Page 1 of 1

Univ of Virginia Cavalier Open III - Saturday 2006-02-18

Posted: Tue Nov 15, 2005 11:18 pm
by yangsta
Results now posted -- see below.


The Academic Competition Club at the University of Virginia is pleased to announce the third annual Cavalier Open, to be held on February 18, 2006, in Charlottesville, VA.

This tournament has NAQT regional exclusivity for Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. Please check the NAQT website to verify that your team has not played on this particular set of questions.

The Cavalier Open is an excellent pre-Nationals and pre-States tournament, featuring a variety of teams from Virginia and many other states, and is also good for less experienced teams to play on NAQT questions. We have included new team discounts as well as travel discounts for out-of-state teams.

* Official invitation
* Official registration form

You may register by emailing the registration form to steveyang @ virginia dot edu. Please note that we are currently capping the field at 28 teams, so teams will be accepted on a first-come-first-served basis.

As always, more information at the website:
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~quizbowl/cavopen.html
Or you can always talk to me.

-Steve

PS: Don't be scared away by the base price; there's a $20 early registration discount (usually $5) and $15 (usually $5) buzzer discount that makes this tournament quite cheap.



This, if you are using a magnifying glass, was the original post I made about this tournament, and can be safely ignored.

Our annual spring NAQT tournament is tentatively scheduled for February 18th, 2006. The tournament will be open to all schools (we're also hosting NAQT Virginia Championships in April).

If there are any conflicts, let me know (I know at least Blair threw around the 2/18 date); the weekend before also seems open, so it shouldn't be too hard to work around.


On the 05-06 DC/VA/MD date-claiming thread, I believe we tried to take 2/25, but that date is VHSL Scholastic Bowl states... So anyone who wrote it down or memorized it may have wrong information.

-Steve
[/b]

Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:30 pm
by blazer06
Thanks for your concern; go ahead with 2/18...we're not even close to being ready for that.

"Official" Announcement

Posted: Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:24 pm
by yangsta
The Cavalier Open III will be held on Saturday, February 18, 2006. Invitations are going out today via email/postal mail (a little late, I know).

More info in the original post (above).

Registered teams as of 2/6

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:15 pm
by yangsta
Currently registered teams:

Maggie Walker (4)
King's Fork (2)
Madison County (2)
Robinson (2)
STAB (2)
Warren County (2)
Russell (KY)
Detroit Catholic Central
Walt Whitman
Collegiate
Langley
Princess Anne
St. Christopher
Churchland
Hermitage
(23 total)

Unconfirmed:
South County
Cave Spring
Dupont Manual
Georgetown Day


This puts us very close to our cap of 28, but we may raise to 32. Also, there seems to be an odd absence of TJ from this list.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:40 pm
by bigmac
This is a great tournament and RM has loved going the past few years. This tourney boasts a great field and is well-run. There was one funny incident last year when a moderator no doubt mistook me for a player and told me to "sit down and shut your mouth." Before our friendly quiz bowl circuit turned into the NBA, I decided to resist the urgings of my players -- who wanted to see their mild-mannered coach "go Artest" -- and let the TD know about the angry young man, whom I did not see again.

This year, however, we will most likely be attending Dunbar, which is using the same set(?). We are looking forward to making the road trip and seeing a somewhat different cast of characters. Luckily, we will see all of the usual suspects from our area at WJ.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 3:48 pm
by BuzzerZen
Steve, TJ intends to send multiple teams (on the order of 3). Sorry no one's been in contact. Charlotte will probably be in touch fairly soon, but it seems to take us a while to figure out how many teams we can field. It would suck to be locked out of UVA due to field capping.

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:14 pm
by Manyo2
Bigmac, are you sure that UVA and Dunbar are using the same set? We(duPont Manual) had intended on attending both, so this is of some interest to me/us. Can anybody from UVA or Dunbar confirm or deny this?

Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:16 pm
by Matt Weiner
The NAQT website lists both tournaments as using IS-56.

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:24 pm
by yangsta
Unfortunately, it looks like it's very unlikely that we'll switch to IS-54 (as I was plotting to do in the past few hours) because Detroit Catholic Central attended (and won at) the Michigan fall tournament.

bigmac wrote:This is a great tournament and RM has loved going the past few years. This tourney boasts a great field and is well-run. There was one funny incident last year when a moderator no doubt mistook me for a player and told me to "sit down and shut your mouth." Before our friendly quiz bowl circuit turned into the NBA, I decided to resist the urgings of my players -- who wanted to see their mild-mannered coach "go Artest" -- and let the TD know about the angry young man, whom I did not see again.
Sorry about that incident. I remember hearing about it from someone, but nobody was able to identify the moderator. We'll make sure to have some etiquette training...


Finally a field update:
There are currently 38-41 teams wanting to come, and we're trying to make sure we have moderators (and buzzer systems). This looks to be the biggest field we've had in a while...

Posted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 6:51 pm
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
^^yea i think we (gov) might up it to five teams, but you'll have to wait for tha doc to holla at you bout that...

"Final" field

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 6:01 pm
by yangsta
We're currently at 36 teams, even without those Yale defectors :wink:

Russell
Cave Spring A
Cave Spring B
King's Fork A
King's Fork B
Detroit Catholic Central
Walt Whitman
Madison County A
Madison County B
Collegiate A
Collegiate B
Robinson A
Robinson B
Robinson C
Langley
Princess Anne
STAB A
STAB B
St. Christopher's
Churchland
Warren County A
Warren County B
Hermitage
Maggie Walker A
Maggie Walker B
Maggie Walker C
Maggie Walker D
Parry McCluer
Auburn
Freeman
Thomas Jefferson A
Thomas Jefferson B
Thomas Jefferson C
Thomas Jefferson D
Thomas Jefferson E
Midlothian

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:01 pm
by bigtrain
yangsta wrote:We're currently at 36 teams, even without those Yale defectors
It was very unfortunate that Yale and UVA decided to use the same date. We unfortunately had to choose to go to Yale because of tradition and the opportunity it gives our team to spend a two days in New York.

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:36 pm
by DumbJaques
It was very unfortunate that Yale and UVA decided to use the same date. We unfortunately had to choose to go to Yale because of tradition and the opportunity it gives our team to spend two days in New York.
Unfortunately for some hotel rooms. . .

Posted: Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:07 pm
by bigtrain
Unfortunately for some hotel rooms. . .
Those jokes are never going to end, and deservingly so.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:11 am
by yangsta
For anyone who cares (and has nothing better to do with this chilly Saturday), I'll probably post some live SQBS stats as the day goes on.

Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:00 pm
by First Chairman
yangsta wrote:For anyone who cares (and has nothing better to do with this chilly Saturday), I'll probably post some live SQBS stats as the day goes on.
Where?

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:20 am
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
I know the results still have to be posted, but I just want to say, it's a shame someone had to lose in the finals (Gov A won over DCC by the way). It really came down to the last question (which Xun got). Despite what I've said on my double elim. thread, this one actually proved to be exciting since they overcame the winning bracket advantage. Heck I would've rather watched those finals on TV than any episode of Jeopardy, Millionaire, Weakest Link, Battle of the Brains (lol), or any other quiz/trivia show (even Win Ben Stein's Money, and that's saying a lot b/c that was a halfway decent show :wink: ).

But as for the tournament itself, the questions were WAY easy for an NAQT regular IS set. The tossups seemed to gradually get a bit easier as the rounds went on, and the power area was particularly generous (they might as well just go to the PACE style and end at "FTP"). With the bonuses you generally either knew it completely or tanked it, and by the end the last couple rounds were just massive buzzer races (lol, there was one time when two people on DCC and two on Gov A evidently buzzed in at the exact same moment, and since this was a crappy "Judge" system four lights were flashing and it jammed up so the tossup was replaced). I also noticed that most of the non 10-10-10 bonuses came in clusters. For example, in one early round we kept getting list bonuses and the ones that are like "for 5, 10, 20, and 30 points, is this true for a, b, both, or neither?" and we (Gov B) did pretty awful on that format. Apparently the question editor wasn't completely awake when writing this set...

As for the tournament format, I thought the double elimination of 8 was kind of cool, but the fact that Gov A, for example, ended up playing 9 playoff rounds and 5 prelims is kind of crazy. The two single elim. rounds preceding the double elim. were a bit unnecessary - I'd say just go straight to the two double elim. divisions (1-8 and 9-16), and maybe a consolation bracket of 16. Or you could always do the ole PACE style round robin :wink: But in any case, there should have been more than 5 prelims; I wish at least that 6th round hadn't mysteriously vanished off the tournament schedule sheet. The "random" prelim pairing probably wasn't the best idea either, one of the two brackets was hella easy and in the other a lot of teams got shafted. I'll admit the fact that we (Gov B) went 5-0 was luck of the draw - the only significant challenge we had was TJ B, who we beat by 15.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:34 am
by jbarnes112358
Quick results:

1. Maggie Walker Governor's School A
2. Detroit Catholic Central
3. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology A
4. St. Anne's Belfield

Maggie Walker A did it the hard way. After losing to TJ A in the prelims to get a lousy seed, and then losing to DCC early in the double-elimination playoffs, they battled back through solid teams like Russell, Maggie Walker B, and St. Anne's to finally beat TJ A in the finals of the loser's bracket. They then proceeded to defeat DCC twice in the finals.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:43 am
by BuzzerZen
Great tournament on the part of UVA. Some iffy questions and power marks on the part of NAQT. I know that in their round against STAB and then against us (TJ), Gov were a team on fire, and that obviously kept them going through two rounds against DCC. Now to defend our VHSL title...

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 1:10 am
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
jbarnes112358 wrote:Quick results:

1. Maggie Walker Governor's School A
2. Detroit Catholic Central
3. Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technolgy A
4. St. Anne's Belfield

Maggie Walker A did it the hard way. After losing to TJ A in the prelims to get a lousy seed, and then losing to DCC early in the double-elimination playoffs, they battled back through solid teams like Russell, Maggie Walker B, and St. Anne's to finally beat TJ A in the finals of the loser's bracket. They then proceeded to defeat DCC twice in the finals.
Not totally sure, but I think much of the rest of it went like this:

5. MLWGSGIS B
6. Walt Whitman
7. TJ C
8. Russell
9. TJ B
10. MLWGSGIS C
11. Collegiate A (though maybe they were 12th...)

Haha had to give props to the B team you know. Oh and despite what I said about the format of the tournament rounds and all, and despite the fact that Domino's was chronically late as usual, UVA did do an excellent job of running the tournament, including trying to make everything run on time, moderating, and handing out awards &c.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:22 pm
by Dan Greenstein
Matt Morrison wrote:...

(lol, there was one time when two people on DCC and two on Gov A evidently buzzed in at the exact same moment, and since this was a crappy "Judge" system four lights were flashing and it jammed up so the tossup was replaced).

...
I sure hope someone got a picture of that.
Matt Morrison wrote:double elimination of 8
Single elimination is always the quickest way to determine a champion, but I question the decision to resort to double elimination when running some kind of round robin format would give every team the extra number of games. In this case, you could have split the eight teams into two groups of four, run a round robin in each group taking three games, run any tiebreaker games necessary to resolve three-way ties at 1-2 or 2-1, then go to semifinals and final.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 12:43 pm
by NotjustoldWASPs
I think what this tournament shows, in combination with the JIAT a month ago and the GSAC two months ago, is that, nationals will be much more interesting than last year. I can think of at least six teams that have a real viable shot at winning this year, and it will come down to two things: luck with questions and momentum. From the teams I've seen, DCC, RM, Gov, State College, RC, and TJ all have the capability to beat one another (sorry to any west and midwest teams I may have left out...being from the DC area leaves me with only a small picture of national QB) and whoever comes out on top will have to have a good combo of these two things.

I also think it's a lot more fun when you're not "playing for second place," as I heard all too often last year...

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 2:20 pm
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
^^yea the odd thing is that it seems as though certain teams have trouble beating other teams, but can beat the teams that beat those other teams. for instance, I don't believe our A team matches up well with State College and RM, but yesterday they beat TJ, who can pretty much beat all of them. it also often comes down to how the team plays, whether it's a slower, more methodical type with great breadth of knowledge rather than depth, or an extremely fast team with tons of depth on tossups (like DCC). this is why I'm pretty sure there'll be two different teams winning PACE and NAQT, since the latter favors speed and the former favors knowing the information in the first place. it'll be interesting to see how the "four corners" format at Right Triangle and Gonzaga will turn out. btw does anybody know of any big MD/DC/VA/PA (or even KY) teams that might be at the Right Triangle tournament (besides us)?

Speaking of non-east coast teams and such, who are the top KY, Illinois, and western teams supposed to be this year anyway? I heard DuPont and New Trier aren't quite the same as last year, and San Jose graduated most of its talent...

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 3:48 pm
by jbarnes112358
Hopefully, more comprehensive results will be posted soon.

Other random thoughts on the tournament:

The tournament ran long, but a lot of teams played a lot of rounds, so most people got their money's worth. The late pizza made all subsequent games late - a sort of "Domino's Effect."

MW's three games with DCC were interesting. The first and last were nail-biters, with many lead changes, both of which coming down to the last question or two. DCC could easily have won the tournament with a swing of one of the many buzzer races. Speaking of buzzer races, there was one question when I believe all 8 players slapped their buzzers almost in unison. One of our spectating players said it sounded like a machine gun going off.

In the middle meeting of the teams, the first game of the finals, it turned out not to be so close. But, MW was pumped after having just beaten their TJ rivals for the first time in two years. On the other hand, DCC had been sitting for a long while with multiple byes, watching all the excitement. They seemed a little out of sync and iced up after all that waiting around. TJ also had to wait through a bye before playing us.

But, I don't mean to take anything away from our own players. Down the stretch, yesterday, was the best our A team has played since the LAWN boys graduated two years ago. Furthermore, it would have been easy, after the win over STAB, for them to look at the unlikely scenario of beating TJ once and DCC twice, and just accepting their most likely fate of third place. I really give them credit for their amazing effort to go for the win.

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:01 pm
by dschafer
"Domino's Effect" - very nice.

Pizza aside (which I know from experience is completely out of the tournament's control), the tournament was very well run. I particularly liked the single-to-double-elimination idea, as it allowed a lot more teams to play playoff matches. Also, having the consolation bracket gave some of the teams (like ourselves) that might have sat out 5-6 rounds many more games to play. I wasn't particularly fond of the random prelim pairings, but that is probably influenced by the fact that we drew both Gov B and Whitman (and then had to play Whitman again in the 2nd round of the playoffs).

Congratulations to Gov A on the win; having seen the way they played in the match against TJ A, I am not at all surprised they were able to win another two. On the standings note, I do believe Colligiate A was 11th.

Quick question before I make any comments about the NAQT packet: obviously specific question dsicussion is out, but would talking about distribution be acceptable? (i.e., there was a lot of ______, very little ______).

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 6:18 pm
by First Chairman
I don't think even distribution discussions would be a great idea. Don't want to tip off any math-heavy people that there was too much "calculation" in the packets (as an example).

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2006 10:23 pm
by yangsta
Sorry, results aren't actually on my computer, but they'll be posted as soon as I get my hands on them :)

Thanks Dr. Barnes and Matt for the quick summary; I can't confirm the 5-12 results, but again, I'll post complete results as soon as I get them.

And yes, I'm sorry again about Domino's; I gave half-refunds to everyone.



An explanation of the playoff format: We had 38 teams, and I (not necessary "we" -- note distinction) wanted most teams a chance to play another game, even if most games are lopsided (I don't know if 32 seed TJ D had fun playing DCC, but I hope they got something out of the experience). We usually have a "play-in" to reduce the field to a power of 2, but since this would've meant 12 of the 40 teams participating and the rest of them sitting and waiting, it wouldn't have been a good idea here.

With the playoff field of 32, there were two rounds of single elimination. After the first round, 16 teams were eliminated. The winners of the second round of single elimination were placed in the "upper" eight, and the losers in the "lower" eight, each of which had the same double elimination format.

The most that the teams in the "lower" eight could win was 9th place (and a pair of $1 thundersticks), so about half of them left; I've gotten comments in the past (last year's NAQT Virginia had the same format) that the teams enjoyed playing some extra rounds.

As for why the sets of 8 or just "upper" eight did not play round robin...

There's no explanation beyond that I'm not used to seeing round robin playoffs in high school tournaments.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:16 am
by dschafer
Speaking for a team that played in the "Lower 8" bracket (TJ B), we did indeed enjoy the oppurtunity to play the extra rounds, and the thundersticks were a nice incentive as well.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 11:39 am
by The Toad to Wigan Pier
I thought that the tournament went very well. All the teams played very well and in some games the number of powers was amazing. However, a very small part of this might be the result of some questionable placement of power marks in the questions. While I cannot talk about the specifics of the question distribution, I thought that there a few subjects/topics were over represented. The only part of the tournament that I was not particularly fond of was the random preliminary parings. Having TJ's superb A team overpower(in both meanings of the word) you early in the morning is not my favorite early morning(well, early morning for me) experience.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:25 pm
by yangsta
tachyonwill wrote:The only part of the tournament that I was not particularly fond of was the random preliminary parings. Having TJ's superb A team overpower(in both meanings of the word) you early in the morning is not my favorite early morning(well, early morning for me) experience.
All I can say about the prelim pairings is that they were random, and considering there are several superb teams in each set of teams, it's statistically very likely that you had to play one of them.

Of course, suggestions for better ways to determine playoff seeding are always welcome.

-Steve

RESULTS

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:38 pm
by yangsta
Preliminary statistics:
Here

The standings show playoff seedings from 1 (DCC) to 32 (TJ D). There was one upset in the first round -- 20 (Cave Spring A) over 13 (Robinson B).

Double elimination results:

1 Maggie Walker A
2 Detroit Catholic Central
3 Thomas Jefferson A
4 St. Anne's-Belfield
5 Maggie Walker B
6 Walt Whitman (MD)
7t Thomas Jefferson C
7t Russell (KY)

--
(Lower eight - these teams lost in the round of 16.)

9 Thomas Jefferson B
10 Maggie Walker C
11 Collegiate A
12 Cave Spring A
13t Princess Anne
13t Robinson A
13t R.E. Lee A
13t Langley


If I can find the time to make viewable playoff brackets, I will.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:29 pm
by Lapego1
Some of the stats seem a bit flawed. For example, 284 TUs heard by Maggie Walker A and Princess Anne? Also, there may have been some score misentries, as I don't think we (Gov C) scored 9 PPB in our game against St. Chris (I think this number came from the fact that our total score was mis-entered). Don't sweat it, though.

Thoughts on the tournament:
Overall well-run. The winners at the end of the day ended up being the ones with the most stamina to survive through the many rounds of play. It was a good idea to send top 32 teams through to the first round of "playoffs". In the prelims, with, as you said, many strong teams, some of the stronger teams ended up being ranked lower overall. A team with one loss was automatically forced into seed 9 after the prelims, so top 16 moving into playoffs would not well account for the teams at the tournament. However, it may have been a better idea to just send the 16 teams that won the first round into a set of double elimination playoffs. Loser of team 1 vs team 16 plays loser of team 8 vs. team 9 game, etc. With this format, a round or two of prelims could have been added in based on the number of packets.

However, congratulations to the UVA folks for a very well-run tournament, clearly fielding some of the top teams in the nation.

Plus, I just noticed Freeman had -1.25 PPB in one game...

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:41 pm
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
^^yea on that note, TJ B kind of got shafted by their schedule by playing Walt Whitman in the 2nd round of playoffs after losing to them in the prelims. So in order to overcome the shortcomings of the prelim schedules, maybe it would've been better to put the top 16 in a big double elimination.

As for the stats page...
Heck, I thought I would show up as "MC PM" since that's what I said my name was every round. Ahh well, next time I'm wearing that jersey I'll just go by "Ron Mexico" :wink:

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:46 pm
by The Toad to Wigan Pier
What appears to have happened is that someone accidentally added the digit four on to the TUH for the GOV A/Princess Anne game, resulting in 204 tossups heard for that game; something that is minor in the grand scheme of things.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:25 pm
by yangsta
The most egregious data entry errors have been corrected.


16-team double elimination would actually take more packets (9), as it would take seven rounds to determine a loser's bracket champion. It was considered, however, and maybe we can try it with NAQT states. The thing I don't necessarily like about 16 double-elim is that by the 4th round, 11 of 16 teams are eliminated, so there aren't as many games for teams that want to keep playing. Then again, maybe they'd rather go home sooner...

Re: RESULTS

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:53 pm
by STPickrell
yangsta wrote:The standings show playoff seedings from 1 (DCC) to 32 (TJ D). There was one upset in the first round -- 20 (Cave Spring A) over 13 (Robinson B).
A note about Cave Spring. They are coached by Bob Powers, a 1992 alumnus of Thomas Jefferson. He contacted me in January, asking about NAQT and the invitational circuit.

They are stuck behind Blacksburg and Salem in their district and region, but it seems they will rapidly become a regular on the invitational circuit.

I was pleased by the number of first-time tournament attendees.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:57 pm
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
yangsta wrote:The most egregious data entry errors have been corrected.


16-team double elimination would actually take more packets (9), as it would take seven rounds to determine a loser's bracket champion. It was considered, however, and maybe we can try it with NAQT states. The thing I don't necessarily like about 16 double-elim is that by the 4th round, 11 of 16 teams are eliminated, so there aren't as many games for teams that want to keep playing. Then again, maybe they'd rather go home sooner...
you could save a round if you used my slightly adjusted double elim. idea that I posted a while ago http://www.hsquizbowl.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2438. now that I think about it, doing it that way with 16 teams would only take 6-7 rounds (depending on how the finals turn out/if the winning bracket team loses to the lowest losing bracket team near the end). doing that with with 7 prelims would still leave you with a packet to spare. also, teams would still play a lot of rounds if they decide to stay for a consolation match (for instance, a 6th place game after round 4, which would involve 3 teams so they would have two rounds to play). and you could still always do a 16-team single elim. consolation bracket for 17-32, like we do at GSAC, but that depends on how many moderators are staying long enough. also, do you think it's possible that we could see swiss pairing at states?

Re: RESULTS

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 5:13 pm
by jbarnes112358
StPickrell wrote:
I was pleased by the number of first-time tournament attendees.
I was also glad to see some newcomers to the circuit. It was also good to see Midlothian back in action. One big question I kept hearing: Where was Charlottesville?

Mr. Pickrell, I think you are doing a good job pumping up interest in Quizbowl in VA, especially in the western parts of the state (defined as anything west of Charlottesville.) The expansion of TV competition is also helping. Although TV formats have their limitations, TV does help spread interest in academic competition, which can only serve to improve the general level of competition in the long run. Look how the level of competition in NoVA/DC/MD has developed. "It's Academic" has no doubt contributed to this.

Speaking of television, I hope the day comes when NAQT/PACE style competition makes its way to national TV (ESPN2, The Learning Channel, or the like). Heck, if we can have the Spelling Bee, MathCounts, and Poker on national TV, why not quality quizbowl? The kind of competitive drama we witnessed in the finals at UVA on Saturday would be more interesting than 95% of the reality TV junk so common these days. It has to be much more interesting than watching some middle-aged guy sliding a big rock across ice with other guys with brooms trying to adjust for a bad shot.

Someone should send out invitations to some television producers to scout out nationals this year.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:13 pm
by Concluding Unscientific Post-It Note
Matt Morrison wrote: for instance, I don't believe our A team matches up well with State College and RM, but yesterday they beat TJ, who can pretty much beat all of them.
that sounds a bit premature - i believe state college has yet to face gov A (or tj) this year.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:42 pm
by Lapego1
I believe Matt was just working off a syllogism of sorts as TJ beat RM and RM had beaten State College previously. However, RM has equally beaten TJ and been beaten by State College. Factoring in DCC's defeat of TJ (I think) and Gov this past weekend, as well as TJ's defeat of Gov, and Gov's later defeat of TJ and DCC, I think Notjustolddeadwhiteguys is correct in his statements including these teams, along with the always strong Raleigh Charter, as some of the best east coasters in the nation all very capable of taking the nationals title in June.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:10 pm
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
^^Haha thats a fairly accurate representation of how complicated things are this year. By the way, for what it's worth, back at TJ in January the B team basically had to carry the torch for A after they lost in the first round of the playoffs, and while carrying this torch, we lost to State College in the semifinals. I guess I was factoring in that game when making my comments, even tho it was just the same as the current B team minus Lydia plus Will from A.

By the way, on the note of tha Doc's comments, my dad has said he might :phone: this Richmond Times-Dispatch reporter he knows, Mike Martz (no relation to the Greatest Show on Turf), to write some story covering our team if it manages to win VHSL States this weekend, so hopefully that'll be some extra incentive for them. Also, there's some producer or another he knows who works for the public broadcasting stations here in Richmond and in Charlottesville who might be able to cover our performance at one of the national tournaments this year, but thats pretty iffy. At least we could get an article written for us if we win one of them, and thats an improvement :grin:

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:27 pm
by jbarnes112358
Matt is just being silly. Trying to rank the aforementioned teams at this point is futile. Any of these teams is capable of beating any other in any given match. Of all of said teams, I believe Gov A still has the most to prove. Sure, they had a good run on Sat.; but, they did lose to DCC and TJ. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the only significant tournament they have won in two years. Only time will tell if this is a turning point for them, or just a flash in the pan.

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:31 pm
by bigtrain
petite wrote:that sounds a bit premature - i believe state college has yet to face gov A (or tj) this year.
Which is precisely why State College must come to our tournament on the 18th! :wink:

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2006 1:38 am
by MamaFlanagan
In answer to Dr. Barnes' question, I wanted to be there, but our (Charlottesville's) #2 player was at a Harvard debate tournament and its coach was sunning on the beaches of FL. Faced with three weekends in February already booked, the team as a whole decided to forgo the tournament, perhaps a sign of senioritis. Oh well, see you on Saturday!