Page 1 of 1
NC/NCATA All-State Discussion & General NCATA Discussion
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:02 pm
This topic was split from the Red and White Bowl thread in the Regular Season Tournaments forum. If this is not the best place for this thread, feel free to push it somewhere else. Most State-based discussions occur in Comparisons, but those usually don't involve policy questions that this thread has moved to. It doesn't really fit in Regular Seasion Discussion either, which is why I dumped it here.
The last two posts in that topic are the antecedents for this discussion, but they still connect more logically with Red and White Bowl. I quote them here:
rchschem wrote:P.S. I am officially calling out Cary Academy. If you have a player pulling down 100+ ppg on NAQT sets, you need to get out and play at more tournaments! You beat or held your own against good teams on Saturday--nice job.
They got to more stuff this year than they did in the past. I wonder what year in school Nick Tarleton is - that kid is solid.
ProsperoSMS wrote:I asked Nick after a round I read why they weren't at NCOAST, and he said he'd never heard of it. We've got to keep the lines of communication going to get teams like that at more tournaments.
I only thought we saw CA at RTO & Red & White this year, and they should have attended far more. They were completing a break when we had Belles, but I want to see them there in the future.
--Patrick King, 4/5/2007
I suppose as interim? dictator for NCATA, it probably should be said that for consideration for the all-state team, we should require a minimum participation level with individual stats recorded for a minimum number of events. I think that way it would behoove certain programs to remain in touch with NCATA.
As such it would be a shame not to include Nick in any conversations for an all-state team, but there is no consistent record of participation to lean upon for such a nomination compared to others who have been participating throughout the year.
At least half of the NCATA-scheduled events if at all possible... unless that's too much to ask.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:06 pm
I do think we should set some rules, but we should have done this at the start of the year, I'd say. How many total events did we end up with this year, so we can establish a future number? I'd also throw in the hosting of events as being something to remember, as Eric and Drake both hosted twice (three times for Eric, counting NCOAST).
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:58 pm
By my count, ten:
Tar Heel Cup
Duke Celebrity Shoot
Raider Academic Challenge
Right Triangle Open
Cary competed at Red/White, RTO?, and No Buzzer. Five is a perfectly reasonable minimum number, in my opinion. If we can make all eight of these tournaments (that we didn't host) traveling an average of two hours for each one, making five should be a walk in the park for Triangle-area teams.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:18 pm
Well, obviously I can't make the rule stick for this year's selection. Then again, no one really nominated Nick in the first place to be considered.
At any rate, we can make it clearer for next year.
Also, out-of-state competitions... I can have them count for the "minimum number" as well, provided that individual stats are kept.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:23 pm
Well, I know I didn't think about Nick to nominate him, because I sent my suggestions in before he blew up at Red & White. And if we aren't nominating someone, it's going to be because we aren't seeing enough of him or her. I do think there are some who will attend less but still get mentions, but that's the effect of appearing in limited matches.
Perhaps this summer we could come up with some "rules" for selection, although I think a holistic response should still be the majority decider.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:24 pm
So, um, when are we going to find out who made it?
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:25 pm
After I get the spreadsheet from Patrick and a dart board to break ties. :)
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:46 pm
Harumph. NCOAST was announced at the RTO, on this board, and in NCATA emails. I blame everyone else.
I agree about the half the schedule thing. I also agree that reputable out of state tournaments that keep stats should be counted.
So we're not counting the TrASH? :)
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 3:52 pm
I admit I was a bit annoyed with what I saw as a dismissive tone from Nick when I asked him about NCOAST. His "never heard of it" seemed to suggest it was not something he was concerned about. I figured CA had gotten direct invitations for RTO and R&W, so that got them there, but they aren't as involved with the listserv or message board. Then again, I have no real idea what conflict they might have had.
Half the schedule is about all we managed this year, unfortunately (that's four we competed in and one we hosted), plus TrASH. I hope next year's calendar is kinder to us (every other tournament hit some break, or some event requiring SGA, or something that didn't work to balance with a small, extra-active student population).
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:11 pm
Let's try to coordinate more in the off-season. The RCHS school calendar is on the web if anyone wants to look at it.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:23 pm
Ditto; the CCS calendar is on the school website (cabarrus.k12.nc.us).
Eric, are you planning to stay with November and March for TrASH and RTO next year?
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:26 pm
Well, our calendar is available, but our problem was tournaments going later on the schedule (like NBB and even R&W), or doubled up dates (like Robinson vs. Science Olympiad). Our RTO team was cut to two with SAT wiping out juniors and SMS assignments swamping my sophomores).
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:31 pm
We'd like to stay with the same months. It's going to be that much harder to write all those questions with half of our team graduating.
I will pay attention to testing dates this year. I blew it last year. I also won't wait until January to pick the RTO date.
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:35 pm
October 20 is a pretty firm date for Speedway Shootout. I'm going to procrastinate on the Robinson Invitational date because I am determined to avoid conflicts with Science Olympiad (I'm 0-for-2).
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:09 pm
I speak in no way whatsoever for Carolina Academic Team, but after looking at our football schedule I'm going to say that October 27 is looking like a likely date for the Tar Heel Cup. 10/6, 10/13, and 11/03 are home games, 10/20 is Robinson, and anything earlier or later is sort of iffy.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 12:03 am
So many posts...so many different responses:
rchschem wrote:Individual stats, at least as far as Raleigh Charter is concerned, are squirrely. Philip is the only player with the same number I recorded. Kevin had dead on 50ppg in the prelims by my accounting. He did have 9 negs, so if that's the top number, he did earn it.
It's entirely possible. I have to say though that as I was handling the scoresheets during the day, the scoresheets were fairly consistent within matches (usually the biggest problem was that there was an incorrect running total, causing me to change the final score). Most of Kevin's number look reasonable except for the first game against Fort Mill. Jeff had a pretty big game that round, but his numbers also look reasonable. There's a lot of variation on these scoresheets, so unfortunately the stats aren't always precise. If I get really bored some day, I'll run the scoresheets through a feeder scanner and dump them online.
etchuck wrote:[W]e should require a minimum participation level with individual stats recorded for a minimum number of events. I think that way it would behoove certain programs to remain in touch with NCATA. (...) At least half of the NCATA-scheduled events if at all possible... unless that's too much to ask.
To be quite honest, while this is really a policy discussion for '07-'08, I think a specific number is unreasonable. The primary point of recognizing an All-State team is for the students, not the coaches or administrators. And many students do not have control over what competitions they go to. We also have to realize that not every student can come every weekend either. There are several serious (okay, virtually locks) who have been "spotty" under this kind of rule, and might not even make this minimum requirement. But I can guarantee you that I will see this/these person/people on that all-state list given their performances this year.
Instead of a specific requirement, a better idea is an ad-hoc analysis based on the statistics. At the lower end of the spectrum, I do believe that there is a critical mass to the number of tournaments that a player needs to attend to get a feel for that player. But the fewer tournaments a player attends, the less margin of error there is. As a player attends more tournaments, there will be more variance, and more tolerance therefore.
A minimum requirement also hurts teams that do not attend stat-bearing competitions (and there are still many that don't keep stats). There are out-of-State tournaments that don't keep stats. I think that the emphasis on the process should rather be on keeping the process equitable for players. In the end, their performances are what determines who shows up on that all-state team.
Would it be to good to use this to entice more teams to come to tournaments? Yes, and one of the ways you do it is by telling them that the more tournaments their students go to, the more they increase their chances for consideration. To set an arbitrary level that may not be consistent with reality (and I would have to do a team frequency table to see what "reality" is), I think might be a mistake.
I am of the opinion that it actually is
possible for a player to even produce an individual performance that is so truly overwhelming and convincing that is obvious that such a player should be selected. In fact I have an example
in mind. I am not of the opinion that anyone satisfies this kind of situation this year however.
DrakeRQB wrote:By my count, ten
I also keep a count (slightly different from your's). It's located here
. It also has most of this year's stats too!
etchuck wrote:After I get the spreadsheet from Patrick and a dart board to break ties. :)
As I have mentioned to several people already, Patrick will be working on the final stats shortly, but it won't start until Thursday afternoon at the earliest (that or Friday). He's still recovering from his four minute presentation and getting killed by the architecture & microprocessors test.
I am still missing stats from No Buzzer Bowl (have emailed Seth McElvaney), part of RTO (it appears like a couple of rounds), and all of NCOAST. Whatever I have this weekend will be the basis of whatever coallation I send out, but I'd like to get those in there.
rchschem wrote:Let's try to coordinate more in the off-season. The RCHS school calendar is on the web if anyone wants to look at it.
For 2005-2006, I made an online calendar that contained a bunch of the dates that would most likely conflict with each other. If that would be helpful, I can start in on something like that (although I may wait a few weeks for things to get less busy).
rchschem wrote:Harumph. NCOAST was announced at the RTO, on this board, and in NCATA emails. I blame everyone else.
(Not to pick on you Eric, but you keep saying interesting things for me to comment on). I think these places are good places to start, but they don't replace getting on the ground level at other tournaments and pushing out the information person-to-person. It also doesn't hurt to snail mail (and that's how a great variety of our teams showed up to Red and White Bowl).
One of the ideas (now defunct) that I came up with in my freshman year ('03-'04) was to try to make a periodic newsletter that I would distribute at tournaments with tournament announcements and results. I dropped the idea because it was a lot of work for me, and I wasn't sure how helpful it was. But maybe with a little better distribution, and a little more work, it might be worth considering a revival for next year (of course, I have no idea if I'll be around here next year, but that's another story).
I think the attendance at NCOAST had more to do with the lateness of the announced date which affected how much you could get teams out to it. Knowing what I know with how many behind-the-scenes details had to be cleared up, it's a miracle it got announced when it did. But obviously getting an earlier date and site--and as one person has mentioned to me--a more public process for that determination (although once again, I fully understand the difficulties with this year's edition). This of course is a more extended discussion.
This is an excellent discussion and starting point for what needs to be worked on. I may decide (in the 169 hours/week of free time I must certainly
have) to rearrange this thread and ship it off to the Comparison forum (since it is beginning to depart the original point of the thread).
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:22 am
1. The difference in stats is likely the fact that in EVERY ROUND John Hanna would introduce himself as Kevin and then recant. Most likely this stayed in place in the first round. This was confirmed when Kevin was announced as the neg king, which was entirely consistent with their stats switching. In any case, I'm not worried about it.
2. I was joking about blaming everyone else. I clearly did not publicize it well after taking it on. I know this is the case because one day while working on the RTO questions, I realized that NCOAST was only a month away. I dropped the ball and didn't send out my usual mail barrage. This included ignoring most of the Wake schools this year, which was in part laziness and in part the fact that none would come anyway. Sigh.
3. I still think there should be a minimum number. One n for a stat performance is more likely to hurt a player than help. I don't think that any school is hurt by this in that there is some economic or other factor beyond their control about making a certain number; meaning, I don't think we're treating any school unfairly by doing this.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:44 am
Anticipating that this discussion will get split off into Discussion... (which if Patrick won't do by end of day, I will.)
I do think a minimum number of events or matches would be nice at least to have a critical amount of data to do comparisons for the specific purpose of being considered for all-star consideration. I'm not asking for all teams to play a minimum number of games. But just as one does not consider a batting champion in baseball unless one has a minimum number of legitimate at-bats, I think it would be fair for me as arbiter of these all-state awards to do the same thing.
Seriously, what does it say about a program if all they do is one competition a year, and their advisor doesn't take the effort to know that there are at least 10+ events for their teams? It does take students to play the game, but the faculty and administration also contribute to the success of that program, whether we're talking quiz bowl or football. The all-state commendations are honors for the student shared with the team, the advisors, and the administration who support them.
Did Cary Academy know that PACE NSC was at NCSSM last year? You bet they did because I tried contacting their advisor about it. They obviously didn't come, and obviously the thought of competing more consistently throughout the year has not dawned on the advisor or administration as yet.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:44 am
I agree with our setting a minimum number--the only question I raised was doing it now. If we are setting it for future years, are we thinking in terms of a percentage? Obviously, the only problem is the rather variable number of competitions we manage to hold in NC in a given year. We have been up in recent years, thankfully, and I hope that holds.
I know Saint Mary's has not had as good of attendance as I would have liked this year (fall break was Tar Heel Cup, Thanksgiving break was Raider, spring break was Red & White, plus issues with other requirements on our students that blocked the likes of NBB & Robinson Invitational), and we even pushed to get to what we did (including scrambling to get the ones we had for Speedway, having to sub a player Saturday morning for the decidedly non-NCATA Brain Game because of a strep infection for the planned member, and even taking only two to RTO). I will hold that Nancy should be all-state, no question about my player. Besides hosting Belles, we made five of the events on Patrick's list (four on Drake's). One of those was HSCS, where she was third on the test and fourth after the shootout. The other four were buzzer-based competitions. On the three academic ones--Speedway, RTO, NCOAST--she was number one, and on the fourth--TrASH, which is far from her specialty--she was still fifth. All of that said, if we set the mark for, say 6 or 7 events, then so be it. Will I feel Nancy was as good as the ones who do make it? Of course. Will she be miffed at being held out? Definitely, and probably ticked with some teammates who withdrew from the likes of the RI and NBB that could have let her seal the deal. But will I accept the decision? Also definitely--so long as we are consistent in the rule.
I am also in favor, as Drake suggested, of adding an All-Rookie/All-Underclass component, which might well become more holistic in its argument than statistical (since it's hard to sort those stats sometimes when younger players are dominated by older) and for a Player of the Year award (guess my candidate this year), which also might come down to the best case as opposed to always having the best stats.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:28 pm
rchschem wrote:2. I was joking about blaming everyone else. I clearly did not publicize it well after taking it on. I know this is the case because one day while working on the RTO questions, I realized that NCOAST was only a month away. I dropped the ball and didn't send out my usual mail barrage. This included ignoring most of the Wake schools this year, which was in part laziness and in part the fact that none would come anyway. Sigh.
Oh I know what you mean you wrote that; however, based on what you told me privately a few weeks ago about how crazy the organization of it was, I don't think you can really take all the blame either. Doing mailings after all is not trivial in nature, and luckily for me, the two times I have helped run a tournament, the TD has done that relatively thankless task.
I definitely see all of the different reasons for the setting the N for All-State at a certain level. I still don't quite agree with them, but my worldview is a little different than you all's, so I'm not all that surprised. I guess the question would be what N should be, which may be an interesting policy discussion. I will say though that I agree with the supposition that lower N will hurt the player more often than not (I would just personally argue that a player should be able rehabilitate the low N by a level of convincing performances on a sliding scale with N that makes it difficult for low N and easier for higher N...but this becomes a policy issue). When I get a chance, I'll see if I can put together some frequency tables for team attendance.
The rookie/all-underclassmen suggestions are definitely worth looking into. And as Hugh mentioned, they do have to be more holistic in nature. I'm not really sure what factors I would suggest to look into; my experience in this business is very limited. I guess something can be figured out.
ProsperoSMS wrote:...and for a Player of the Year award (guess my candidate this year)
Oh I'm sure I know who your
candidate is ;-). I suppose we'll find out in a few weeks whether she's the lucky winner.
I'm still not really sure where to split this thread to (maybe Regular Season Discussion). If Dr. Chuck doesn't beat me to it, and I don't fall asleep before the generous one-day Easter Holiday that NCSU gives, I'll start rearranging things tonight.
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 8:50 pm
The split I mentioned has been completed. See the note
at the beginning of this thread.