RESULTS: TJ Invit. Acad. Tourn. (1/13/07) @ TJHSST (NoVA)

BuzzerZen · Post by **BuzzerZen** » Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:04 am

I'm happy to announce the 2007 Jefferson Invitational Academic Tournament, to take place on January 13, 2007 at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. The questions will be house written tossup-related bonus untimed. Each team is guaranteed 5 preliminary rounds. We usually draw a diverse and highly competitive field.

Registration fees are as follows:
$50 first team
$45 additional teams
-$5 for each working buzzer system
$20 for a copy of the question set

To register, or for further information, contact Tournament Director Evan Silberman (yours truly) at buzzinearly <at sign> gmail <period> com.

btressler · Post by **btressler** » Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:52 am

Has a start time been picked for this yet? It would help me get our bus.

BuzzerZen · Post by **BuzzerZen** » Sat Dec 30, 2006 7:01 pm

With a couple weeks to go, the field for the JIAT is 1/3 full, but there's still plenty of time to register, so shoot me an e-mail if you want to come.

Registration will take place from 8-9am, with the rules meeting starting as soon as possible after 9am.

Field:
Collegiate x3
Fairfax x2
Gonzaga
State College x2
Wilmington Charter x6 (hardcore, yo)
Woodson x2

BuzzerZen · Post by **BuzzerZen** » Sun Jan 07, 2007 12:25 pm

Field update!

* Centennial Ã— 2
* Collegiate
* Edison
* Fairfax Ã— 2
* Gonzaga
* Maggie Walker Ã— 4
* Oakton
* Robinson Ã— 3
* State College Ã— 2
* Whitman Ã— 2
* Wilmington Charter Ã— 6
* Woodson Ã— 2

Still plenty of room and time to sign up. buzzinearly <at> gmail <dot> com to register

Lapego1 · Post by **Lapego1** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 7:36 pm

When do you estimate that stats will be posted?

BuzzerZen · Post by **BuzzerZen** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:34 pm

Sunday afternoon.

BuzzerZen · Post by **BuzzerZen** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:49 pm

Statistics are up:
Odd bracket
Even bracket

And the results:
1- Maggie Walker A
2- Raleigh Charter A
3- Richard Montgomery A
4- Wilmington Charter A
5- State College A
6- Gonzaga
7- Whitman A
8- Richard Montgomery B

The SQBS files appear to be missing some data, but team records and points per game, minimally, are all correct. Thanks to all the teams who attended.

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:49 pm

For those who may be wondering how Collegiate, a qualifier for PACE and NAQT nationals, could go winless: This was not their usual team. In fact, it was a group of freshmen at their first tournament.

Also, the stats may indicate a slight imbalance between the even amd odd brackets, but I would not call it overly imbalanced. Besides, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain the proper balance until after the fact. It is also hard to compare the two brackets because the questions were different.

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Wed Jan 24, 2007 7:56 pm

One more observation: Perhaps the odd bracket was the "weaker" of the two. But the fact remains that 3 of the top 4 finishers were from that bracket.

Byko · Post by **Byko** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 11:58 am

jbarnes112358 wrote:For those who may be wondering how Collegiate, a qualifier for PACE and NAQT nationals, could go winless: This was not their usual team. In fact, it was a group of freshmen at their first tournament.

Also, the stats may indicate a slight imbalance between the even amd odd brackets, but I would not call it overly imbalanced. Besides, it is sometimes difficult to ascertain the proper balance until after the fact. It is also hard to compare the two brackets because the questions were different.

So it was really more of a Collegiate B team than an A team at this tournament, I suppose? That's definitely useful information for me as I'm making comparisons among teams as we get closer to nationals.

From my view, I would agree with you that the brackets really weren't unbalanced. Granted, I wasn't at the tournament, but looking at the results I've collected throughout the season and the matchups from this tournament, I'd commend TJ on a job well done with a very challenging field.

Also, for everyone out there still sleeping on Wilmington Charter, don't. I'm looking forward to seeing them at Walter Johnson's tournament next month, and I figure they're definitely a championship contender.

btressler · Post by **btressler** » Thu Jan 25, 2007 7:27 pm

Byko wrote:Also, for everyone out there still sleeping on Wilmington Charter, don't. I'm looking forward to seeing them at Walter Johnson's tournament next month, and I figure they're definitely a championship contender.

Stop the press. The group that shows up at WJ will not be the full team, and the A team will not be at full strength.

But your vote of confidence is appreciated.

Byko · Post by **Byko** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:10 am

Stat74 wrote:
Byko wrote:Also, for everyone out there still sleeping on Wilmington Charter, don't. I'm looking forward to seeing them at Walter Johnson's tournament next month, and I figure they're definitely a championship contender.
Stop the press. The group that shows up at WJ will not be the full team, and the A team will not be at full strength.

But your vote of confidence is appreciated.

Ah, okay. Still, I at least would like to make sure people are paying attention to you guys.

By the way, good luck to you all this weekend at NAQT Delaware, though my rankings appear to indicate that that won't be necessary. <shameless plug>Still though, the top 4 teams from this weekend automatically qualify for the PACE NSC</shameless plug>, so I'll be interested in seeing full results afterwards.

Magister Ludi · Post by **Magister Ludi** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:46 pm

I felt the brackets were uneven because we played Gov in the second round and we never even had the chance to play either of the Charters. Raleigh Charter coasted into the finals avoiding the best teams until they were crushed in the finals by Maggie Walker (the only real power house they faced in the playoffs.)
Please don't take this as criiticism of the tournament. I felt the tournament was one of the best I've ever attended, but I'm just saying I think it is foolish to say that the Charters and Gov balanced out Gonzaga, SC, and Maggie Walker.

rchschem · Post by **rchschem** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:56 pm

Magister Ludi wrote:I felt the brackets were uneven because we played Gov in the second round and we never even had the chance to play either of the Charters. Raleigh Charter coasted into the finals avoiding the best teams until they were crushed in the finals by Maggie Walker (the only real power house they faced in the playoffs.)
Please don't take this as criiticism of the tournament. I felt the tournament was one of the best I've ever attended, but I'm just saying I think it is foolish to say that the Charters and Gov balanced out Gonzaga, SC, and Maggie Walker.

Not that you're resentful or anything.

Eric

Post by **DumbJaques** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:23 pm

Magister Ludi wrote:
I felt the brackets were uneven because we played Gov in the second round and we never even had the chance to play either of the Charters. Raleigh Charter coasted into the finals avoiding the best teams until they were crushed in the finals by Maggie Walker (the only real power house they faced in the playoffs.)
Please don't take this as criiticism of the tournament. I felt the tournament was one of the best I've ever attended, but I'm just saying I think it is foolish to say that the Charters and Gov balanced out Gonzaga, SC, and Maggie Walker.

Not that you're resentful or anything.

Eric

I don't think weighing in when like 10 other people were discussing the balance of the two brackets counts as resentful (why 10 people are discussing it is another matter, but a much more depressing one, so I'll ignore it). He certainly wasn't offering a negative opinion of your team (unless you disagree with his factual observations, and believe that you guys didn't avoid the best teams, or that "crushed" isn't an appropriate term, in which case you should have said so instead of just calling him resentful). Even if it was a resentful post or had some kind of tone or something, he was still more offering opinions on comparisons between team strength, something everyone else has done, and certainly wasn't ad hominem or immaterial to the discussion, so it probably didn't warrant those things in a reply.

Note: This is not an endorsement of Ted's opinions of teams, I haven't seen like any of those teams play.

Magister Ludi · Post by **Magister Ludi** » Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:33 pm

I regret putting my opinions in that last post in such an abrasive tone. That was uncalled for and frankly was rude, and I want to apologize for that. Please judge that comment on the validity (or lack there of) of the ideas in it.
Thanks,
Ted Gioia

rchschem · Post by **rchschem** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 11:04 am

DumbJaques wrote:
He certainly wasn't offering a negative opinion of your team (unless you disagree with his factual observations, and believe that you guys didn't avoid the best teams, or that "crushed" isn't an appropriate term, in which case you should have said so instead of just calling him resentful).

I stand by my comments, and fully reserve the right to think that someone who says things like "crushed...by the only powerhouse team they played" or "avoiding the best teams" is making an ad hominem attack. Yes, we got spanked by a VERY GOOD Gov A. Yes, we didn't have to play SC, RM, or many other good teams. Is that our fault? Is that the bracket's fault? Maybe some teams had better days than usual and some had worse, and that's how we managed to "avoid" those good teams, Chris.

It's not impossible to criticize a format while not making it seem like one team or another was given a gift from God or perhaps was in collusion with the TD to get a greased bracket. I respect Ted for recognizing the inadvertent jabs.

Note:...I haven't seen like any of those teams play.

Exactly.

Eric

Post by **DumbJaques** » Sat Jan 27, 2007 12:55 pm

You seem to have missed my point (which, considering some of the negative things implied about your team, I understand). My point was hardly that he was right, and after further thinking about it, he probably was using an abrasive tone and, had I been you, I might very well have posted about it. But just calling him resentful doesn't really present your arguments in the way you just did, which is what I was addressing in my post. Also, nobody was blaming your team for avoiding certain teams. . . the point of the post was to discuss seeding and ranking or whatever. Ted made a post that sounded a lot more insulting, I'm sure, than was intended, but I was objecting only to the fact that essentially saying "you're only saying that because you guys lost" is damaging to the entire discussion (as, probably, are these subsequent posts between us, but that's my fault). I made it clear that I didn't share Ted's opinions and, having not seen your team play, I have no way of knowing if that was the case, or if the "good" teams avoided being knocked out of the playoffs by you. I wasn't trying to take away from your achievement, so whatever "maybe" happened is sort of immaterial to the purpose of my post. I assure you, I have the utmost respect for your program and your personal ability, for reasons that I would imagine are obvious. If it sounded like I was backing up claims that your team wasn't as good as a second place finish would indicate, I apologize, but I thought I tried to make it clear I had no way gauge anything like that.