds away from winning the championship.
Strictly speaking, that's a true statement, but it doesn't have anything to do with whether a team as consistently successful as IMSA should be considered obscure.

Re: 2015 HSNCT discussion

Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:50 pm
by thedodgerswin
I'll retract a few statements:
IMSA is probably not obscure, that was a bad choice of words on my part.
ICT Div II is not meaningless, these students are just so talented, they can already handle ICT.
NAQT is not poorly written or designed to induce strange occurences. At the end of the day, quizbowl is just a game, I suppose, and unexpected things happen from one game to another.
The HSNCT double-elimination model is pretty clever, and makes a lot of sense.

Did I also read correctly, that the captain of Western Ablemarle asked to board how to become better than mediocre? I guess he did something right. His team seemed pretty competitive at this HSNCT.

Do we agree with Marnold that no one is actually good at quizbowl? Haha.