Page 2 of 2

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:41 pm
by dschafer
SwissBoy wrote:
MLWMathStar wrote:Time was not the thing preventing 10 rounds. Logistics, as in available moderators, was the problem.

Even so, the card system would have a lot of advantages.
That seems surprising. At least on paper, TJ's team had more than enough members to moderate and scorekeep rounds for 48 teams. Especially since w/ a card system, fewer tabulators would be required. Especially if extra moderators came, there should be more than enough people to run the tournament.
I can't speak for anything past '05-'06 TJ tournaments, but I know in those years, we never came close to having enough members to reasonably staff 24 rooms at once. Every room either requires a reader who can read quickly and clearly and scorekeep at the same time, or two staff, one to read and one to scorekeep. When you consider that you want one or two people running the tournament in the war room (plus potentially someone in there being trained to run the tournament), you are looking at having at least 40 staff, each of whom can either read quickly and clearly, scorekeep quickly and accurately, or both. That's a lot of staff.

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:53 pm
by kpillai
Thanks Dan.

Also, the fact is that we didn't really have that many returning members coming to help us Saturday, so that in order to staff all the rooms and keep the 51-team tournament running we had to train and assign a group of volunteers (that was smaller than we'd hoped) within a few days (and by few days I mean the day of the tournament.), and all this with a brand new TD and no one from previous years that had any experience running tournaments around. Major props to Jacob for being able to put it all together with only about a week and a half. I know there were plenty of issues with the pairing system, but I'm sure we can work those out before our house-written tourney.

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:59 pm
by jbarnes112358
Stat74 wrote: Here's another plea to allow me to label the teams with something other than letters at tournaments. (see this example)
For teams that are close in ability, I see no problem with using another team-naming approach. From the TD's point of view, though, he or she needs to be able to balance brackets.

It is sometimes difficult to predict how teams will do relative to each other, especially with newer players early in the year. With wacky pairings and the ususal variabilty inherent in NAQT packets, the unpredictability is only exacerbated.

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:39 pm
by The Atom Strikes!
kpillai wrote:Thanks Dan.

Also, the fact is that we didn't really have that many returning members coming to help us Saturday, so that in order to staff all the rooms and keep the 51-team tournament running we had to train and assign a group of volunteers (that was smaller than we'd hoped) within a few days (and by few days I mean the day of the tournament.), and all this with a brand new TD
I apologize. I thought that you could (theoretically) have all 61 teammembers aboard to help with your tournament. I didn't know that many of them didn't want to help

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:41 pm
by STPickrell
SwissBoy wrote:I apologize. I thought that you could (theoretically) have all 61 teammembers aboard to help with your tournament. I didn't know that many of them didn't want to help
I suspect 15-20 of that number are there to bolster their college resumes.

Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:32 pm
by The Atom Strikes!
STPickrell wrote:
SwissBoy wrote:I apologize. I thought that you could (theoretically) have all 61 teammembers aboard to help with your tournament. I didn't know that many of them didn't want to help
I suspect 15-20 of that number are there to bolster their college resumes.
Ah. Kind of like our school's Model UN club.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:22 am
by btressler
DumbJaques wrote:Playoff scores?
Here are the ones that I have. If others contribute, I'll add them to this post. (These could be off by a little. When the moderator says something close in the playoffs, I tend not to quibble when it doesn't change the winner.)

Round of 16:
Whitman A over Maret
Charter A 730, Charter F 35
Stuyvesant A over Walter Johnson
State College A over Woodson
RM B 380 over Collegiate 185
Hunter over St Anne's Belfield
Maggie Walker A 340, Georgetown Day A 250
RM A over St Stephens St Agnes A


Quarters:
Charter A 490, Whitman A 255
Stuyvesant over State College
Hunter 225 over RM B 165
RM A 345 over Maggie Walker A 185

Semis:
Stuyvesant 410, Charter A 315
RM A 435, Hunter 345
Maggie Walker 435 over RM B 230 (consolation)
State College over Whitman? (consolation)

Final:
RM A 415 over Stuyvesant 325

3rd place match:
Charter A 575, Hunter 160

5th place match:
Maggie Walker 385 over State College 275

7th place match:
Whitman over RM B

EDIT: scores added

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:13 pm
by Sir Thopas
Other semis: RM A 435, Hunter 355

I'll post my other playoff scores when I get home.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:48 pm
by dyetman89
Stat74 wrote:Round of 16: Charter A 730, Charter F 35
That's insane.

Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:29 pm
by ieppler
Round of 16:
GDS A 250, MLW Gov A 340 (or something like that, it was a 90 point game in that range. Feel free to correct me if you know something different.)

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:16 pm
by Dachspmg
dyetman89 wrote:
Stat74 wrote:Round of 16: Charter A 730, Charter F 35
That's insane.
Yeah...I read for that round...pretty wild stuff. I liked how with all of the confusion in that room we still managed to come out with a reasonable result.

Also, it must be nice to have an F Team - or any lower team from the same school - who doesn't almost thrash you, like ours do. :p

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:22 pm
by The Atom Strikes!
Dachspmg wrote:
dyetman89 wrote:
Stat74 wrote:Round of 16: Charter A 730, Charter F 35
That's insane.
Yeah...I read for that round...pretty wild stuff. I liked how with all of the confusion in that room we still managed to come out with a reasonable result.

Also, it must be nice to have an F Team - or any lower team from the same school - who doesn't almost thrash you, like ours do. :p
Sadly, despite our team's large roster, we haven't had enough really good players to form lower teams solid enough to take on A. However, in the 2005-2006 school year, B was pretty good, and actually beat the A team, along with a few solid wins against Gonzaga, TJ, and Moravian. Sadly, however, we no longer have that kind of bench depth, unlike TJ's current team. But many of the young Padawans seem like they could grow up to become Jedi Masters.

Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:27 pm
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
SwissBoy wrote:But many of the young Padawans seem like they could grow up to become Jedi Masters.
This sort of thing should never happen.

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 3:21 pm
by bigmac
Some of RM's playoff results (now that I found them):

RMA

Final vs. Stuy: 415 - 325 (this is what I had; we checked the score with one left and did not settle whatever disagreement was there because it would not affect the outcome) Incidentally, Stuy is better than last year because they are no longer a one person team, regardless of what the prelim stats may have suggested.

Semi vs. Hunter: 435 - 345 Another serious contender. They do not seem to get the number of powers that other teams do (2 in this game, I believe), but rack up lots of points by buzzing in the middle of the questions.

Quarters vs. Gov: 355- 180 Gov is better than people think . . . and they will be much better by the spring.

I did not watch RM A's first round, I think they had in the high 400s.

RMB:
Round of 16 vs. Collegiate: 380 - 185
Quarters vs. Hunter: a loss, 165- 225

Most readers were clear and knowledgeable. We also appreciated the chance to scrimmage during the off rounds. It would be a good thing if scrimmaging other teams could become more common in the off rounds. As long as excellent teams make the drive, they should have the chance to face off, if only in a casual, not-for-real kind of way.

TJ always has good competition. Stuy, Wilmington, and Hunter looked especially strong among the teams we played. We did not have the chance to see Whitman, though they crushed our B team in the later consolation rounds.

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:17 am
by First Chairman

Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:22 pm
by jbarnes112358
Maggie Walker's playoff scores I have for the record.

MW A 340 GDS A 250
MW A 180 RM A 345
MW A 435 RM B 230
MW A 385 SC A 275

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 11:29 am
by btressler
Scores added.

David Bykowski will thank you.

Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:01 pm
by Byko
Stat74 wrote:Scores added.

David Bykowski will thank you.
Yes, in the next couple of days, I will. I'm almost caught up on tournaments that I've received--I probably will be by the end of this weekend.