2007 HSNCT Field is Full

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
User avatar
swwFCqb
Rikku
Posts: 490
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 7:30 pm
Location: Lancaster, Ohio

Post by swwFCqb »

DumbJaques wrote:Yeah, I mean, there are certainly dozens of teams that registered ahead of Wayzata C that are much worse than Wayzata C, and there are probably a lot of unregistered teams that are much better. It's not really fair to be pissed at Wayzata. I think it's more a problem of the way registration is set up. A lot of schools don't know their financial situations in December, so it's difficult to make that kind of commitment. I don't know what the solution is, perhaps it lies in a more rigours selection process, but I'd ask everyone not to come down on whatever school ended up getting that mystical team number 3. Besides, there are like, 200 teams in the tournament, and you're upset about this particular one taking "your" ("somebody else's") spot? Come on.
You took my comment the wrong way. I am not resentful of Wayzata or pissed at them at all. If they qualified under the current set-up, then they should by all-means do everything they can to get in. I just feel that the current standards for acceptance into this tournament should be reworked somehow. Don't ask me how, because I don't have any specific ideas. I just think that NAQT possibly needs to be more selective, seeing as it's popularity is growing, as evidenced by the amount of teams wanting to get in.

Also, you have to take into account the level of competition at these tournaments. There are many teams on this list, I'm sure, which qualified at little rinky-dinky tournaments which could have been won by any half decent team. In no way am I mocking or making fun of Wayzata C, but in their tournament they probably didn't face too many Top 20 nationally ranked teams. However, what about the teams in the Virginia/DC area who constantly have to face TJ and all the other great teams in that area? I'm sure there are teams down there which could have easily qualified at many other NAQT tournaments around the country, but are not able to do so because of the high level of competition in that area. Therefore, concessions should be made based on the level of competition at these tournaments. I don't know personally how we could do this, and it would be an imperfect system, no doubt, but it would be a good step at making sure that the HSNCT has all of the best teams in the country represented.

iambusyeating wrote:swwFCqb wrote:
cornfused wrote:
Wayzata High School (x3)
A C-team is now in.


This is wrong. There should not be one school with 3 teams in when there are a lot of other schools waiting to get just 1 in.


I disagree. If Wayzata C is good enough to compete with schools on a national level, then let them come. Last year Maggie Walker C went 5-5. If they were better than half the teams at the tournament, than they certainly deserved to go.
To be fair, you're talking about Maggie Walker. This Wayzata team could be really good, and I'm sure they are, seeing as they got 3 teams in, but they probably aren't as good as Maggie Walker, TJ, RM, or the other national powerhouses. Of course, now that I said that, I wouldn't be surprised if they made a run and make me look like a total idiot :grin:
Steven Wellstead
Fisher Catholic High School '07
Case Western Reserve University '11
NAQT writer
User avatar
Stained Diviner
Auron
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Post by Stained Diviner »

Here are some numbers to go by. These numbers are incomplete--they do not include the tournament Wayzata qualified three teams at because statistics were incomplete, and this is only morning qualifier rounds. (Their 3rd team got in from TOMCAT.)

February 24 SAVANT (A Set): Wayzata A 5-1, 21.60; Wayzata D 4-2, 11.58; Wayzata B 3-3, 14.38; Wayzata C 3-3, 9.55

December 9 Gopher (Regular NAQT Set): Wayzata A 6-0, 18.12; Wayzata B 3-3, 6.65; Wayzata C 3-3, 6.42

October 28 SOCIAL (A Set): Wayzata A 5-1, 20.12; Wayzata B 3-3, 12.42

When you compare that with Maine South, which was 6-1, 16.63 this weekend on a regular set against strong competition and is now going on the waiting list, the numbers don't add up. The weakest team at the tournament Maine South was at had over 8 PPTH.

I don't blame Wayzata for following the rules, and I have nothing against strong C Teams. (My team lost to TJ C two years ago and finished the day with the 12 seed out of 96 teams.) It is problematic, however, when a national tournament fills up before its qualifiers are over, especially when they have a good wildcard system for handling too few qualifying teams. This is the second time in a row that NAQT has miscalculated, and it leads to a field that is weaker than it should be.

Hopefully, NAQT is just being cautious, and many of the strong teams now going on their waiting list will get a chance to play at HSNCT. If that's what ends up happening, then there is no problem.
Mitu
Lulu
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Plymouth, MN

Post by Mitu »

ReinsteinD,
Thank you for the statistics from those Saturday tournaments, although I do believe those present our teams in a slightly unfair light as the three tournaments you chose to present had either teams that were missing key players or played with incomplete teams.
At SOCIAL, Wayzata B was playing without our 4th main player.
At GINVIT (Gopher), we were down three key players (Noah, Carsten, Denise) on B team and thus had to use substitutes from our lower teams).
However, I have no response for the B team's performance at SAVANT, other than to say it wasnt a good tournament for them.
I would instead ask you to perhaps look at the Thursday league statistics (http://naqt.com/mqba/league/2006/2006%2 ... dings.html), which are a fair gauge of our team's ability when most are in attendance, or I could post statistics from SnowCAT, which was one of the tournaments where our teams were at least close to their Nationals configuration.
Am I saying that Wayzata C could beat Maine South? No, but I think that holds true for some of the other teams that have already registered for Nationals. I dont see a difference between Wayzata bringing three teams out of which the lower teams will lose to Maine South as opposed to School X bringing their A team which will lose as well.
User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1087
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Post by vcuEvan »

While any team that qualifies should be allowed in, I think teams should think very hard before they send a team that's going to be pure cannon fodder. Scoring 6 PPB on a regular set does not bode well for any team at the HSNCT. I'm not saying Wayzata C will do this, but going 0-10 might not be any fun anyways.
User avatar
The Toad to Wigan Pier
Tidus
Posts: 528
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:58 pm
Location: Seattle

Post by The Toad to Wigan Pier »

iambusyeating wrote:While any team that qualifies should be allowed in, I think teams should think very hard before they send a team that's going to be pure cannon fodder. Scoring 6 PPB on a regular set does not bode well for any team at the HSNCT. I'm not saying Wayzata C will do this, but going 0-10 might not be any fun anyways.
At the tournament where that number was pulled, Gopher, Wayzata C had 12.86 p/b. The 6.42 refers to ppth.
User avatar
Stained Diviner
Auron
Posts: 4891
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Post by Stained Diviner »

I should have been clearer--all the numbers were PPTH. I used all the numbers that I could find using the MQBA website. Because PPTH depends on the opposition faced and I didn't get the numbers for Wayzata C on their best day, the numbers are imperfect measures.

My school just missed qualifying two teams, and if we did I have some students that told me they wanted to be cannon fodder at nationals. Also, Wayzata C cannot choose their replacement--it's quite possible that if they dropped out they would be replaced by the next team off the list, which could be worse than them and could be some other school's C Team.
User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5646
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) »

I don't know what would be more conducive to having a really strong national competition: Just letting anybody who qualified no matter how weak they are go, as long as they registered first, or holding off and trying to piece through the teams that are obviously top notch and try to let them come first because it will mean stronger competition. Hmm, I don't know.

Seriously, TOMCAT? That shouldn't be a qualifier. Speed check is useful, but not national level. I counted through the list and there are something like 15 teams we've placed ahead of tournaments registered, some that we've beaten head on. Some of those teams do really deserve a spot (New Trier, for example), and then some were miles behind and are going to do poorly and move the level of competition down (Edmond Memorial. I'm sorry for saying it, but I think their results at Vandy and head on against us really suggest that).
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White
User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

Nitpicky request: could you post the links or link-up the URL's to the stats for these tournaments you refer to?
Emil Thomas Chuck, Ph.D.
Founder, PACE
Facebook junkie and unofficial advisor to aspiring health professionals in quiz bowl
---
Pimping Green Tea Ginger Ale (Canada Dry)
Mitu
Lulu
Posts: 76
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: Plymouth, MN

Post by Mitu »

The link to the Thursday NAQT based league I was referring to is in my earlier post. The SnowCAT tournament is not posted online, but I could email you a copy of the stats if you wish. All other stats are at: http://www.naqt.com/mqba
Mitu Ramgopal
Wayzata '08
User avatar
aestheteboy
Tidus
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:07 pm

Post by aestheteboy »

It's doubtless that some teams on the wait list is far superior than some teams already in . . . but that's irrelelvant.
If anything, blame NAQT for their severe lack of foresight. I really hope the situation would have improved by next year.
e_steinhauser
Lulu
Posts: 55
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 3:59 pm
Location: Magnolia, AR

Post by e_steinhauser »

aestheteboy wrote:It's doubtless that some teams on the wait list is far superior than some teams already in . . . but that's irrelelvant.
If anything, blame NAQT for their severe lack of foresight. I really hope the situation would have improved by next year.
Seriously, what would you have them do? They already expanded an already-huge field due to the demand. Like Matt said, if teams feel they're getting shafted by the inclusion of B and C teams in the HSNCT field, there are some pretty simple things they can do to remedy that.

Expecting NAQT to go through some in-depth selection process so as to ensure the most competitive field possible is pretty silly, particularly given the number of comments on another thread complaining about recent IS quality levels. If I were a HS player/coach, I sure know which areas I'd prefer the NAQT braintrust to be working on ...
--eps
User avatar
BuzzerZen
Auron
Posts: 1517
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2004 11:01 pm
Location: Arlington, VA/Hampshire College

Post by BuzzerZen »

In a communication I had with Hentzel a while ago, he said it was probable that the qualification system will be reworked to some degree next year. They do recognize that the system did not work out in an entirely satisfactory fashion this year, so I expect they will come up with something.
Evan Silberman
Hampshire College 07F

How are you actually reading one of my posts?
User avatar
Maxwell Sniffingwell
Auron
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by Maxwell Sniffingwell »

Also - Maine South is currently #5 on the standby list, behind a C-team and three B-teams.

Since the standby list doesn't require qualification... shouldn't some precedence be given to those teams that have already qualified (Maine South, Malvern) over those teams that are simply B- or C-teams accompanying their A-teams to nationals? It bothers me that Malvern and Maine South may not get to play because, say, Eden Prairie C took their spots.

And yes, I am ranting.
User avatar
aestheteboy
Tidus
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat May 13, 2006 5:07 pm

Post by aestheteboy »

e_steinhauser wrote: Seriously, what would you have them do? . . .
Expecting NAQT to go through some in-depth selection process so as to ensure the most competitive field possible is pretty silly. . .
I was thinking of making the automatic qualification much more difficult and leaving the rest of spots to Wild Card qualification. I thought comparing, for example, 15s/TUH and PPB would be relatively reliable and easy. This would also be fairer to teams that participate in tournaments with tougher competition.
Honestly, I don't think there exist 144 teams in the nation that both can and deserve to go to HSNCT.
User avatar
mentalchocolate
Wakka
Posts: 119
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 10:06 pm
Location: the thermosphere

Post by mentalchocolate »

aestheteboy wrote:
e_steinhauser wrote: Seriously, what would you have them do? . . .
Expecting NAQT to go through some in-depth selection process so as to ensure the most competitive field possible is pretty silly. . .
I was thinking of making the automatic qualification much more difficult and leaving the rest of spots to Wild Card qualification. I thought comparing, for example, 15s/TUH and PPB would be relatively reliable and easy. This would also be fairer to teams that participate in tournaments with tougher competition.
Honestly, I don't think there exist 144 teams in the nation that both can and deserve to go to HSNCT.
PPB should work pretty well, but I don't believe 15s/TUH would be quite accurate. When playing weaker opponents, many teams play more conservatively and go for the sure 10 instead of a 15. I'm not saying all teams do this, but it is a pretty common strategy, which could definitely skew the numbers.
User avatar
Lapego1
Tidus
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Richmond, VA/Philadelphia, PA

Post by Lapego1 »

I still maintain that PPB, though indicative of a team's strength, does not tell you much about how it would do on a tossup-bonus format. Now, odds are if a team is consistently getting 23-25 PPB, it's probably going to be getting a lot of tossups. However, I don't like the fact that a team can get one question an entire tournament, 30 the bonus, and be eligible to compete at nationals. That's not what tossup-bonus format is about; really, it's about getting the tossups. A 10PPB team could be 1st seed above a 20PPB team if the former rakes in the tossups. And, head to head, the 10PPB team would win by virtue of being able to get the tossups. 15s/TUH is not that accurate either because caution is important. Ideally, NAQT should create a formula where it weights the level of competition at a tournament and then maybe something like PPTH. There's really no set statistic that'll tell you how a team from California will do against a team from New York head-to-head, so I don't see any real resolution to the issue. All we can really do is put up with the qualification procedures that NAQT outlines and acknowledge that these apply to everyone, powerhouse or not.
User avatar
Matthew D
Yuna
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Scenic Grant Alabama

Post by Matthew D »

aestheteboy wrote: Honestly, I don't think there exist 144 teams in the nation that both can and deserve to go to HSNCT.
Wow, I hate to say this but how in Hades would you even make a statement like that without seeing every team in the nation play? While you might not judge a team worthy, they must have done something right to be were they are now, in that pool of 144. Just curious, how many teams do you think are deserving of going to HSNCT?
User avatar
Matthew D
Yuna
Posts: 919
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Scenic Grant Alabama

Post by Matthew D »

I honestly don't ever see one team getting 1 question correct and all the bonus, then making it to HSNCT but if it did happen, then I agree with you that they should not be there and if I were the coach, I wouldn't be taking my bunch up there to get their behinds kicked.
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

While getting reliable statistics is a nice idea, it is impossible to implement. And while we do get a lot of scores from states like Minnesota, Illinois, Virginia, etc., less reported states do have good-to-great and sometimes awesome talent, Lakeside being the foremost example I could think of. Not all areas report statistics like others do.

And not all areas play the game the same. West Virginia typically doesn't use power marks, timed matches or bonuses, preferring to use 25 tossups and a worksheet round. How would this be measured? You can't force teams to play a format, especially if it's just so your numbers compute easier. And yes, strength of opponents would be a useful metric, but schools can shuffle their split of members across A/B/C/K teams at will. A Wayzata C loss doesn't always mean the same thing. This is where inspiration for rankings from places like athletics are not useful - sure, an athlete can miss a game due to injury or be put on the bench instead of keeping a starting spot, but athletic teams have set rosters. In quiz bowl, you could easily have a kid slide from your A team to your C team. There are a bunch of other variations that would prevent reliable rankings to be produced which I could think of if I wished to spend the time.

Sure, it'd be nice if we could have some kind of mathematical formula to determine just how great a team is or if they are deserving of a shot at a national championship. But unless I'm proven significantly incorrect, these things are as unlikely to happen as a national organization representing a unanimous (or virtually unanimous) viewpoint and stronghold in quiz bowl or other 'great on paper, impossible in practice' ideas that have been proposed in the past.
NoahMinkCHS
Yuna
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Athens, GA / Macon, GA

Post by NoahMinkCHS »

leftsaidfred wrote:You can't force teams to play a format, especially if it's just so your numbers compute easier.
Actually you can, like NAQT (rightly, IMHO) does for their college sectionals to qualify for nationals. Of course, that would be pretty unpopular for high schools in a lot of places and would probably draw a similar number of teams as SCT does, but from a much larger pool (in other words, not nearly as successful as SCT). So I would be surprised to see that done in high school anytime soon.... but you could do it, and if NAQT continues to grow and becomes the de facto "good quizbowl" standard in virtually everywhere it expands to... well, the "State Qualifier" system might end up being the primary (and possibly only) way to get in. Especially with all the complaints on a pretty much annual basis, such a system might -- if done correctly -- be the fairest way to go. But good luck explaining that massive break with tradition to high school coaches, who might revolt to PACE (or NAC or some new tournament).
And yes, strength of opponents would be a useful metric, but schools can shuffle their split of members across A/B/C/K teams at will. A Wayzata C loss doesn't always mean the same thing.
Not to argue against that, as it's a very valid point, but NAQT attempts to prevent too much of that by insisting (last time I checked) that B and C teams only qualify if 2 or 3 teams ALL qualify at one event. Granted, at some tournaments where there's little competition a good team could split its best players three ways to qualify 3 teams that may not all be good with their standard rosters. But there's at least an attempt to prevent that; perhaps there's some way to beef that up.

Lastly, I think it's unfortunate that Wayzata is mixed up in all this by virtue of being first C team to get in. If TJ or Dorman or somebody got a C team in, I bet there'd be a lot less hand-wringing though the same problems would still exist. (Relative merits of those teams aside, theoretical objections to C teams shouldn't change.) Nonetheless, this is still an important discussion that should progress, but I hope Wayzata won't take -- and others won't mean -- it personally.
User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw »

The 15% rule also makes it tougher for some areas to qualify teams. This may surprise some of you who are used to tournaments with like 100 teams, but out here we are lucky to get 24 teams to a tournament (we usually end up with some difficult number like 17). That means that California schools (since I think the LA/OC/SD and Bay Area circuits have roughly the same field sizes) qualify at most 3-4 schools per tournament, while other tournaments in other places may qualify 8 or more. If every school that qualifies between October and December immediately accepts a bid, there'd be very little room for anyone else. Does that mean that we're going to see regions moving their tournaments even earlier to allow their regions to have as many qualified teams reserve spots as possible?

Typically, of the six/seven NAQT events here, UCLA runs in October, Caltech in October/November, UCI in November, USC in December, random high school in March/April, state champs in March/April, and another one or two "wild cards", at least one in May. I think this is a reasonable schedule considering the circuit is dependent on colleges to run their tournaments (thus essentially eliminating February dates). What I don't want to see is one of those spring tournaments moved up to fall in order to have the teams that could have qualified in spring qualify in fall instead to qualify before they run out of spots.
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

NoahMinkCHS wrote:
leftsaidfred wrote:You can't force teams to play a format, especially if it's just so your numbers compute easier.
But good luck explaining that massive break with tradition to high school coaches, who might revolt to PACE (or NAC or some new tournament).
Yeah, NAQT could, but they should not. They'd end up just shooting themselves in the foot. Using a system similar to the collegiate qualification system would accomplish the goal of establishing a statistical base from which teams can be compared. Unfortunately, coaches would get irate for various reasons (inability to choose the format, only one chance to qualify, inconvenient distance, players might have other obligations on that one particular day, and so forth) and this would end up wounding NAQT's popularity.

Also, just to clarify: I wouldn't be opposed to this change, as I like the NAQT format. However, if a coach does not like this format, I believe they would be less pleased with this particular turn of events.
NoahMinkCHS wrote:
And yes, strength of opponents would be a useful metric, but schools can shuffle their split of members across A/B/C/K teams at will. A Wayzata C loss doesn't always mean the same thing.
Not to argue against that, as it's a very valid point, but NAQT attempts to prevent too much of that by insisting (last time I checked) that B and C teams only qualify if 2 or 3 teams ALL qualify at one event. Granted, at some tournaments where there's little competition a good team could split its best players three ways to qualify 3 teams that may not all be good with their standard rosters. But there's at least an attempt to prevent that; perhaps there's some way to beef that up.
I was aiming that sentence at the suggestion of using stats from the entire season as a way to judge teams. The current NAQT rule is probably about the best way to try and prevent an 'abuse' by teams from the same school without completely revamping the qualification process.
Nonetheless, this is still an important discussion that should progress, but I hope Wayzata won't take -- and others won't mean -- it personally.
Exactly. Wayzata has followed the rules established by NAQT for qualification to nationals; there's no reason to be angry at Wayzata. If Wayzata had kidnapped, oh, Thomas Jefferson's team and took their spot, anger would be justified. But NAQT has rules, they followed them, and here we are. If you're nonplussed, aim that at NAQT's rules.
If every school that qualifies between October and December immediately accepts a bid, there'd be very little room for anyone else. Does that mean that we're going to see regions moving their tournaments even earlier to allow their regions to have as many qualified teams reserve spots as possible?
I have a feeling this will be addressed by NAQT this year. I don't know if they'll decide to expand the size of their field and join NAC in following the WrestleMania 2 plan of hosting; revise the standards of qualification so that 15% is no longer the standard; require the keeping of certain statistics by hosts in an attempt to give out bids based upon performances or something else. But I believe that we will see a change in the qualification guidelines prior to next year's tournament.
User avatar
rchschem
Yuna
Posts: 779
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:36 am
Location: Durham, NC

Post by rchschem »

cvdwightw wrote:Does that mean that we're going to see regions moving their tournaments even earlier to allow their regions to have as many qualified teams reserve spots as possible?
Maybe not regional tournaments, but certainly other NAQT qualifying events. In NC, we don't have any NAQT events before March, which this year led to Raleigh Charter being wait-listed. Certainly, we could have applied for an at-large bid earlier in the year, but it's tough to build an at-large case before January, especially with half of our schedule in the spring. Normally we have gone to TJ's fall tournament but couldn't this year. We plan to try to add an NAQT event in the fall now in NC just to give any school that might be good enough here a chance to qualify.

Eric
Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

leftsaidfred wrote:I have a feeling this will be addressed by NAQT this year. I don't know if they'll decide to expand the size of their field and join NAC in following the WrestleMania 2 plan of hosting; revise the standards of qualification so that 15% is no longer the standard; require the keeping of certain statistics by hosts in an attempt to give out bids based upon performances or something else. But I believe that we will see a change in the qualification guidelines prior to next year's tournament.
One of my biggest problems with NAQT's qualification process is that the top small school, even if they are the ONLY small school, in the field automatically gets in. So literally, I have seen records of teams that go 0-7 at a local tournament but, by being the only small school in attendance, get qualified for HSNCT. A team like that might even go, and you can guess where that team ends up finishing.
Dave Bykowski
Furman '00
Michigan '02
PACE 1998-2009
Director, JROTC National Academic Bowl Championship
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

Byko wrote:One of my biggest problems with NAQT's qualification process is that the top small school, even if they are the ONLY small school, in the field automatically gets in. So literally, I have seen records of teams that go 0-7 at a local tournament but, by being the only small school in attendance, get qualified for HSNCT. A team like that might even go, and you can guess where that team ends up finishing.
I'll admit when I first read this post I was straight up shocked that such a terrible rule would be used by a respected national championship host in 2007. But I check the qualification page ( http://naqt.com/hsnct/qualification.html ) and cannot find this clause. Any help on pointing this out?
Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

leftsaidfred wrote:
Byko wrote:One of my biggest problems with NAQT's qualification process is that the top small school, even if they are the ONLY small school, in the field automatically gets in. So literally, I have seen records of teams that go 0-7 at a local tournament but, by being the only small school in attendance, get qualified for HSNCT. A team like that might even go, and you can guess where that team ends up finishing.
I'll admit when I first read this post I was straight up shocked that such a terrible rule would be used by a respected national championship host in 2007. But I check the qualification page ( http://naqt.com/hsnct/qualification.html ) and cannot find this clause. Any help on pointing this out?
Well, I don't see it there either, but R has certainly allowed it. Check the results here:

http://www.naqt.com/mqba/social/2006/results.html
Dave Bykowski
Furman '00
Michigan '02
PACE 1998-2009
Director, JROTC National Academic Bowl Championship
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
User avatar
quizbowllee
Auron
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2004 2:12 am
Location: Alabama

Post by quizbowllee »

Byko wrote:
leftsaidfred wrote:
Byko wrote:One of my biggest problems with NAQT's qualification process is that the top small school, even if they are the ONLY small school, in the field automatically gets in. So literally, I have seen records of teams that go 0-7 at a local tournament but, by being the only small school in attendance, get qualified for HSNCT. A team like that might even go, and you can guess where that team ends up finishing.
I'll admit when I first read this post I was straight up shocked that such a terrible rule would be used by a respected national championship host in 2007. But I check the qualification page ( http://naqt.com/hsnct/qualification.html ) and cannot find this clause. Any help on pointing this out?
Well, I don't see it there either, but R has certainly allowed it. Check the results here:

http://www.naqt.com/mqba/social/2006/results.html
Wow... Just... wow. Coming from a coach of a Small School-eligible team, that seems sort of crazy.
yangsta
Wakka
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by yangsta »

"If a tournament divides its field into divisions based on school size that don't compete against each other, then each division will be considered a separate tournament for the sake of qualification. If 10 "class A" schools and 10 "class B" schools attend, then two (10 x (15%) = 1.5, rounds to 2) class A schools and two class B schools will qualify for the HS NCT."

So if there was only one school and it competed against other schools, it should not qualify. The exception, I believe, is if it's a "state championship with rules and questions similar to those of NAQT."
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

Right, it should not qualify. But since the school in question qualified according to R. Robert Hentzel... well, I'd say they qualified.
yangsta
Wakka
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by yangsta »

leftsaidfred wrote:Right, it should not qualify. But since the school in question qualified according to R. Robert Hentzel... well, I'd say they qualified.
Fortunately the school in question is not listed in the field or on the waitlist; however, somebody should probably talk to R. about it....
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

Guess I'll just have to check my e-mail!
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

From my e-mail box:
Fred --

Yes. NAQT's policy is that the top small school (by its definition)
at every tournament using its questions qualifies for the HSNCT.

Thanks for checking if you had questions about our policies!

R.
mlaird
Tidus
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 10:07 am

Post by mlaird »

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
yangsta
Wakka
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by yangsta »

mlaird wrote:whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
I concur. Cite web site?
jdd2007
Lulu
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:44 pm

Post by jdd2007 »

from http://naqt.com/hs/small-school.html

"The top small school at any event that uses NAQT questions automaticaly qualifies for that year's national championship."
yangsta
Wakka
Posts: 140
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:02 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by yangsta »

jdd2007 wrote:from http://naqt.com/hs/small-school.html

"The top small school at any event that uses NAQT questions automaticaly qualifies for that year's national championship."
Is it just me, or did NAQT change the website in the past couple of days?

Edit: confirmed.

Old page (as of Mar 26, 2007 01:25:50 GMT).

(I also made a PDF in case Google crawls over the page again.)

New page as of now has added:
Being the top small school (by NAQT's definition) at any event that uses NAQT questions (unless it is hosted in Missouri) and which doesn't divide its field into divisions based on school size.
User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15635
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

Actually, that was addressed and added due to an oversight that it was not listed in the rules prior to last week. I e-mailed R. back and questioned what that was listed. His response was it should be listed under the qualification section and has since been added.

My contribution to quiz bowl society: the listing of the small school rule for HSNCT. You're welcome.
MLWMathStar
Lulu
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:53 pm

Post by MLWMathStar »

If quiz bowl had a Nobel Prize, you'd win it for sure after that.
Palmer Mebane
Maggie Walker A Team
User avatar
Sir Thopas
Auron
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:10 pm
Location: Hunter, NYC

Post by Sir Thopas »

NAQT has now expanded the field further to 152. This is going to be enormous.
brownboy79
Rikku
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:22 pm

Post by brownboy79 »

Enormous=Baller.
User avatar
Maxwell Sniffingwell
Auron
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by Maxwell Sniffingwell »

And in that 8-team expansion, Arcadia got in... twice?

Cmon, folks, let's just make it an even 180.
User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants »

Next year they should just have satellite tournaments of up to 128 in say, St. Louis and D.C. (with just one day of 10 prelim rounds, 12 if byes are needed), and have the top 48 from each advance to a much more manageable 96 team field in Chicago. This way good wild cards like Shanghai American could still make it, and NAQT could accomodate all automatic qualifiers that register for probably the next 5 years at least. I hope they don't go to the alternative of having a smaller qualification percentage, as that might decrease tournament field numbers that are already a lot lower, at least from my perspective (in the mid-atlantic this is because there are so many more tossup/bonus tournaments than there were say 4 years ago). Decreasing the percentage might discourage the mid-majors, shall we say, even though they probably have little chance of qualifying in the first place.
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu
NoahMinkCHS
Yuna
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Athens, GA / Macon, GA

Post by NoahMinkCHS »

Matt Morrison wrote:Next year they should just have satellite tournaments of up to 128 in say, St. Louis and D.C. (with just one day of 10 prelim rounds, 12 if byes are needed), and have the top 48 from each advance to a much more manageable 96 team field in Chicago.
I like the satellite tournament idea in theory, and it's worked well for NAC. But how are you gonna get these 96 teams to Chicago? NAC only brings in two teams (regional winners), at its own expense. So, either NAQT pays plane fare to Chicago x 96 (no way in hell), or you ask the teams to pay their own way, which might work for some schools, but many teams break the budget on one trip; I'd venture that for 90%+ teams, traveling to DC and Chicago (for example) would be impossible, and among the group that could do both, most would have to sacrifice significantly (like forgetting about PACE -- certainly not a positive move). Not gonna happen.

They could follow the NAC model, but that has flaws of its own (like when half the final four comes from one site -- I was a beneficiary of that but it's no less wrong) as well as associated costs NAQT may or may not be able to bear (such as flying game officials to two sites, finding two weekends worth of officials, logistics of hotels, writing more questions OR fighting an unwinnable security battle, etc.). But I think that may be where things are inevitably headed, barring a long battle over qualification formats.
User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants »

Yeah I guess travel would be a big problem. They could do it like this instead maybe: 8 satellite tournaments of up to 32 (still 256 teams) sometime in May, all on the same weekend, and divide up the country so that teams in a certain state are allowed to go to only one or two different sites, so they don't try to work the system by going to a supposedly easier one. Then say that all 6-4 teams make it, which normally will yield 96 teams, but this can vary by a little bit, so if it ends up under 96, they could allow international teams (especially from beyond North America) in to get to 96. Good overseas teams might still get shafted though when all 96 spots get filled, so maybe one day the Asian Championship that never happened could become one of the regional sites (this would hurt team in the states but I mean with 96 all the "good" teams should be there anyway).

In order to make staffing less of an issue, NAQT could have the regional sites at colleges and have them supply at least half the staffers, with at least some people from NAQT at each site (and allow teams to bring staff for discounts too maybe). They could change the sites to give different college teams a boost, and to reflect the strength of different regions of the country (for instance, there would be a higher concentration of regional tournaments near the East Coast most years). To be fair to Canadian teams they'd have to have at least one site in either Michigan or New York every year.
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu
User avatar
dtaylor4
Auron
Posts: 3733
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 am

Post by dtaylor4 »

A problem with the idea of using colleges as satellite locations is that in May, most people a) are taking finals or b) have already taken them and are on break, so staffing would be an issue, as some of us are unable to stay on campus during break.
User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8425
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

The satellite idea seems as unnecessary as it is unworkable and unaffordable. We already have tournaments hosted by colleges which send the top finishers to the HSNCT--they are the regular tournaments and state championships run on NAQT sets which are hosted throughout the year.

I think the obvious thing to do is continue having the tournament on Memorial Day weekend and have half the field play prelims on Saturday, and half on Sunday, with the playoffs bringing the best of each group together on Monday. That's sort of how Chip does things at each site, though NAQT would be able to modify it to give teams 10 matches in one day instead of 6 matches in three or four. It would also behoove them to write enough packets to avoid having to re-use questions, which I think is more feasible than it sounds since two days of ~80 teams each means that byes could be eliminated--so the current 12 or 14 preliminary rounds would expand only to 20 rounds, not 24-28.

I don't know if NAQT is considering this approach or is just going to cap the field in the mid-100s again and try to revise the qualification system somehow so there is less interest in attending, but it seems like those would be the two realistic choices.
User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants »

Matt Weiner wrote:have half the field play prelims on Saturday, and half on Sunday
On second thought this is a much better idea, forgot about the existence of Memorial Day. The only drawback to this is teams would have to make plans to stay for Monday, when they might be knocked out after Saturday. Since people are talking about playing games on Friday night now, perhaps they could start games for the first group on Friday and somehow try to finish the whole thing Sunday.
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu
NoahMinkCHS
Yuna
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Athens, GA / Macon, GA

Post by NoahMinkCHS »

I wouldn't complain about an unexpected day off in Chicago, other than that it meant my team got eliminated early. But it would be a solid consolation prize.
User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8425
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

NoahMinkCHS wrote:I wouldn't complain about an unexpected day off in Chicago, other than that it meant my team got eliminated early. But it would be a solid consolation prize.
It could also alleviate the staffing situation a little--staff on the day you're not playing, get $50 off your entry fee, or something.
Locked