I like the idea. Of course, I made the original motion that GA go to that new system.

I can say that if this was allowed in Alabama, then Brindlee Mountain A would be a MUCH stronger team. However, Brindlee Mountain B would suffer terribly. I wish this was the case for the NSC and HSNCT, though. It would make my job a whole lot easier, as I have five really strong players.charlieDfromNKC wrote:Call me old fashioned, but I don't understand 5 player teams.
Why did they decide this?
There are 10-player Judges, dude. They are, in fact, exceedingly common.jrbarry wrote:We've done some informal surveying and almost everyone in GA has 10-player buzzer sets. (Fortunately, very few Judges!)
I think he was trying to say he didn't like Judges rather than Judges don't have ten buzzers.ImmaculateDeception wrote:There are 10-player Judges, dude. They are, in fact, exceedingly common.jrbarry wrote:We've done some informal surveying and almost everyone in GA has 10-player buzzer sets. (Fortunately, very few Judges!)
MaS
I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not.ReinsteinD wrote: To me, the advantage is that it makes it easier for a team with depth to defeat a team with one superstar.
aestheteboy wrote:I'm not sure if that is a good thing or not.ReinsteinD wrote: To me, the advantage is that it makes it easier for a team with depth to defeat a team with one superstar.
Teams with depth becoming strong, of course, means small teams becoming comparatively weaker. Perhaps this is only natural. However, it also means that it becomes increasingly difficult for non-magnet/non-private schools to compete with magnet/private schools.
Again, not to be contrarian, but my experience has beenthe opposite. I think players can motivate their teammates to improve, and this is even moreso the case on teams that have tasted a little success, and have acore of talent that needs just a little refining.There's often little you can do to motivate your teammates,
I'll agree with you on the last sentence, but why should a good player be handicapped due to having weaker teammates/teammates that don't care? (I'm assuming s/he's not like the guy on One Tree Hill that proclaims he'll make it to state with three blind guys and a cripple for teammates. Those players can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and I count myself as having treaded in that territory during my immature days.)Tegan wrote:I'm in favor of considering anything that checks one player teams vs. deep teams, provided that it does not compromise the integrity of the match. I find it sad when I see one great player ringing in surrounded by four Eddie Gaedels.
I should probably qualify myself a little.StPickrell wrote:I'll agree with you on the last sentence, but why should a good player be handicapped due to having weaker teammates/teammates that don't care? (I'm assuming s/he's not like the guy on One Tree Hill that proclaims he'll make it to state with three blind guys and a cripple for teammates. Those players can leave a bad taste in the mouth, and I count myself as having treaded in that territory during my immature days.)
OMG if we allow 2 players on quizbowl teams then maybe someday that'll lead to 3...maybe even 4! Where does it stop? When entire cities face off? The reds have won my friends...Gonzagapuma1 wrote:My only problem with this is if 5 why not 6? It seems to me that there should be a line somewhere and with this ruling I don't know where that line is.
On a more serious note though, I think the fact that most buzzer systems accommodate 10 players or less is the limiting factor.Gonzagapuma1 wrote:My only problem with this is if 5 why not 6? It seems to me that there should be a line somewhere and with this ruling I don't know where that line is.