The Quizbowl Resource Center

Brief update on HF's Kickoff (stats coming, SQBS is a nasty nightmare even before unusual computer errors).

1st HF, 2nd Naperville Central, 3rd Metea Valley, 4th Latin, 5th Sandburg ... but my goodness, that order does not match up with statistics. Metea and Latin dominated things statistically, but dropped matches to Naperville Central and Timothy Christian respectively, and ended up losing tiebreakers. HF, Naperville Central and Sandburg were all similar statistically (along with Timothy Christian and Harrison, IN).

Latin B, Hinsdale Central, Marist, Chicago Christian, and Fenwick were a clear step behind those 7.

Also, as an FYI about HF and Earlybird stats, my top player (Declan) wasn't there, and who has turned out to be my second best player (Jimmy) was playing B team (I thought his lit knowledge was less than Janellie, and his negs would impact A team ... I was dead wrong). I don't think our 1st place Kickoff finish is sustainable, but Earlybird and PPB/results are way lower than where we'll be long term.

So, Metea Valley should clearly be bumped up to your Tier II. Nick was amazing in certain matches, despite their one hiccup. Their loss to Naperville Central was stunning ... followed by them dominating Latin in the 3rd place match (and Latin beat HF, and HF beat NC, and Sandburg beat NC, and ...)

Timothy Christian could be Tier III. HF probably is Tier III, but we won't really be tested again until Ultima and in Conference against Sandburg in late January. Naperville Central could be Tier III.

Illinois Admin wrote:Now that I've got some more data guess I'll update my rankings (although Stevenson's and Homewood's kickoffs not having stats yet limits this):

Tier 1: These are the teams that I expect to most prominently represent Illinois at both nationals (and be in strong contention for trophy placement). These are also the teams that I expect to have the best chance of trophying at NAQT State and if any of them won IHSA or Masonic it wouldn't shock me.
1: Stevenson A
2: Auburn
3: IMSA
4: Fremd A
5: Uni A

Tier 2: These are teams that I think will have a better than not chance of making playoffs at HSNCT and a solid chance at making top 48 at PACE. Wouldn't be surprised if any of them knock off any of the teams above from time to time but none of them are as consistent of threats in the broader sphere.
6: OPRF
7: Latin
8: Mahomet (hype train away)
9: Stevenson B
10: Sandburg
11: Carbondale

Tier 3: The Nebulous Zone (teams here can probably be justifiably reordered many ways). These are teams that will do well and can take down teams ranked higher here but I would be quite surprised if they made playoffs at HSNCT and very surprised if they make top 48 at PACE. High finishes at NAQT State are definitely within reach tho.
12: Metea Valley
13: Southwestern
14: Williamsville
15: Uni B (once the A team stabilizes and drops a player they will likely rise up a tier)
16: Macomb
17: Fremd B
18: Glenwood

Tier I have no idea: I have no data on these teams and I am not familiar enough to rank them but I have been told that they will be good.
Barrington
Timothy Christian
Glenbard West (someone get them to tournaments I beg of you).

I feel like I am missing a team but I'm tired. Sorry if that team is you.

IHSA Sectional Assignments are posted.
http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/Sc ... sults.aspx

mhasquin wrote:IHSA Sectional Assignments are posted.
http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/Sc ... sults.aspx

(inset joke about seeds posted 118 years ago here)

Well... we've got us a drive (if we make sectionals, which is a possibility unless we get put in a regional with O'Fallon/Mater Dei)

the return of AHAN wrote:

mhasquin wrote:IHSA Sectional Assignments are posted.
http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/Sc ... sults.aspx

(inset joke about seeds posted 118 years ago here)

I guess someone should tell them about this...

Top 4 from the PBI (DEFT):

1) Urbana Uni Lab A
2) Glenwood A
3) Southwestern A
4) Carbondale A

the return of AHAN wrote:

mhasquin wrote:IHSA Sectional Assignments are posted.
http://www.ihsa.org/SportsActivities/Sc ... sults.aspx

(inset joke about seeds posted 118 years ago here)

The date has been changed. It now reads:

"Scholastic Bowl seeds will be posted about 4 pm on Friday, February 9, 2018."

dtaylor4 wrote:Top 4 from the PBI (DEFT):

1) Urbana Uni Lab A
2) Glenwood A
3) Southwestern A
4) Carbondale A

Piasa Bird Invitational III

Congratulations to Urbana Uni Lab A on winning the PBI III. It was a great day with some great kids.

https://stats.neg5.org/t/HypsCmeCb/pbi- ... =BkSLVcHmM

Masonic Sectional Assignments are up.

1A http://www.masonicbowl.org/1a_locations.htm
2A http://www.masonicbowl.org/2a_locations.htm
3A http://www.masonicbowl.org/3a_locations.htm

Hello everyone,

The 2018 iteration of the Illinois NAQT State Championships, hosted on February 10th at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, is currently seeking staff. We need both moderators as well as scorekeepers.

Qualified moderators, who are capable of reading at least 20 toss ups with two timed 10 minute halves, will be compensated up to $40 and fed breakfast and lunch. If necessary, travel can be arranged for them.

Scorekeepers, who must be able to keep pace with their moderator, will be compensated at a similar, but slightly reduced, rate.

If you are interesting in staffing and have questions, do not hesistate to contact me through the email I have on file.

If you know you can staff, please fill out this form: https://goo.gl/forms/AGXXQWBJGYK2EdV82

By filling out the form, you are confirming you will be at the tournament on February 10th. Obviously emergencies do happen, but if you fill out the form and do not attend I will send you a strongly-worded letter.

Top 4 from the Barron Robinson Memorial

1) Urbana Uni Lab A (9-0)
2) Mahomet-Seymour A (8-1), lost to Uni in one-game final
3) Williamsville A (8-1), lost to MS in playoff RR
4) Glenwood A (7-2), lost to Urbana Uni Lab A in playoff RR and Williamsville A in 3rd place playoff

We beat Mahomet in the final, it was like 500-250 or something like that.

dtaylor4 wrote:Top 4 from the Barron Robinson Memorial

1) Mahomet-Seymour A (9-0)
2) Urbana Uni Lab A (8-1), lost to MS in one-game final
3) Williamsville A (8-1), lost to MS in playoff RR
4) Glenwood A (7-2), lost to Urbana Uni Lab A in playoff RR and Williamsville A in 3rd place playoff

This is fake news

tjcho wrote:

dtaylor4 wrote:Top 4 from the Barron Robinson Memorial

1) Mahomet-Seymour A (9-0)
2) Urbana Uni Lab A (8-1), lost to MS in one-game final
3) Williamsville A (8-1), lost to MS in playoff RR
4) Glenwood A (7-2), lost to Urbana Uni Lab A in playoff RR and Williamsville A in 3rd place playoff

This is fake news

Fixed.

The IHSSBCA will be hosting Team Illinois Tryouts on February 11th, the Sunday after NAQT state, in Urbana, IL. If you are interested in attending these tryouts, please fill out the following form: https://goo.gl/forms/S3F3yKUQ2YdXekUe2

It is important to note that with the continuing uncertainty regarding a NASAT-like event, there is no guarantee that this team will be sent to a tournament. However, the IHSSBCA believes firmly in its educational value and importance to the Illinois quiz bowl scene.

Additional details are not yet finalized but everyone who signs up will receive an email in advance of February 11th with a precise time and location. If you have any questions you can contact me with the email I have attached to my profile.

dtaylor4 wrote:

mhasquin wrote:Here are the stats/results from the South Central Solo for those interested.

http://www.hsquizbowl.org/db/tournaments/4817/

Brief explanation for how the top 6 worked out - prelim records did not carry over, everyone started with a clean slate. Mark went 4-1, Jonathan and Reed went 3-2, Jacob and Dylan went 2-3, and Lana went 1-4. Jacob and Dylan played a full game tiebreaker (Jacob won), and Reed/Jonathan played a full game play-in to the final. Jonathan won the play-in, but lost the first game of the advantaged final.

To clarify, I played Mark with the disadvantage. I had to beat him twice to win and lost the first game.

TylerV wrote:The IHSSBCA will be hosting Team Illinois Tryouts on February 11th, the Sunday after NAQT state, in Urbana, IL. If you are interested in attending these tryouts, please fill out the following form: https://goo.gl/forms/S3F3yKUQ2YdXekUe2

It is important to note that with the continuing uncertainty regarding a NASAT-like event, there is no guarantee that this team will be sent to a tournament. However, the IHSSBCA believes firmly in its educational value and importance to the Illinois quiz bowl scene.

Additional details are not yet finalized but everyone who signs up will receive an email in advance of February 11th with a precise time and location. If you have any questions you can contact me with the email I have attached to my profile.

Adding to this, we could also use some more staff for this tryout. If you will be in town live nearby and would be able to help read or scorekeep, you would be very appreciated (and thanked with some form of food). If you are able to do this, please let Tyler or me know.

Just a heads up to everyone: NIU will not be hosting ATROPHY this year. Thank you to the teams and staff who made the trip out to DeKalb in past years.

Starting On Sunday February 11th at noon, the field for the Midwest Championship will officially open up to everyone. More info can be found here. If you would like to sign up before then, contact me and I will see if you have received and invitation. If you have not, I will either approve you to enter the field or place you on the waitlist. We hope to see you there!

Here is the final order of NAQT State

1. Uni (Urbana) A (Small School 1)
2. Auburn
3. Fremd A
4. Southwestern A (SS 2)
5. IMSA
6. Fremd B
7. Williamsville (SS 3)
8. Carbondale
9. Mahomet-Seymour
10. Macomb (SS 4)
11. Uni (Urbana) B (SS 5)
12. Byron (SS 6)
13. Carl Sandburg
14. Palatine
15. Homewood Flossmoor A
16. O'Fallon
17. New Trier
18. Hersey A
19. Springfield
20. Beacon (SS 7)
21. U-High (SS 8)
22. Homewood Flossmoor B
23. Maroa Forsyth (SS 9)
24. Mattoon
25. Chicago Christian (SS 10)
26. Greenville (SS 11)
27. Elgin Academy (SS 12)
28. Hersey B
29. Southwestern B (SS 13)
30. Centennial

Results can be found here.

Thank you everyone who came out to staff and play in spite of the weather! If you are missing anything please let me know as I have about 15 items that were recovered from game rooms after the tournament.

Brad,

Thanks for putting together a great tournament under some adverse conditions. You guys rolled with the punches and hosted a fine event. Our A & B teams had a great time. We really appreciate all the effort that you and Tyler put into it.

Hello-does anyone know if there will be computational math tossups this year for IHSA?

hcube wrote:Hello-does anyone know if there will be computational math tossups this year for IHSA?

As in 2016, there will be none.

I was out of the loop last year. Did the 2017 set have comp math tossups?

Dominator wrote:

hcube wrote:Hello-does anyone know if there will be computational math tossups this year for IHSA?

As in 2016, there will be none.

I was out of the loop last year. Did the 2017 set have comp math tossups?

It did, unfortunately.

Fortunately, I don't think Fischer et. al. will use comp math but I do not speak for them, obviously.

Has anybody on here played Greenville? I'm curious to see what we're dealing with, as we will see them in regional semis. As we beat the 6 seed in our sectional (Columbia) but lost to the 4 seed (Granite City), I'm expecting a challenge as they're the 5 seed, but with some lucky breaks (and a friendly packet (social studies/trash/mythology)) I think we have a shot.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Has anybody on here played Greenville? I'm curious to see what we're dealing with, as we will see them in regional semis. As we beat the 6 seed in our sectional (Columbia) but lost to the 4 seed (Granite City), I'm expecting a challenge as they're the 5 seed, but with some lucky breaks (and a friendly packet (social studies/trash/mythology)) I think we have a shot.

At the IHSSBCA Kickoff for Eastern Illilnois, Greenville lost to Mater Dei but the game was relatively close. My team beat Greenville by a large margin, but they did manage to get a few amount of tossups against us. At NAQT State, I am pretty sure they beat one or two teams from Chicagoland.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Has anybody on here played Greenville? I'm curious to see what we're dealing with, as we will see them in regional semis. As we beat the 6 seed in our sectional (Columbia) but lost to the 4 seed (Granite City), I'm expecting a challenge as they're the 5 seed, but with some lucky breaks (and a friendly packet (social studies/trash/mythology)) I think we have a shot.

Zach,
You're in luck with regards to social studies, because IHSA State Series prescribes exactly 7 social studies toss-ups and bonuses per round. There's also a guarantee of 1/1 mythology. Trash is a question mark because it falls under miscellaneous 1/1 and you're at the writer's mercy as to what they decide to include in that round as miscellaneous. Greenville has a junior high program which can help in some instances (familiarity with basic art canon, for example) but not others (IESA topics of grammar and spelling vanish in IHSA).

Thank you, Mr. Price. I see that that they were 2nd in their home sectional at Masonic behind Mater Dei. I wonder if Coach Hasquin can provide any information on them.

jzlau2 wrote:

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Has anybody on here played Greenville? I'm curious to see what we're dealing with, as we will see them in regional semis. As we beat the 6 seed in our sectional (Columbia) but lost to the 4 seed (Granite City), I'm expecting a challenge as they're the 5 seed, but with some lucky breaks (and a friendly packet (social studies/trash/mythology)) I think we have a shot.

At the IHSSBCA Kickoff for Eastern Illilnois, Greenville lost to Mater Dei but the game was relatively close. My team beat Greenville by a large margin, but they did manage to get a few amount of tossups against us. At NAQT State, I am pretty sure they beat one or two teams from Chicagoland.

We shall see. We've played some good teams close (were even ahead of Carbondale at "halftime" at Masonic), but haven't really been able to finish matches as well as I would like. We didn't play Mater Dei this year, but I know that they're always very good. If they had beaten you guys, then I would've been honestly surprised, as Uni Lab is arguably the best team in the state south of Chicago in my opinion.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Thank you, Mr. Price. I see that that they were 2nd in their home sectional at Masonic behind Mater Dei. I wonder if Coach Hasquin can provide any information on them.

As a program, Greenville has a strong tradition and is always a formidable opponent. Greenville is a well-coached group that is well-rounded in areas covered in the IHSA distribution. It is difficult to do the math between common opponents so the best bit of information that I can pass along is that their Points per Bonus has to hover around 20. They were willing to get out and play some events on the Saturday circuit and that is always beneficial.

Thank you. Best of luck to you and all competitors on Monday.

Not sure if this is old news but here is the IHSSBCA All-Sectional Teams. I think I would've made it if we went to some IHSSBCA tournaments instead of just Masonic and IHSA.
http://www.ihssbca.org/awards/all-secti ... elections/
(Sorry if I'm not allowed to post links)

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Not sure if this is old news but here is the IHSSBCA All-Sectional Teams. I think I would've made it if we went to some IHSSBCA tournaments instead of just Masonic and IHSA.
http://www.ihssbca.org/awards/all-secti ... elections/
(Sorry if I'm not allowed to post links)

From looking at the Fremd sectional results, it seems as though non-MSL teams kinda got screwed over, especially Stevenson. I don't see a reason why Olivia/Deepak aren't in the top six (and thus not advance to All-State consideration).

All-Sectional does not always reflect a player's performance. It really depends who votes, who you play against, and who you are on a team with. Typically, nobody on my team makes All-Tournament because the PPG is evenly distributed, hurting our chances of seeming like an "outstanding" player to other coaches. The only person from my team who made All-State consideration was our captain.

Icre wrote:

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Not sure if this is old news but here is the IHSSBCA All-Sectional Teams. I think I would've made it if we went to some IHSSBCA tournaments instead of just Masonic and IHSA.
http://www.ihssbca.org/awards/all-secti ... elections/
(Sorry if I'm not allowed to post links)

From looking at the Fremd sectional results, it seems as though non-MSL teams kinda got screwed over, especially Stevenson. I don't see a reason why Olivia/Deepak aren't in the top six (and thus not advance to All-State consideration).

Similarly, Jonathan and Ethan from Uni and Nick from Metea got screwed. But there is an appeal process outlined here so anyone who feels that they should've made top 6 but didn't should email Brad Ficsher ASAP.

jzlau2 wrote:All-Sectional is not exactly the best measure of performance. It really depends who votes, who you play, and who you are on a team with. I was only one vote out of All-State consideration partially because I am "competing" against four other players who are also quite good, and as a result, my PPG is not that great. Typically, nobody on my team makes All-Tournament because the PPG is evenly distributed, further hurting our chances of getting a high number of votes. The only person from my team who made All-State consideration was Tim Cho, our de facto captain.

Good point, but for me that really shouldn't have been an issue. I had roughly 20 tossups answered in our 2 matches at our regional (around 335 ppg avg). Not really gonna complain too much though.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:

jzlau2 wrote:All-Sectional is not exactly the best measure of performance. It really depends who votes, who you play, and who you are on a team with. I was only one vote out of All-State consideration partially because I am "competing" against four other players who are also quite good, and as a result, my PPG is not that great. Typically, nobody on my team makes All-Tournament because the PPG is evenly distributed, further hurting our chances of getting a high number of votes. The only person from my team who made All-State consideration was Tim Cho, our de facto captain.

Good point, but for me that really shouldn't have been an issue. I had roughly 20 tossups answered in our 2 matches at our regional (around 335 ppg avg). Not really gonna complain too much though.

Admittedly that was a REALLY easy set though. My average with "standard" NAQT sets is probably somewhere around 175. As I said in a previous post, not gonna complain too much

Not trying to be arrogant, apologies if I've offended anyone.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Has anybody on here played Greenville? I'm curious to see what we're dealing with, as we will see them in regional semis. As we beat the 6 seed in our sectional (Columbia) but lost to the 4 seed (Granite City), I'm expecting a challenge as they're the 5 seed, but with some lucky breaks (and a friendly packet (social studies/trash/mythology)) I think we have a shot.

Now that you've played Greenville, what do you think? Any areas where their skills surprised you? I ask because I'm always interested in how these things play out where a team with kids that played IESA scholastic bowl are up against a team where there's no MS programs of any type available. My interest is really heightened this year with the new writer, who has zero interest in serving up anything resembling what IESA players have seen.

the return of AHAN wrote:

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Has anybody on here played Greenville? I'm curious to see what we're dealing with, as we will see them in regional semis. As we beat the 6 seed in our sectional (Columbia) but lost to the 4 seed (Granite City), I'm expecting a challenge as they're the 5 seed, but with some lucky breaks (and a friendly packet (social studies/trash/mythology)) I think we have a shot.

Now that you've played Greenville, what do you think? Any areas where their skills surprised you? I ask because I'm always interested in how these things play out where a team with kids that played IESA scholastic bowl are up against a team where there's no MS programs of any type available. My interest is really heightened this year with the new writer, who has zero interest in serving up anything resembling what IESA players have seen.

As I'm sure you know, they beat us pretty comfortably. Whilst they were a good team, they didn't have any one player that struck me as utterly dominant, although the whole team (especially their captain, whose name is escaping me) was quite good. I'd say their best subject was probably lit, although as I said, they were quite consistent in their knowledge. I was actually slightly surprised that they beat Granite City, as John is one of the best lit players in the area IMO, and they are a good team. I'm curious to see how well Greenville do on Saturday, as that sectional is rather vicious. I also found the set to be rather easy, at least compared to sets I've seen this year. We cracked 500 points in our match against Jerseyville, and I think IMSA almost hit 900 in their regional.

My working theory on this year's IHSA set is that regionals were meant to approximate an A set, while sectionals will be like an IS set, and state will be like an SCT set. That's my theory, anyway. I'll be interested to see the data if Mr. Fischer shares what he is collecting from the scoresheets.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:

the return of AHAN wrote:

TheAngryBavarian wrote:Has anybody on here played Greenville? I'm curious to see what we're dealing with, as we will see them in regional semis. As we beat the 6 seed in our sectional (Columbia) but lost to the 4 seed (Granite City), I'm expecting a challenge as they're the 5 seed, but with some lucky breaks (and a friendly packet (social studies/trash/mythology)) I think we have a shot.

Now that you've played Greenville, what do you think? Any areas where their skills surprised you? I ask because I'm always interested in how these things play out where a team with kids that played IESA scholastic bowl are up against a team where there's no MS programs of any type available. My interest is really heightened this year with the new writer, who has zero interest in serving up anything resembling what IESA players have seen.

As I'm sure you know, they beat us pretty comfortably. Whilst they were a good team, they didn't have any one player that struck me as utterly dominant, although the whole team (especially their captain, whose name is escaping me) was quite good. I'd say their best subject was probably lit, although as I said, they were quite consistent in their knowledge. I was actually slightly surprised that they beat Granite City, as John is one of the best lit players in the area IMO, and they are a good team. I'm curious to see how well Greenville do on Saturday, as that sectional is rather vicious. I also found the set to be rather easy, at least compared to sets I've seen this year. We cracked 500 points in our match against Jerseyville, and I think IMSA almost hit 900 in their regional.

In our regional final against Barrington (which was extremely close), we combined to score 940 points, which only two bonus parts going dead.

the return of AHAN wrote:My working theory on this year's IHSA set is that regionals were meant to approximate an A set, while sectionals will be like an IS set, and state will be like an SCT set. That's my theory, anyway. I'll be interested to see the data if Mr. Fischer shares what he is collecting from the scoresheets.

I think an A Set is approximate Novice level, IS is more like a "standard" NAQT set, and State a little more difficult than that, correct? I'm not super familiar with the terminology.

I think A set is slightly harder than novice level. Novice typically includes the last few lines of the SCOP MS set as well as one or two more lines at the beginning. Still, at the tournament, the questions were easy for both teams, resulting in many buzzer races with the teams that we played.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:

the return of AHAN wrote:My working theory on this year's IHSA set is that regionals were meant to approximate an A set, while sectionals will be like an IS set, and state will be like an SCT set. That's my theory, anyway. I'll be interested to see the data if Mr. Fischer shares what he is collecting from the scoresheets.

I think an A Set is approximate Novice level, IS is more like a "standard" NAQT set, and State a little more difficult than that, correct? I'm not super familiar with the terminology.

SCT refers to "Sectional Championship Tournament", which are used to qualify for the Intercollegiate Championship Tournament and crown a champion in the Community College Championship Tournament. That's the level of difficulty I suspect is the target for state finals.
Historically, IHSA has been horribly variable within the rounds, with occasional super-weird answer lines, and scores of 90-70 being not unheard of at some of the tiny 1A regional sites. Mr. Fischer seems to have attempted to make the rounds much more accessible for those schools, and appears to have been successful. Personally, I don't care if IMSA is now beating teams, 900-40, when before they may have 'only' won 740-30. Comes a point where there's no difference, and it's much better for weaker 1A teams to have a more encouraging experience, even if that means losing, say, 310-200. That's still better than 190-80.

the return of AHAN wrote:

TheAngryBavarian wrote:

the return of AHAN wrote:My working theory on this year's IHSA set is that regionals were meant to approximate an A set, while sectionals will be like an IS set, and state will be like an SCT set. That's my theory, anyway. I'll be interested to see the data if Mr. Fischer shares what he is collecting from the scoresheets.

I think an A Set is approximate Novice level, IS is more like a "standard" NAQT set, and State a little more difficult than that, correct? I'm not super familiar with the terminology.

SCT refers to "Sectional Championship Tournament", which are used to qualify for the Intercollegiate Championship Tournament and crown a champion in the Community College Championship Tournament. That's the level of difficulty I suspect is the target for state finals.
Historically, IHSA has been horribly variable within the rounds, with occasional super-weird answer lines, and scores of 90-70 being not unheard of at some of the tiny 1A regional sites. Mr. Fischer seems to have attempted to make the rounds much more accessible for those schools, and appears to have been successful. Personally, I don't care if IMSA is now beating teams, 900-40, when before they may have 'only' won 740-30. Comes a point where there's no difference, and it's much better for weaker 1A teams to have a more encouraging experience, even if that means losing, say, 310-200. That's still better than 190-80.

I don't have a major problem with it. I just feel kind of sorry for teams like Rock Island who are losing 810-10. I understand that there's an obvious dichotomy, but I also could understand why people would perhaps be upset by it. You do make a good point however, and I don't have any major issues with the questions, or the way Mr. Fischer wrote them.

TheAngryBavarian wrote:I don't have a major problem with it. I just feel kind of sorry for teams like Rock Island who are losing 810-10. I understand that there's an obvious dichotomy, but I also could understand why people would perhaps be upset by it. You do make a good point however, and I don't have any major issues with the questions, or the way Mr. Fischer wrote them.

If those teams want to improve those scorelines, they need to get better. At the 1A sectional I read at, I had four interesting games, and it wasn't because 1/3 of the damn tossups were going dead. IMO, the bonuses could have been tweaked to be a little harder, but the tossups were spot on.

the return of AHAN wrote:My working theory on this year's IHSA set is that regionals were meant to approximate an A set, while sectionals will be like an IS set, and state will be like an SCT set.

There was no attempt to approximate an NAQT product.

Apologies. I misspoke. I meant that my theory was that the difficulty of regionals approximated the difficulty of an A set. I didn't mean to imply the writing team modeled their product on NAQT's, rather, I was using a commonly understood metric.

Knowing each of the IHSA writers personally, I knew to expect well-crafted passion project, but I was still surprised with how well regionals went.

Pros:
The math was fantastic and this is coming from somebody who knows next to nothing about math. I've never seen players enjoy math as much as I have while reading this iteration of regionals and the difficulty seemed perfect for the level of competition.

The answerlines in general were very well thought out, which I think the scores reflect. Only on very few occasions did I feel the set was being "unfair" to be the player or asking something that was too difficult.

Cons:
I thought some literature bonuses were poorly difficulty controlled but not enough to throw me into a rage.

What did throw me into a rage however was a lit answerline, which I am unsure if its clear so I won't reveal it, which I felt was overly strict. This ended up not mattering in the room I was in but I think it easily could have caused issues.

Overall, I think this set is only going to get better as it goes along. Writing easy questions is an immense challenge and with regionals the writing team made it look easy. With no such constraint for sectionals and state, I can only imagine what sort of well-written and creative content awaits.

A huge thank you to Brad, Noah, and Andrew for making this set a reality. I think it is also important to thank Kraig Garber, the IHSA member in charge of Scholastic Bowl, for showing a geinue interest in the activity, and acting accordingly, that I haven't seen as long as I've been active.

the return of AHAN wrote:Apologies. I misspoke. I meant that my theory was that the difficulty of regionals approximated the difficulty of an A set. I didn't mean to imply the writing team modeled their product on NAQT's, rather, I was using a commonly understood metric.

No worries! :) Using NAQT's sets as a metric makes a bit of sense, given that they're the only people in quizbowl who put out sets at different difficulty levels, and doubly so because the Regionals -> Sectionals -> State Championship mimics the feeling of the progression that A Set -> IS Set -> championship sets has, and triply so because in past years while agitating for question reform, people like me recommended the use of NAQT questions and proposed that NAQT use that exact progression to source the questions.

With that said, the perspective that I've had, back when I was a coach and as long as I've been a moderator, is that "easier varsity quizbowl," like NAQT A-Sets, has always been decidedly focused on the direction of "what the quizbowl canon thinks is easy" and ignoring the direction of "what new quizbowl players think is easy." Good, bad, or indifferent, the IHSA Regionals audience has somewhere between 200 and 300 teams that would be ignored by "traditional easy quizbowl" and that don't put up more than 200 points when the play an A Set packet. I wanted to produce a set that did not ignore them in the one or two rounds they play - in which they have 23-24 converted tossups and can experience bonus play that isn't just "controlling team got 1 part, neither had ever heard of 2 and 3" or "all went dead." That goal necessarily requires combined scores in the 600-700 point range for weaker teams, which necessarily means elite teams should get within a bonus part or two of a combined perfect game, as we had last night.

The challenge, then, is writing tossups that have enough good pyramidal clues to differentiate elite from great, great from good, and good from novice. My hope is that, if a team lost a close game last night, they left the game thinking "if we'd known more about X, we could have had that tossup earlier," or "we shouldn't have missed the bonus part on Y because we've seen it come up in previous matches" in a few places, rather than "we would have won but for those buzzer races." (They both might be true, but if the former is true, the latter becomes less important; you know that studying can fix it.) Understanding how people are feeling on that regard is a big part of the feedback I want on Regionals. I've got the data coming in; give me that anecdotal evidence!*

*I'm 99% sure that the last unposted Regional, at O'Fallon, did finish, but you never know. I've e-mailed their coach; if I hear back before the scores get posted, I'll come back here and give the OK to start talking question content.