RM Fall Tournament (9/20/08)

[The Atom Strikes!]

Upon further counting, with 15 teams it seems to me you could easily run a tournament with 2 8 team prelim pools (one with a bye) that play round robin, and then have the top 6 teams play another round robin, and then a one game final if the top 2 teams have tied records, an advantaged 2-of-3 final if the top team is one win ahead of the 2nd team, or naming an outright winner if someone clears the field by 2 wins. That brings you to a 14 round tournament, with one packet to spare.

I endorse this plan.

[ieppler]

I'd strongly prefer to discuss this privately, but your proposed format does not accurately reflect what I suggested.

[Blackboard Monitor Vimes]

I'm just going off what Ian Eppler requested. If it's not the consensus view, we can change it. With so few teams, though, and so many of them strong ones, I think some kind of a round robin is best.

It looks like most of the strong teams would meet anyway with Dees' suggestion. Really, the problem with your original idea is that, in most tournaments, your top teams are going to finish in the top spots. Putting all the A Teams together and then also putting B and C teams into a play-off make that less likely. I understand not wanting to keep B and C teams from potentially doing well, but if they're good enough to warrant that, they should be good enough to play A teams in the prelims rather than having to wait for the play-offs. Just IMO; I'm notably bad with brackets.

[BuzzerZen]

It strikes me that the reason so many good programs bring B teams to these types of events would be to play against high quality A teams to improve, and that segregating them yet somehow making them eligible for the overall title seems contrary to the best interests (and logical running) of a tournament.

Yeah, balanced brackets are usually a good choice. Teams of new players should be playing some A teams and some other teams of new players. No need to turn every tournament into an exhibition event for the top teams. Also, there is likely to be at least one B team in this field that is better than at least one A team.

[segregold]

It was astonishingly stupid of me to post anything about brackets before they'd been finalized or I discussed them with my team. I assure you all that something will be found that satisfies everyone, then posted up here for you to dissect after Thursday.

I'm also issuing a final call for potential registees. We'd like to have a finalized list by tomorrow. That doesn't mean that you can't register between then and Saturday, but if you've been sitting on the sidelines thinking about whether to sign up or not, please make a decision now.

[aestheteboy]

Hey, I don't know, but I think it'd be a near consensus if I said that we'd rather play more rounds than be let out at 3:00. All of the teams that signed up are dedicated teams, and many are coming from far away. 8 rounds including the finals like last year's RotP would be rather unsatisfying.

[Blackboard Monitor Vimes]

Hey, I don't know, but I think it'd be a near consensus if I said that we'd rather play more rounds than be let out at 3:00. All of the teams that signed up are dedicated teams, and many are coming from far away. 8 rounds including the finals like last year's RotP would be rather unsatisfying.

As a member of one of the teams coming from far away, I agree with this statement. Our people who tend to like to leave ASAP have graduated or aren't coming.

[segregold]

Hey, I don't know, but I think it'd be a near consensus if I said that we'd rather play more rounds than be let out at 3:00. All of the teams that signed up are dedicated teams, and many are coming from far away. 8 rounds including the finals like last year's RotP would be rather unsatisfying.

I don't have a problem with having the tournament go an hour or two longer. We at RM just hate it when tournaments last until 8:00 because of poor organization, and hope to avoid that with you guys. I'll aim for as many rounds as seems reasonable.

[at your pleasure]

I like the double round-robin prelims too. hell, if we want to spend all day playing, why not have a giant, 16 team round robin for the prelims, and a small(teams with only 1-2 losses?) playoff?

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

You do know that NAQT only produces 15 packets per IS set, thus making your idea impossible, right?

[Matt Weiner]

16 teams is a great number to work with. You could easily do two brackets of eight followed by crossover play of top four and bottom four, giving everyone eleven games and leaving packets for a final if needed. Eleven seems more reasonable than fifteen in terms of the time, and better than seven for letting people play more. You would even have enough extra packets to play off ties instead of using stats.

[segregold]

16 teams is a great number to work with.

We actually have 17 now, Blair just registered. I like Matt's general idea, though; something around those lines is probably what will happen.

I just got the packets from NAQT, so this tournament is doubly-officially on and happening.

[closesesame]

I sent you an e-mail about this, Keith, but TJ will only be bringing two teams this weekend. Sorry.

[segregold]

Official final field (barring October surprises):

-TJ (2 teams)
-Whitman (1 team)
-WJ (1 team)
-GDS (3 teams)
-Gonzaga (2 teams)
-Blair (1 team)
-Kellenberg (3 teams)
-Gov (2 teams)
-Raleigh Charter (1 team)
-DCC (1 team)
-Ike

Bracketing:

Resident bracketologist Raj Chattopadhyay has come up with what I think is a unique system we're going to use for our tournament.

You'll start out divided into three brackets of six, which will play five rounds round-robin. Then the top twelve teams will be divided, with the evens going into Group 1 and the odds going into Group 2. The bottom six teams will be placed in a Group 3. After another five rounds round-robin, the top three teams from Group 1, the top three teams from Group 2, the top team from Group 3 and one Wild Card from Groups 1 or 2 (chosen based on record and points) will enter into regular playoffs. This will all be explained again and the brackets given with the packet we'll hand you at the start of the tournament.

The winning team should play 13 games, and no one should leave with fewer than 10. It does mean that we'll be going longer than planned; presumably until 4 or 5. To speed things up, we'll be doing timed games with 9-minute halves. Lunch will probably be in the middle of the second group of preliminaries.

Once again, registration is going to start at 8:00, and the first rounds will begin at 9. Teams that are late will forfeit their first game. Do not show up at 9:40 asking where your room is.

[Matt Weiner]

You'll start out divided into three brackets of six, which will play five rounds round-robin. Then the top twelve teams will be divided, with the evens going into Group 1 and the odds going into Group 2. The bottom six teams will be placed in a Group 3. After another five rounds round-robin, the top three teams from Group 1, the top three teams from Group 2, the top team from Group 3 and one Wild Card from Groups 1 or 2 (chosen based on record and points) will enter into regular playoffs. This will all be explained again and the brackets given with the packet we'll hand you at the start of the tournament.

I don't know where to begin explaining what is wrong with this...

[Ike]

As a participant, I hope this doesn't erupt into WoQ with this system with double brackets.

However I am pleased that a large number of games are guaranteed, whether or not how bizarre the qualifications for playoffs are.

edit: grammar

[Sir Thopas]

Resident bracketologist Raj Chattopadhyay has come up with what I think is a unique system we're going to use for our tournament.

OK, stop right there. As I'm sure you know, quizbowl has been going on for years and years, as have tournaments. As have tournaments with this number of teams. Do you really think that your solution is a solid one, when you could have asked anyone here (since everyone was willing to provide guidance), when it's never been used in recent memory? Please. The very fact that it's "unique" should have been a huge red flag.

I've been informed that, apparently, this system is almost identical to the one CBI regionals used in 2001. It was then rejected as being too ridiculous and unfair, upon outcry. BY CBI.

[jbarnes112358]

To speed things up, we'll be doing timed games with 18-minute halves.

Is this correct?

[segregold]

Do you really think that your solution is a solid one, when you could have asked anyone here (since everyone was willing to provide guidance), when it's never been used in recent memory? Please. The very fact that it's "unique" should have been a huge red flag.

I don't know where to begin explaining what is wrong with this...

Once again, thank you for your vitriol.

My initial reaction was likewise opposed- I wanted a straight two-bracket round-robin-, but Raj and the rest of my team managed to persuade me to their view. I think that it's an innovative system: it ensures that teams from the same school will not be playing each other until at least the second round (since they'll be spread out among the initial brackets), that the best teams will be playing each other as much as possible, and that everyone will be hearing a large number of packets. There may have been, and probably are, simpler ways of achieving this, but we'll see how it goes.

Is this correct?

It is not, I meant 9-minute halves and will change it presently. Sorry, I have a cold.

[Auks Ran Ova]

Do you really think that your solution is a solid one, when you could have asked anyone here (since everyone was willing to provide guidance), when it's never been used in recent memory? Please. The very fact that it's "unique" should have been a huge red flag.

I don't know where to begin explaining what is wrong with this...

Once again, thank you for your vitriol.

Dismissing criticism as "vitriol" does not change the validity of the criticism, dude. It just makes you look like you don't care about anyone else's opinion.

My initial reaction was likewise opposed- I wanted a straight two-bracket round-robin-, but Raj and the rest of my team managed to persuade me to their view. I think that it's an innovative system: it ensures that teams from the same school will not be playing each other until at least the second round (since they'll be spread out among the initial brackets), that the best teams will be playing each other as much as possible, and that everyone will be hearing a large number of packets. There may have been, and probably are, simpler ways of achieving this, but we'll see how it goes.

The two-bracket round robin system is in fact a much simpler way of ensuring that good teams play each other often and that everyone hears a large number of packets. That's why the vast majority of good tournaments run that way. Also, the system the way you have it now introduces a lot of wasted time spent rebracketing, which Richard Montgomery people of all people should recognize as a potential source of comically large delays.

Also, yeah, this format has been deemed "too crazy" by CBI. CBI!

[Auroni]

hey, how about scrapping this thing and not trying to be unique but going with the same model 95% of good tournaments follow? I don't see why competition at this level has to try inefficient gimmicks and why you would play timed halves anyway. you've been around long enough to know that reading packets to completion is good.

[AKKOLADE]

Do you really think that your solution is a solid one, when you could have asked anyone here (since everyone was willing to provide guidance), when it's never been used in recent memory? Please. The very fact that it's "unique" should have been a huge red flag.

I don't know where to begin explaining what is wrong with this...

Once again, thank you for your vitriol.

Hey,

This is going to serve as a board-wise warning, but you're the most recent person who's done it so, congratulations, you're my example.

If you make a decision publicly, and people say it's not a good one? That's not vitriol. When people say it's not a good one and bring up valid points of how it's flawed? That's particularly not vitriol.

Vitriol is "bitterly abusive feeling or expression." Nothing even approaching this has occurred yet. Vitriol would be, oh, "If this playoff format actually happens, I will bring a sack full of doorknobs with me to the tournament and I will use them." Maybe, "This format is a poster child for abortion." Yeah, those are vitriolic.

If you want to defend your format, do that; don't try to cry that you're a victim of big, bad Internet meanies. If you behaved in real life like you are in this thread, I can only assume that you would assume the fetal position upon someone mentioning a problem with what you're doing.

In conclusion, stop this straw man crap.

[closesesame]

Single-elimination playoffs with such a good field are usually the quickest way to ensure that every good team is eliminated from the tournament before the finals.

[aestheteboy]

I'm going to go ahead and agree that this seems pretty inefficient. I would prefer something different. However, it's probably within the host's discretion to choose weird formats, and I don't necessarily hate this either.

BTW, the grouping should be something other than even (2,4, . . . , 12) vs odd (1, 3, . . ., 11) since that's obviously unfair.

[btressler]

Honestly, this idea is not the end of the world.

To follow up Daichi, I believe when we had a semi-final at WoQ it was

Group X : 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 12
Group Y : 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11

Another idea that comes to mind is to not automatically exclude the bottom six after the first set of games and just rebracket with something like:

Group X: A1, B2, C3, A4, B5, C6
Group Y: B1, C2, A3, B4, C5, A6
Group Z: C1, A2, B3, C4, A5, B6

and then use all ten matches to form a quarterfinal. This has the (possible) disadvantage of having three 10-0 teams, instead of just two. And three 0-10 teams. I assume there would be some kind of lower bracket as well.

If you don't want what they suggest, please give them a format that you do want.

[Mechanical Beasts]

What's so wrong with having two brackets of nine teams and running an eight game round robin for prelims? Then for playoffs, teams are regrouped into sixes and each team plays three cross-bracket matches. Everyone plays eleven games; there are four packets left for tiebreakers and finals. There could be two undefeated teams after the prelims; there won't be after cross-bracketing.

The potential issue I see is that you cut off the playoff hopes of a decent part of the field, but I'm more willing to take a few more teams out of contention than usual after an eight game round robin than after a shorter one.

[btressler]

I think they were trying to avoid byes. But otherwise, nothing is wrong with this idea.

[Mechanical Beasts]

Yeah, that makes sense. I think bracketing chaos would take as much time as a NAQT packet, honestly, so I think this saves a little.

[Matt Weiner]

Honestly, this idea is not the end of the world.

It's somewhat ridiculous and bound to a pointless tradition to tack on a single-elim after bracketed playoffs, but the real problem is that this system presents an incentive to tank. It takes a team FROM THE CONSOLATION BRACKET and sticks that team in with the top 7 teams from the playoff bracket into the single-elim! I mean, what! You're better off losing your first five games and finishing 13th after the playoff bracket play, than you are finishing 8th. That's not how things are supposed to work.

The system Andy posted is the correct way to run an 18-team tournament. It gives every team 11 games in 12 rounds, as opposed to the system posted which takes 13 rounds to complete and will result in most teams only playing 10 games. It doesn't rely on nonsense like single-elimination, which may be necessary for enormous fields but is entirely out of place at an 18-team tournament. Most importantly, it does not feature statistics-based wild cards or the completely inexplicable "lucky loser" catapulted from the bottom bracket into the championship playoffs.

If certain people here who have run exactly 1 tournament ever (and that one poorly received) did not adopt a tone of "nobody has anything to teach me about any topic" in their posting, it would be much easier to communicate the above. But apparently, RM has their own ideas about whether or not quizbowl should be good.

[btressler]

but the real problem is that this system presents an incentive to tank. It takes a team FROM THE CONSOLATION BRACKET

Oops. Sorry. I missed that part. I didn't read carefully enough.

Yeah I remember a year that the CBI region for PA took the top team from the consolation bracket and let them into the semi-final. There was much griping, as I recall.

[AKKOLADE]

As there should be. It's a terrible system!

[Angry Babies in Love]

I don't think judgments should be made until this exact system is run by this group of people. Just because a similar system was used a few years ago and failed doesn't mean it'll fail here. It's just predictions that it will fail. And not because a system is "unique" or "revolutionary" does not mean that it is automatically terrible. We'll find out Saturday if it's a good system, not Friday.

[Blackboard Monitor Vimes]

I don't think judgments should be made until this exact system is run by this group of people. Just because a similar system was used a few years ago and failed doesn't mean it'll fail here. It's just predictions that it will fail. And not because a system is "unique" or "revolutionary" does not mean that it is automatically terrible. We'll find out Saturday if it's a good system, not Friday.

Because testing a format in such a way as to potentially keep a good team from qualifying for HSNCT here is totally a good idea. Just IMO. I don't understand why you guys are insisting on using a strange format that has failed in the past when several people have posted brackets that consistently work. If someone wrote me a bracket that was reasonable, I would use it. Again, just IMO.

[Angry Babies in Love]

It is the discretion of the TD, the coaches, and the organizers as to how they want to bracket, not anyone else. IT is RM's tournament, so it is up to RM how the brackets should be organized. Much time was spent working on the brackets, and it was deemed by the TD, coach, and the team as the best bracket system for a small tournament with a strong field. Keith was generous enough to let everyone see the brackets a few days ahead of time. He didn't put it out their to be changed and replaced.

[ClemsonQB]

Dude, you do realize that while the tournament maybe RM's, you're ultimate goal is to please the people attending so that they will come back again and continue to fund your quizbowl program, right? Even if what everyone attending has proposed was illogical, it would be to your benefit to go along with their ideas.

[Matt Weiner]

It is the discretion of the TD, the coaches, and the organizers as to how they want to bracket, not anyone else. IT is RM's tournament, so it is up to RM how the brackets should be organized. Much time was spent working on the brackets, and it was deemed by the TD, coach, and the team as the best bracket system for a small tournament with a strong field. Keith was generous enough to let everyone see the brackets a few days ahead of time. He didn't put it out their to be changed and replaced.

OK, here's the deal.

1) I don't know what you mean by whether the tournament is going to "fail." The tournament is going to be unfair, and use a system that takes more time to give teams less games. That doesn't need experimental verification, because it is what you have already promised to do. Perhaps the tournament is going to end at the promised time, have good questions, have competent readers, and so on. If your point is that tournaments which meet those conditions cannot "fail," then I agree. But, rather than debating a term you made up, I would like to emphasize that the format is unfair and absurd.

2) It is "up to their discretion" to the extent that nobody can send in cops with guns blazing to force them to change the format. This point is, I believe, not under dispute. However, the right to do what you want does not include the right to be immune from criticism, nor does it imply anything about whether your actions make sense.

3) The TD, coach, and team are incorrect. This format is not, in fact, the best bracket system. They have the right to their opinions, of course. But, their opinions are wrong.

4) Given the spotty legacy of recent RM tournaments, including cancellations, terrible questions, and now this formatting debacle, perhaps the almighty "Keith" should in fact put things out for criticism rather than make mountaintop pronouncements about how he has decided to run a bad tournament and anyone who wants a good tournament is just posting "vitriol."

5) The format is ridiculous, and that's the bottom line. No amount of Internet sniping is going to change that.

[Angry Babies in Love]

3) The TD, coach, and team are incorrect. This format is not, in fact, the best bracket system. They have the right to their opinions, of course. But, their opinions are wrong.

Yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, so that last sentence totally contradicted the one before it. We, as I said, believe that it is the best way to run this tournament. Obviously, you don't. Unfortunately for you, QB is not a democracy, at least not the way tournaments are run. We're the ones holding the keys, and we think the road we're going down is better. You may think otherwise, but you're backseat driving.

[Sir Thopas]

Yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, so that last sentence totally contradicted the one before it. We, as I said, believe that it is the best way to run this tournament. Obviously, you don't. Unfortunately for you, QB is not a democracy, at least not the way tournaments are run. We're the ones holding the keys, and we think the road we're going down is better. You may think otherwise, but you're backseat driving.

In this thread so far,
people criticizing this format: about 30 years of quizbowl experience
people defending this format: 3 or 4 years of quizbowl experience?

[Auroni]

3) The TD, coach, and team are incorrect. This format is not, in fact, the best bracket system. They have the right to their opinions, of course. But, their opinions are wrong.

Yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, so that last sentence totally contradicted the one before it. We, as I said, believe that it is the best way to run this tournament. Obviously, you don't. Unfortunately for you, QB is not a democracy, at least not the way tournaments are run. We're the ones holding the keys, and we think the road we're going down is better. You may think otherwise, but you're backseat driving.

hey, how about letting people with real knowledge of how this goes about (ie notably not you) deal with this and not ordering people to do what you want? You have yet to address any of the concerns posted in this thread so far.

[Angry Babies in Love]

3) The TD, coach, and team are incorrect. This format is not, in fact, the best bracket system. They have the right to their opinions, of course. But, their opinions are wrong.

Yes, everyone has the right to their opinion, so that last sentence totally contradicted the one before it. We, as I said, believe that it is the best way to run this tournament. Obviously, you don't. Unfortunately for you, QB is not a democracy, at least not the way tournaments are run. We're the ones holding the keys, and we think the road we're going down is better. You may think otherwise, but you're backseat driving.

hey, how about letting people with real knowledge of how this goes about (ie notably not you) deal with this and not ordering people to do what you want? You have yet to address any of the concerns posted in this thread so far.

1) This is our tournament. I don't believe that people who won't even be at the tournament have the right to make our tournament rules. It's not up to people 3,000 miles away to run a tournament they're not even going to.

2) Concerns addressed in the thread:
a.)Taking a team from the consolation bracket: We recognize that this is a strong field, with a good number of national-champion contenders and perennial powers. We don't want 1/3 of the field eliminated completely after 5 games.
b.) Number of rounds vs. Number of games: before single-elim, it is 10 games in 10 rounds, followed by a playoff. And with a consolation single-elim, all teams will play 11 games. There's nothing wrong or "radical" about a 3 round single-elim.
c.) Other bracket is simpler: As long as all the teams know where they're going (which they should), and the war room is run efficiently (which it will be), simplicity isn't key
d.) Strong not playing strong: Five games guaranteed against high quality teams, not including single-elim. And, as I said, this is a strong field. If a team is really strong, they'll play many other strong teams.
I've addressed most of the well-founded complaints. If you still have a problem and you're not coming to the tournament, then why is it so crucial that the tournament is run how you want it.

[segregold]

I'm going to go through these things one at a time. I also just want to say off the bat that while "rmgeokid" is on my team, he does not represent my opinions and I'm not endorsing anything he says.

If you make a decision publicly, and people say it's not a good one? That's not vitriol. When people say it's not a good one and bring up valid points of how it's flawed? That's particularly not vitriol.

In fairness to Matt, he did actually state reasons why he thinks the format is a bad idea in a more recent post; his original post, however, contained little more than an exasperated sigh. Guy's was largely a comment that a similar format had not worked once back when I was ten. I wouldn't qualify either as a "valid point of how it's flawed."

What's so wrong with having two brackets of nine teams and running an eight game round robin for prelims?

We're trying to ensure that the best teams have an opportunity to play each other multiple times, and we want to avoid forcing teams from the same school playing each other. If it happens, it happens, but they won't be in each other's brackets to begin with. This format also allows everyone to play more packets, which was a request we'd received.

It takes a team FROM THE CONSOLATION BRACKET and sticks that team in with the top 7 teams from the playoff bracket into the single-elim!

The decision to allow one team from the third bracket in was made so that those teams are not eliminated after only five games. It may be changed, since I think that there's a legitimate point here.

If certain people here who have run exactly 1 tournament ever (and that one poorly received) did not adopt a tone of "nobody has anything to teach me about any topic" in their posting, it would be much easier to communicate the above.

Given the spotty legacy of recent RM tournaments, including cancellations, terrible questions, and now this formatting debacle, perhaps the almighty "Keith" should in fact put things out for criticism rather than make mountaintop pronouncements about how he has decided to run a bad tournament and anyone who wants a good tournament is just posting "vitriol."

One of the main reasons that I dislike offering these things for debate is because of the, to me, ridiculous levels of emotion that seem to get involved. What we have here is a bracketing format. Even if you don't like our idea, I can guarantee that the tournament will be well-run, that the questions are standard NAQT questions (regardless of how you feel about those), and that the field is strong. Many, many tournaments have come to more ignominious ends than any RM one ever has: some last until 9:00, some have no strong teams, and some even feature their tournament director running in an hour late because he'd failed to complete the final that was supposed to have been written before the tournament began. None of that will happen tomorrow.

I'm not trying to seem heavy-handed, but we've already approved and planned out this bracket system and we had reasons for trying it instead of going with something more traditional. It may work out and prove to be a successful innovation; it may not. But I don't think it's going to ruin anyone's day. If you really can't stand it, there are tons of tournaments throughout the year- sit back, have a good team with the field, and then exact revenge by not coming to our tournament in the spring.

[segregold]

Ray, cool it. You have no official position and you've only been doing this for a year. I can defend my own tournament.

[Sir Thopas]

1) This is our tournament. I don't believe that people who won't even be at the tournament have the right to make our tournament rules. It's not up to people 3,000 miles away to run a tournament they're not even going to.

Many of the people who've expressed criticism are attending this tournament. All the others certainly have a vested interested in good quizbowl.

a.)Taking a team from the consolation bracket: We recognize that this is a strong field, with a good number of national-champion contenders and perennial powers. We don't want 1/3 of the field eliminated completely after 5 games.

This should be a moot point, because without rebracketing after so few games, nobody would be eliminated for another few games anyway. With that being said, the "lucky loser" is still an awful idea, because it puts the 13th place team above the 8th place team.

b.) Number of rounds vs. Number of games: before single-elim, it is 10 games in 10 rounds, followed by a playoff. And with a consolation single-elim, all teams will play 11 games. There's nothing wrong or "radical" about a 3 round single-elim.

That doesn't make it "good". There's no reason to utterly and finally put one team's stake on any one game, especially with such capricious packets as NAQT tends to have. This is at least as big an injustice as eliminating undeserving teams after 5 games—do you really think that the bottom third of the teams would have any shot of winning an ideal tournament, anyway? Because they sure shouldn't.

If you still have a problem and you're not coming to the tournament, then why is it so crucial that the tournament is run how you want it.

We like good quizbowl, and it would be a huge pity to waste such a great field on such a needlessly unfair bracketing system. How is that not reason enough?

[Angry Babies in Love]

Ray, cool it. You have no official position and you've only been doing this for a year. I can defend my own tournament.

I was stating my opinion in an open forum, and it seems my opinion was taken as yours and/or the teams. I do have no "official position", and I apologize for voicing my thoughts on behalf of the team.

[segregold]

I was stating my opinion in an open forum, and it seems my opinion was taken as yours and/or the teams.

That's hardly surprising because you are in fact on the team. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that's being said, either, but you're rebutting it incredibly ineffectively. Take it down a notch.

Many of the people who've expressed criticism are attending this tournament.

Yeah, Guy, that's true, but the two who are the most vocal with it are you and Matt, who are not. "Vested interest in good quizbowl" aside.

With that being said, the "lucky loser" is still an awful idea, because it puts the 13th place team above the 8th place team.

I think that this is the one indisputably fair criticism of this system and I'm going to take out the advance from the consolation bracket/wild card in favor of the top four teams from each bracket in the second group.

[Angry Babies in Love]

I was stating my opinion in an open forum, and it seems my opinion was taken as yours and/or the teams.

That's hardly surprising because you are in fact on the team. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff that's being said, either, but you're rebutting it incredibly ineffectively. Take it down a notch.

Again, I apologize, and I probably should never had gotten into this mess that is the Online Quizbowl Community. I can't take so much cynicism one one page, and I got out of hand.

[Captain Sinico]

Take a few days forums vacation, on me! When you come back, enable a signature. You were warned.

MaS

PS: Making better posts would also be in your interest.

[Captain Sinico]

I'd like to start by saying in my capacity as an administrator that telling people they have no stake in something is a very poor argument and will not be received well. Please stick to the merits (or demerits) of what people are actually saying. Also, nobody is attempting to dictate what your format must be to you; it's obvious that nobody can do that. Attempts to funnel conversation into that blind alley are, likewise, not going to fly. Rather, people with a great deal of experience running tournaments are telling you that your format is sub-optimal in their eyes.
Now, as to your format itself, I think a format more like the ones others are advocating (I'll call this the standard format) accomplishes all of your stated ends better than the format you've selected, with the exception of keeping teams from playing other teams from the same school. To wit: the standard format provides more games per round with, on average, better or no worse competition.
Additionally, the standard format avoids the "13th place leapfrogs 12th-8th" (and attendant allowance of gambits) that is the key flaw in your format; avoids the single "jackpot" rounds that your format contains; is more efficient (provides more games per unit time); and is less prone to director error, which happens even to the best of us. I understand your reasoning in putting some of these things in: it's not fair to stick people into ironclad power brackets after only 5 games. However, you have to understand that, rather than a justification for your format, that's a very strong argument against it. In fact, it is a tacit acknowledgment that, with your initial format, there is no fair way to do later rounds: you must either stick people in ironclad brackets based on a small number of games in incommensurable brackets (which you agree is unfair), or have nominally lower positions leapfrog nominally higher ones (which you also agree is unfair.)
Therefore, your format's only pro, as I can see it, is that it lets you avoid intra-school games and it has a number of significant cons in my (and, by your own admonition, your) eyes. Therefore, I don't understand why you'd use such a format unless avoiding intra-school games is paramount. I further think that, even if that is your goal ne plus ultra, you could probably come up with a better (fairer, more efficient) format that gets that done.

MaS

[Blackboard Monitor Vimes]

In terms of the whole intra-school games thing, I don't think schools other than RM find it to be an absolutely huge deal. Last year our B Team actually wanted to meet the A Team several times because we believed we could beat them on a good day. Anyway, while it can be annoying, it doesn't seem to me like a large enough issue to design a format around.

[AKKOLADE]

Hey,

Not really wanting to pile on here, but the reaction I've seen from RM in this thread to criticism regarding their bad idea, in addition to your spotty past performance of hosting tournaments, is enough to make me not want to take any teams I coach there this year or next.