Illinois 05-06

[STPickrell]

I would be very careful about advocating any system where sectionals that are down in a particular year would get NO representation. Unsurprisingly, folks in that sectional would feel somewhat miffed.

A wild card system of some sort of would be *really* hard to create a fair system of traveling, unless there was some sort of meet of the 2nd and 3rd place teams at Regionals and Sectionals to determine the "wild cards" on the field. What would the financial and other obstacles be to making that a reality?

Would it be more possible to allow two teams to advance from each regional and sectional, at the least? The VHSL allows two or three teams to advance from each District to the Region tournament, and every state tournament has the top two finishers.

The VHSL is by no means perfect: we have disparities between our Regions, where one Region has 15-20 teams and another has 30-35 teams (this is the case at the A and AA levels; the AAA regions are slightly better balanced.)

There have been years where the top four teams from VHSL Region II may well have finished in the top six at VHSL states.

It seems the IHSA likes to have "winners only" advance, though.

[fancynancy]

Hello, Illinois.

Mr. Reinstein, my question is for you. I am the captain of a Raleigh, NC team, and we are trying to put a solo tournament together. I heard that you do one every year--do you have any advice for putting one together?

Thanks,

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

B.F. is absolutely right. I would even take random pairings with advancing a set amount (8? 16?).

But this is not part of the IHSA's philosophy. Their philosophy is centered around geographic representation first and foremost. It is not, nor has it ever been in the past 30 years or so (at least) ever been about rewarding the best teams or hardest working teams. It is about making sure every corner of the state has a team at the big dance, irrespective of how good or lousy they are. That is the wish of the majority of the principals in the state, and that is the way it is. I don't like it one bit, but sadly that is reality....

There have been some who have advocated not playing the IHSA series, and having the IHSSBCA sponsor a state series where more careful attention would be played toward advancing the better teams, irrespective of geogrpahy. The problem with this is that many schools fund their programs solely because it is an IHSA sponsored activity...without the IHSA, a large percentage of the programs in the state would vanish. Some people have said this would be addition by subtraction, and while I don't wholly disagree, I think we just have to live with things as they are in this regard.

More serious discussion has been given to naming a slate of 10 A and 10 AA teams as "Teams of the Year" based on some kind of a formula looking at record, tournament finishes, etc.

Those who wish to have an IHSSBCA series instead of IHSA are wrong, plain and simple (and mostly only because I'm writing a very persuasive paper at the moment :)). Why skip IHSA simply because it's incorrect? Have them both, play more matches, get more hardware. Nothing wrong with that, especially because at the very least, all a boycott of IHSA would do is dilute the field, making lesser teams look better, and giving them self-confidence that they don't have to work hard to succeed - the exact opposite of what the boycotters had in mind.

Keep IHSA because it's a draw. Add IHSSBCA because it will be good. Make NAQT a bigger thing in the state. Include Masonics in the discussion because the cash will also attract teams. A sectional advancement idea would be good, like U of I hosting a sectional for central and southern teams and Loyola et al. hosting northern regionals to feed to a State series.

Above all, give choices. If a team only does Masonics because it's worth cash and IHSA because it's IHSA, they're still a team. Eventually, that team will get a dedicated coach, fanatic player, intense rivalry, etc., and they'll find people like us as long as we're still here. Eventually, they'll go to a Saturday tournament - maybe NAQT, maybe not - and get better. They'll find what Scholastic Bowl is, and they'll reach the other choices for State. The influence will grow, and eventually, maybe Carbondale will be hosting NAQT tournaments every Saturday to keep up with the demand, and posts of SQBS stats flood this thread to 50 pages by February.

[Siverus Snape]

I like this idea. It might actually bring a kind of horse-racing flair into things. You know, the whole Triple Crown thing. Heck, if NAQT State works out well, then we could have a Quadruple Crown!

However, the biggest problem with those ideas is probably funding. Of course, I'm just a freshman, so what do I know about funding?

[Trevkeeper]

4 state championships...? Isn't that a bit excessive?

Also, I'd assume it'd be kind of hard to find a date for any sort IHSSBCA state tournament, since everything is booked, and it would be difficult to have after the season.

[JWyPlatinum]

Trevkeeper said:

Also, I'd assume it'd be kind of hard to find a date for any sort IHSSBCA state tournament, since everything is booked, and it would be difficult to have after the season.

Not to mention illegal according to IHSA, unless the IHSSBCA tournament would not be 5-on-5.[/quote]

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

4 state championships...? Isn't that a bit excessive?

Also, I'd assume it'd be kind of hard to find a date for any sort IHSSBCA state tournament, since everything is booked, and it would be difficult to have after the season.

Make the IHSSBCA tournament a 4-player tournament. Therefore, it is not Scholastic Bowl, and IHSA has no jurisdiction over it. That or, if I'm reading the rules incorrectly, reschedule NAQT state for after IHSA and claim that it's a sectional process (which it is) which makes it (and nationals) a single tournament.

[LadyInBlack]

Sorry for being a page behind, but Congratulations to Fremd.
Even though I bet many students felt it was a bit odd, I respect Fremd for welcoming their team home with an all school pep rally. Respect for any activity is key to fostering its importance. May more schools follow their example. (although not to the extreme, mind)

Or the possibility of a blended tournament: IHSSBCA-run, NAQT style?

[Tegan]

It seems the IHSA likes to have "winners only" advance, though.

Yep. Essentially (I think we've talked about this):
1. Every team is split into Class A (Small) and AA (big)
2. Each class has 8 geographic sectionals which are redrawn annually to balance the number of teams in each sectional (roughly), as teams come in and drop out.
3. Within each sectional, there are two "sub-sectionals" we seed within the sub-sectionals.
4. Each sub-sectional is split into two regionals, where the teams are split up according to seed (or occasionally, the seeds are somewhat ignored to accomodate...you guessed it...geography!)
5. The Regional winners within a sectional (a total of four) advance to the sectional tournament. Regionals are single elimination.
6. The Sectionals are round robin. One winner from each sectional advances to State.
7. At state, each team is randomly put into one of two pools of four. They play a round robin within the pool. The two pool winners play for the championship; the two runners-up play for third place.

What really irks people is that there exist clusters of really good teams here and there throughuot the state, and thus weaker teams advance further, while stronger teams go home.

As an example, my team could go no further than the Regional semifinal, but went 3-0 against one of the state qualifiers, and 1-0 against another....and there were teams better than us who didn't make it either.

[David Riley]

All of this discussion is well and good, and not to dampen any enthusiasm, but. . .


1. As someone stated above, the calendar is pretty full. It would be almost impossible to add another tournament without conflicts with other tournaments. I do the think the time is coming, though, when coaches are going to have to make a choice among two or more tournaments that are held the same weekend in the same region.

2. If attendance at my last two state qualifiers is any indication, most Illinois coaches simply don't like NAQT. If the thirty or so competitive teams would buy into it, now THAT would be a tournament! (BTW, I will also host an NAQT tournament mid-October next year). Perhaps I need to do more promotion chatter, but this year I sent invites to over 100 teams. Only 20 teams responded, and 9 of those had conflicts with the date.

3. I think in our zeal for Scholastic Bowl (and we know who we are ) we forget that we are just a very small fraction of the total teams in Illinois. Many are happy with the status quo, and it's going to take a lot of promotion and education before we change that. On the bright side, we've come a long way in just ten years. We now have state-wide rules, a coaches' association, more tournaments, and most of all, a small but growing number of coaches, players, and ex-players who REALLY care. We might be moving slowly, but we;re MOVING! Let's keep it up!

[popculture]

Honestly, I don't see much of a problem in the IHSA state series (apart from the ?s). I think this year proved that the system works. The consensus seems to be that eight quality Class AA teams were there to compete for the state title. Why trash geographic diversity when each sectional yields a contender? The perceived unfairness of the system that has been discussed here is the nature of sports.

Also in Peoria this weekend was the IHSA boys' basketball finals. Glenbrook North, with one in-state loss all year, lost in the first round to the eventual winner Simeon. This is a perfect parallel to Auburn's loss to Fremd. The difference: Auburn was able to keep playing and take home third, GBN immediately went home, not able to place in the top 4. Their talent was at least the 2nd in the state, but they received no medals on TV. Proviso East, another of the state's most talented teams, also had to play Simeon, and did not have the chance to go down state.

Even on the professional level, last season the Cleveland Indians (baseball) won 93 games and did not make the playoffs, but the San Diego Padres did with 82, and the Houston Astros made the world series with 89. In basketball, Western Conference bottom-dwellers are regularly superior to Eastern Conference "powers."

My point: Yes, the IHSA involves some tough luck, but that is inherent to sport. New Trier and Loyola have come to terms with the fact that only one can reach state; this a fact of life at these schools, as one has ended the other's season in basketball (boys and girls), field hockey, soccer, scholastic bowl and presumably many others in the past 2 years. So maybe, Auburn is really the 2nd best team in the state, but the #3 on their trophy is a lot better than the "Thanks for coming" handshake GBN got.

[Matt Weiner]

My point: Yes, the IHSA involves some tough luck, but that is inherent to sport.

Quizbowl is not a sport, nor are its underlying premises close enough to warrant an analogy, so your argument has a flaw.

[Stained Diviner]

One reason to put up with the inequities (in addition to the fact that it is out of our control) is the fact that the IHSA state tournament includes over 200 schools in the large division and over 300 schools in the small division. The Masonic State Tournament has about 200 schools. The schools are located as much as a 7-hour drive apart. Even if we were in control, it is difficult to imagine how to avoid some regionality and inequality.

In addition to that, the State has trouble getting enough questions and moderators. We are working on this and may have it solved in a year or two, but it is a problem now. The two big state tournaments charge no entry fees and are very hesitant to do anything that will increase their costs.

There have been improvements in the past few years--we started seeding teams at the Sectional level and playing some round robins at the Sectional and State level. Many of us would like to see more of this, but I don't know whether it will happen or not. The big state tournaments are not in the hands of people who spend large portions of their lives dealing with Scholastic Bowl.

We should publicize NAQT State more. It has the potential to be run better than the other tournaments, but it got only 12 teams this year.

We do not need a 4th state tournament. We need to improve the 3 state tournaments, 88 conferences, and 50 invitationals we already have.

[Tegan]

My point: Yes, the IHSA involves some tough luck, but that is inherent to sport.

Quizbowl is not a sport, nor are its underlying premises close enough to warrant an analogy, so your argument has a flaw.

Matt,

While I agree that quizbowl is not a sport, why do you think this analogy doesn't fit? I have attempted to draw analogies (admittadly, sometimes poorly) to sport and quizbowl as competitive arenas in the past, and virtually every time, I am shot down with the "Quizbowl is not a sport, ergo, the analogy isn't apt"......which to me seems circular, though I never took a course in logic.

I'm sure I am: What am I missing here?

[Matt Weiner]

While I agree that quizbowl is not a sport, why do you think this analogy doesn't fit?

1) One game of basketball is much longer and much less likely to produce the "wrong" result than one game of quizbowl.

2) Because basketball teams can hardly be expected to play more than one or, in extreme cases, two games per day, it is impractical to use formats besides single or sometimes double elimination to determine basketball champions in a short period of time. This is not not the case for quizbowl, where we can play 10 or more games in a day.

3) Most importantly, a large part of basketball is about creating entertainment value for fans. The NBA determining its champion by a round robin would not be very entertaining at all. However, quizbowl is about value for the participants, which means fair formats must take precedence over entertaining ones.

[First Chairman]

We should publicize NAQT State more. It has the potential to be run better than the other tournaments, but it got only 12 teams this year.

We do not need a 4th state tournament. We need to improve the 3 state tournaments, 88 conferences, and 50 invitationals we already have.

Not going to argue your points, but I'm interested if the difference in the reception of NAQT Illinois states is that "we already have three state tournaments that we attend for practically nothing. Why should we pay to attend an event?" Is there a particular image problem that has to be overcome? Does a successful NAQT state championship in Illinois require some "state body" to oversee it in the same way that the other tournaments are managed?

[potato0328]

My team and I love NAQT questions, and would have enjoyed going to the tournament. However, our schedule was just too crowded, which, in my opinion, is becoming a bit of a problem in Illinois scholastic bowl.
If we had gone to NAQT, I'm pretty sure that we would have had a scholatic bowl event every Saturday for (approximately) 6 weeks in a row. This is a LOT of scholastic bowl, and we don't play nearly as much as some teams (i.e. Auburn, NT, Maine South). It was especially difficult for our team because of other commitments, such as band, orchestra, math team, model UN, that we all take quite seriously. Not that we didn't take scholastic bowl seriously, but there is a difference between taking scholastic bowl seriously and quitting all other activities to do scholastic bowl.

P.S. About that "pep rally" -
It is our school's policy to hold a congratulatory assembly for any sponsored activity that places in an official state competition. In reality, most of the assembly time was used by our state-placing pom and flag squads. The student body was very respectful, but it wasn't exactly the same atmosphere a state-winning football team would receive, if you know what I mean. I think the way the papers reported this event kind of skewed the truth.

[Trevkeeper]

(BTW, I will also host an NAQT tournament mid-October next year).

Is it still going to be Ultima (i.e. 9 teams by invitation only) or will it be a regular NAQT tournament where any team can come?

[popculture]

Matt, I don't want this to be dragged out (though, I'd be flattered to see your 100th post on the Illinois board--Chuck's 700th was cause for celebration (at least for me)), but in defense of my argument and the analogy I used to illustrate it:

Merriam-Webster defines sport as
1a: source of diversion, recreation
1b: particular activity (such as an athletic game) engaged in for pleasure

If its defined as a sport (albeit loosely), the IHSA treats it as a sport (sanctioning a state tournament, offering scores online in real-time (or close), and awarding trophies), and teams commit to it as a sport, so, in my book, it as close enough to being a sport to not completely derail an argument.

And I don't understand how your three comments relate to the issue (geographic diversity and seeding):

Simeon, basketball's top team, was beaten 12.5% of the time this year, while Fremd, scholastic bowl's top team, was beaten 6% of the time, and scholastic bowl champions have gone 95-1 and 81-5. These ridiculously high winning percentages indicate that games in which the "wrong" teams win are much less frequent in scholastic bowl than basketball. If you don't think upsets happen frequently in basketball, take a look at a NCAA tournament bracket. Finally, if the fear was the "wrong" team winning, the Finals would be determined by a best-of-three round, rather than a winner-take-all final. The IHSA does enough to combat upsets occurring by lengthening the rounds to 30 questions.

And I'm completely at a loss for your "The more fans present, the less fair it has to be; and the fewer fans, the less exciting" argument (forgive my paraphrasing). Should the IHSA give the weaker basketball team a handicap to make it more exciting and because fairness isn't as important? Make quarters shorter to make games closer? Should scobowl games be 100 questions, because the premium is determining the better team, not providing excitement? I'm obviously being sarcastic (as I was in the computational math debate), but these are logical conclusions based on your assertions.

To recapitulate my point: A 200-team round robin (impracticality aside) would do a better job of providing a conclusive state ranking of the best teams, but the current system ain't broke. I believe, that for an end-of-year state-wide tournament to have any value, there must be a must-win urgency in every game. The fact that a ball isn't involved and the competitors are smarter than they are muscular doesn't alter this premise. Suggesting it does demeans Scholastic Bowl's value as a competition. There are, of course, counter-arguments to this, but don't dismiss it in a two-sentence throwaway post that misses the forest for the trees.

[First Chairman]

Matt, I don't want this to be dragged out (though, I'd be flattered to see your 100th post on the Illinois board--Chuck's 700th was cause for celebration (at least for me).

Well, I'm embarrassed. I didn't even notice that.

Of course, Matt is a few posts away from 1K, so...

[David Riley]

The October NAQT that I plan on hosting will be open to anyone who wants to come, thought I plan for a high level of competition. I intend to invite teams outside Illinois as well.

Which brings me to the other aforementioned point. . .

While I'm sure many people didn't attend because of conflicts, I'm certain a large number did not attend because, again, they just don't like NAQT. Reasons I've heard (over a long period of time):

* no bouncebacks on bonuses (this is the comment heard most often)
* questions are too long
* too few math questions
* questions are too obscure [don't get me started]
* there is no balance among subjects [many people are married to the IHSA distribution]

and my personal favorite

* we already have too many NAQT tournaments in Illinois (!)

And so it goes.

And Dr. Chuck: No, the only governing body overseeing NAQT States in Illinois outside of NAQT is yours truly. . .and DON'T GIVE ANYBODY ANY BRIGHT IDEAS! ! !

[Tegan]

Matt,

Thanks for your insight. I agree with the points you present. Because of the fact that we can play several times a day, it allows for a fairer style of play tha avoids having to do things for purposes of entertainment $$, viewership, etc.

PopCulture: I also see your point, but I won't buy the fact that "it ain't broken". This year being labeled as the most competitive state tournament in years is proof enough.

Normally, there are not six very strong Class AA teams and six strong Class A teams at state in the same year. In many years, you are lucky to have half that many in real contention for the state title. Even last year (for example), in Class AA, no one that I talked to gave much of a chance to winning state, except for Wheaton North, Auburn, or Stevenson. There were other good teams there (like Deerfield), but these teams were heads and shoulders over the rest of the field because in any given year, there are bound to be 2-5 sectionals whose winners will not favorably stack up with the better teams.

Just within the Maine South sectional, there were legitimately five teams that depending on questions, health of players, etc could have won that sectional (in no particular order): Maine East, Deerfield, New Trier, Fenwick, Loyola, and St. Ignatius (where I considered St. Ignatius being on the outside looking in). There is not a single sectional in the state where six teams were considered fully legit contenders....with Dunlap probably running a close second with Bloomington, Moline, Springfield, Southeast, etc.

This year Fenwick was an addition to our sectional. The sectional they were usually in was left wide open without a real powerful team. Marist was the #1 seed, and Maine South (using my team as an example) was 1-1 against this year. Fenwick had an incredible record, but strictly for the sake of geography, Fenwick got shifted into a powerful sectional, and left another sectional entirely open. Downers Grove won that sectional, and proceeded to go 0-3 at state.

Wouldn't it have been fair to have a ranking by coaches, TDs, etc, and look at where moving one team a little south, and moving one team a little north would have made things a little more fair? The lines could be gerrymandered just a little, and teams wouldn't have to drive much farther than they do now.

Ironically, this may come about because of football. Football used to be the only sport that had no geographic limits in the playoffs. If Carbondale was #1, and Rockford was #32, they played in the first round. Because they were so unique, a lot of people complained, and now the football teams are "quadranted" by geography. This has been a boon to some programs, but is killing others that constantly have to play Naperville or Mt. Carmel in an opening round. Thus, there is a proposal under investigation that would allow limited input on splitting powerful teams up, if it can be done reasonably. The debate, as you might guess, is over how to define "reasonable".

[Stained Diviner]

If anybody has any suggestions to change the Terms & Conditions and/or Rule Book, please email me or post here. The meeting at which changes will be considered is April 5. I will be there as a nonvoting invitee.

[Matt Bardoe]

As for changes in the rule book. I guess I would favor a longer halftime at state. Two minutes in a strange location seems a little short. I am in no way encouraging longer games. Five minutes should be sufficient, and possibly coaches can agree to start the match earlier if both agree. I think that halftime should have enough time for a bathroom visit and a team meeting. Just an idea.

I may have a few more ideas, but this one has been on my mind since state. When I was foolishly late to the second half of my own team's most important match of the year (too much Diet Coke). D'oh!

Matt Bardoe
The Latin School of Chicago

[First Chairman]

As for changes in the rule book. I guess I would favor a longer halftime at state. Two minutes in a strange location seems a little short. I am in no way encouraging longer games. Five minutes should be sufficient, and possibly coaches can agree to start the match earlier if both agree. I think that halftime should have enough time for a bathroom visit and a team meeting. Just an idea.

I may have a few more ideas, but this one has been on my mind since state. When I was foolishly late to the second half of my own team's most important match of the year (too much Diet Coke). D'oh!

Matt Bardoe
The Latin School of Chicago

Just wondering... how long are the interludes between matches?

[Stained Diviner]

There generally is enough time in between matches, but Illinois matches are long (30/30 with lots of computational questions, up to two timeouts each team per half, bonuses read all at once (which encourages lots of conferring) and bouncebacks), so Mr. Bardoe's point is a good one.

[Tegan]

and possibly coaches can agree to start the match earlier if both agree.

I think the longer half-time is a pretty good idea (I might even think about extending that a bit to Reegionals and Sectionals). The only problem with starting early at state is that if one room is going and other teams are still milling about, they may inadvertantly (or...possibly advertantly...thogh I would hope that wouldn't be the case), hear a few questions from the start of the match, and use that as an advantage. Just as bad, even if there was no intent to do anything wrong, if someone saw a player from Team X hanging around room 007 where a match was starting, and then Team X rattles off the first 4 TU in a row, then there exists the stigma (unfairly) that Team X cheats.

In general, at state, when a match ends, the moderators hang out in their room to discuss anything that came up (replacements used, for example, and we don't head to the next room until all of the moderators have assembled, and we know all of the matches are over.

[Tegan]

Just wondering... how long are the interludes between matches?

As Coach Reinstein said, there is, on average, enough time, BUT...if you get bit with back-to-back slow readers, the amount of time between matches evaporates quickly (we generally start the next round as soon as the last moderator gets back to the room and posts the results, and explains any replacement questions that (s)he used).

Moderator speed has been an issue from time-to-time for us, though it has gotten better. A slow moderator reading for two teams who answer a lot of questions is a recipe for a hold up.

[First Chairman]

Another interesting thought for the "bad moderating" thread that I will invoke here.

Many tournaments have a tradition that for championship-stakes matches (which means the championship round or semifinal rounds as deemed appropriate by the moderator), the teams agree to a moderator of their choice. Some of you guys have seen this at PACE where the semifinal round readers are selected by the teams; the championship round is traditionally read by the tournament host, and I read the all-star game (except one time when I let Tricia read half of the round). If the team captains were given an opportunity to select moderators for the high-stakes matches (assuming the TD allows it), would that offer an incentive to the moderating group?

As for halftime length, I used to this: usually a restart is allowed when both teams are ready to restart. You can put a two-minute mandated halftime minimum, but if someone has to use the restroom... it seems silly to deny someone that right to expedite a competition. Sure, you could probably put in a substitute until he/she returns.

[Tegan]

At IHSA, the four senior officials tyically read the two championship and third place matches. I am glad to see that a rating system is in place that will hopefully be used to better determine the moderators for those final matches. Experience counts.....but it is not ever the sole determingin factor in determining "best".

I further agree with Dr. Chuck on this because the definition of "best" can differ. There are some teams who prefer slower reading moderators. There are some who prefer a faster pace. Switching them doesn't make anyone happy. I would say that you could easily use ratings by individual coaches to determine which mod they get in a final.

As for halftime length, I used to this: usually a restart is allowed when both teams are ready to restart. You can put a two-minute mandated halftime minimum, but if someone has to use the restroom... it seems silly to deny someone that right to expedite a competition. Sure, you could probably put in a substitute until he/she returns.

(Sane, best choice + rigid, mandated option) + bureaucracy = rigid, mandated option

You're right! We could always try to get this added, but there are too many people who think it ain't broke, and don't want it fixed.

[David Riley]

The Executive Board of the IHSSBCA will begin to discuss next year's calendar at their May meeting (though a number of dates have already been claimed by tradition). If you would like to be put on a "calendar update list" for planning or scheduling purposes, send me an email at [email protected].

Note to interested parties: Due to conflicts with CSL questions and the Northwestern tournament, my October tournament will be the normal (read: non-NAQT) Ultima (but hopefully with sixteen competitive teams). If the calendar permits, I will schedule another NAQT tournament in addition to the State Qualifier.

[First Chairman]

As for halftime length, I used to this: usually a restart is allowed when both teams are ready to restart. You can put a two-minute mandated halftime minimum, but if someone has to use the restroom... it seems silly to deny someone that right to expedite a competition. Sure, you could probably put in a substitute until he/she returns.

(Sane, best choice + rigid, mandated option) + bureaucracy = rigid, mandated option

You're right! We could always try to get this added, but there are too many people who think it ain't broke, and don't want it fixed.

I agree. This actually brings up another point that I think is one of my key criteria when it comes to instituting improvements: how does this benefit the students? About 90% of all coaches and adults who do high school scholastic bowl would likely agree with the statement, "We do this for the kids." Then use that as a measuring stick to each of the smaller irritations of ScoBowl to see exactly how important it is to fix.

That said, that question also makes it much easier to propose significant changes. Granted you may get some interesting philosophical responses, but at least you have everyone focused on the same educational goals.

[Trevkeeper]

Note to interested parties: Due to conflicts with CSL questions and the Northwestern tournament, my October tournament will be the normal (read: non-NAQT) Ultima (but hopefully with sixteen competitive teams). If the calendar permits, I will schedule another NAQT tournament in addition to the State Qualifier.

So will it be Illinois or Panasonic format?

Also, as to another NAQT tournament...the only open dates I can think of are November 4th and February 10th.

[Stained Diviner]

Information for the IHSSBCA Banquet is now on our website (see the first item under Illinois Scholastic Bowl News). If you got an invitation, please reply by April 7 whether you are coming or not. If you didn't get an invitation and are interested, follow the link.

[GreyGhost06]

Does anyone know how the all tournament team from the Peoria Area World Affairs tournament did at their competition in D.C.? For that matter, did anyone know that there was a competition for them?

[Hunterthegreat]

Does anyone know how the all tournament team from the Peoria Area World Affairs tournament did at their competition in D.C.? For that matter, did anyone know that there was a competition for them?

I think we got sixth out of fifty-odd schools. I should have the official results of the competition soon. We got 83 out of 100 questions in the competition, thus missing the tiebreaker round (5 schools tied with 84 points) by 1 point. It was pretty aggravating, but we still got sixth, which is a huge improvement over last year, where we got 18th of 49 teams.

[penforprez]

My team and I love NAQT questions, and would have enjoyed going to the tournament. However, our schedule was just too crowded, which, in my opinion, is becoming a bit of a problem in Illinois scholastic bowl.

Out of curiosity, do Illinois rules limit the number of competitions team can attend per year?

[Stained Diviner]

Illinois rules limit teams to 18 competition dates per year, though the IHSA Tournament does not count towards those dates. Teams are only permitted to play in one tournament after the IHSA State Finals in March.

Illinois defines Scholastic Bowl as a 5-on-5 competition, so teams do not feel that the limit applies to 4-on-4 competitions.

The general problem referred to is the fact that some teams compete almost every good weekend from November through March because that's when the tournaments are.

[penforprez]

Illinois rules limit teams to 18 competition dates per year, though the IHSA Tournament does not count towards those dates. Teams are only permitted to play in one tournament after the IHSA State Finals in March.

I wondered if that was a situation. Missouri teams are limited to 14 before MSHSAA Districts and can only play between certain times. Thanks!

[Stained Diviner]

The IHSA Advisory Committee made its recommendations today. To learn more, follow the link. Keep in mind that these recommendations have to be approved by an administrative board before they become law. It is very difficult to predict what will get past that board.

[STPickrell]

The IHSA Advisory Committee made its recommendations today. To learn more, follow the link. Keep in mind that these recommendations have to be approved by an administrative board before they become law. It is very difficult to predict what will get past that board.

Words like "groundbreaking" and "overhaul" are insufficient to describe what I am reading. I must consult Roget's.

[Siverus Snape]

This sounds like great stuff.

[Tegan]

The IHSA Advisory Committee made its recommendations today. To learn more, follow the link. Keep in mind that these recommendations have to be approved by an administrative board before they become law. It is very difficult to predict what will get past that board.

I strongly urge anyone viewing these to keep in mind: this is not law yet. The last time we posted these AdCo approvals before they were officially approved by the IHSA Executive, we found out that some weren't approved, and some weren't even brought to the Board for approval. This ended up causing a lot of confusion the next season because many people thought that they had all become the law of the land....when in fact they did not.

For now, while I think it is a positive development. this needs to be viewed with a grain of salt. It will be 2-4 weeks before we know for sure if this all comes to fruition.

Kudos to Dr. Grierson and Dr. Reinstein for putting together a vast majority of these proposals which should hopefully continued the trend of steady improvement in Illinois.

[Stained Diviner]

To add another layer of warning--this is one step in the long process of improving question quality. There will continue to be some questions that do not fulfill the criteria laid out. The new rules regarding types of questions will not have any enforcement mechanism behind them.

[David Riley]

Thanks and congratulations to Messrs. Reinstein, Egan, and everyone else who helped with the IHSSBCA's first awards banquet. The banquet was a big success and could be a model for similar banqquets. Let's hope next year's is even better.

[harpersferry]

Weren't the ICTM finals recently? Does anyone know how quiz bowl people did?

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

In the Oral Competition, Kristin and I got 2nd behind U of Chicago Lab. In Individual Pre-Calc, I got 16/20 for 4th place, and Byron's Individual Pre-Calc team (which is basically their starting 5 for quizbowl plus one other non-qb'er) missed winning state by 2 questions. I know Patrick Shanley did well, but I don't know exactly - I think he got 2nd.

[Trevkeeper]

Carlo got 2nd in the Algebra 2 written (Division 4aa).

[illiniguy]

Parkland Challenge quiz bowl tournament semi finals
(for East Central Illinois teams)

Villa Grove v. Rantoul

Blue Ridge v. St. Thomas More

[Trevkeeper]

I was just looking at the schedule for next year, and a few things I noticed:

Why is the UIUC Earlybird a week later than last year? More importantly, why is it over Columbus Day weekend, a time that many families might choose to have a "weekend getaway" or whatnot. Was it just a conflict the team had? I thought the weekend they had last year was good (which would be Sept. 30th this year) and was wondering why they changed. It was my favorite tournament last year, so I don't want to miss it.

Since I was just talking about Earlybird, let's move onto another UIUC tournament, the Solo one. I suppose it's a good problem when the schobowl calendar is so filled that it's hard to find dates, I guess I'm just disappointed we wouldn't be able to attend (that's the same weekend as the WashU tournament). Admittedly, that does appear to be the best weekend for it, as we were one of the few, if not the only, team from Illinois to attend the WashU tournament last year. I'm not really mad at the choosing of the date, like I said, more just disappointed that we won't be able to go.

Since Wheaton North Varsity appears to be a no-go, I wonder if Kaneland will get a lot more teams.

I'm not sure what I think about NAQT State being a month later this year -- it will be kind of neat having something after the state series (other than nationals), though.

Any other thoughts?