The Quizbowl Resource Center

Wait, what happened, exactly?

MaS

T287 wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:

Dresden The Moderator wrote:What's the word from Kickoffs?

I heard that Geneva eschewed the Wheaton North kickoff next weekend (11.5 miles away) in favor of the Sterling site this weekend (87 miles away) and got the most out of that road trip, while Litchfield defeated Chatham Glenwood in the Petersburg PORTA kickoff.

At PORTA poor bracketing of the tournament ended with the top three teams having the exact same record, 7-1, with Litchfield having lost to Macomb, Chatham Glenwood losing to Litchfield, and Macomb losing to Chatham Glenwood, all having beaten the other. My coach and some of my team got into a huge argument with PORTA's coach about this twice, since we didn't think that teams that had not won their morning pools (like Litchfield) should be placed at the same level as all of those who did.

Can you tell us more about the set-up? Excluding non-pool winners from the playoffs is unfair to the teams that may be drawn in to a pool with a world-beater. If Litchfield made it as a wild-card, and proceeded to win every playoff game, I can't see the problem unless there was no seeding and Litchfield didn't see a pool winner until the last round. THAT, I'd take issue with.

Woody Paige wrote:

T287 wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:

Dresden The Moderator wrote:What's the word from Kickoffs?

I heard that Geneva eschewed the Wheaton North kickoff next weekend (11.5 miles away) in favor of the Sterling site this weekend (87 miles away) and got the most out of that road trip, while Litchfield defeated Chatham Glenwood in the Petersburg PORTA kickoff.

At PORTA poor bracketing of the tournament ended with the top three teams having the exact same record, 7-1, with Litchfield having lost to Macomb, Chatham Glenwood losing to Litchfield, and Macomb losing to Chatham Glenwood, all having beaten the other. My coach and some of my team got into a huge argument with PORTA's coach about this twice, since we didn't think that teams that had not won their morning pools (like Litchfield) should be placed at the same level as all of those who did.

Can you tell us more about the set-up? Excluding non-pool winners from the playoffs is unfair to the teams that may be drawn in to a pool with a world-beater. If Litchfield made it as a wild-card, and proceeded to win every playoff game, I can't see the problem unless there was no seeding and Litchfield didn't see a pool winner until the last round. THAT, I'd take issue with.

Looking back, I may have made it sound worse than it was. All pool winners and runner-ups advanced after the morning and they were set to play with a winner against a runner-up and then the winners play each other, etc. I don't have all of the information that I need to explain everything, but I don't think there was any system of "seeding" to determine who played who and this caused it to end with what looked like three teams all on equal standing at the end. I'm not trying to say that the whole thing was horrible, but I think that it could have been put together in a way that would have made the champion look to be clearly the better team that day.

Some sort of seeding of the pools should have been done,preferably by team records,, but since this is so early in the season you probably had to do it by reputation, which isn't the best way to seed teams. How many teams were there?

T287 wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:

T287 wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:

Dresden The Moderator wrote:What's the word from Kickoffs?

I heard that Geneva eschewed the Wheaton North kickoff next weekend (11.5 miles away) in favor of the Sterling site this weekend (87 miles away) and got the most out of that road trip, while Litchfield defeated Chatham Glenwood in the Petersburg PORTA kickoff.

At PORTA poor bracketing of the tournament ended with the top three teams having the exact same record, 7-1, with Litchfield having lost to Macomb, Chatham Glenwood losing to Litchfield, and Macomb losing to Chatham Glenwood, all having beaten the other. My coach and some of my team got into a huge argument with PORTA's coach about this twice, since we didn't think that teams that had not won their morning pools (like Litchfield) should be placed at the same level as all of those who did.

Can you tell us more about the set-up? Excluding non-pool winners from the playoffs is unfair to the teams that may be drawn in to a pool with a world-beater. If Litchfield made it as a wild-card, and proceeded to win every playoff game, I can't see the problem unless there was no seeding and Litchfield didn't see a pool winner until the last round. THAT, I'd take issue with.

Looking back, I may have made it sound worse than it was. All pool winners and runner-ups advanced after the morning and they were set to play with a winner against a runner-up and then the winners play each other, etc. I don't have all of the information that I need to explain everything, but I don't think there was any system of "seeding" to determine who played who and this caused it to end with what looked like three teams all on equal standing at the end. I'm not trying to say that the whole thing was horrible, but I think that it could have been put together in a way that would have made the champion look to be clearly the better team that day.

Wait, a single-elimination tournament* didn't properly differentiate between teams? My monocle, it is dropped!

*Assuming I interpreted this post correctly.

Sorry to interrupt the thread, but I wanted to let everyone know that I posted info on the Illinois NAQT State Championship tourney over in the tournaments section.

The Porta Tournament, in the morning half, was essentially the seeding for the afternoon. We (Litchfield) lost to Macomb in the morning ranking us second in our pool. In the afternoon, 1st in each pool played 2nd from a different pool. We played Springfield Lutheran and defeated them. Next round, we played, New Berlin (another 1st ranked team?) while Macomb played Chatam Glenwood. These two matches determined who would play in the Championship and Consolation matches. We beat New Berlin, which advanced us to the Championship round with Chatam Glenwood, who had beaten Macomb previously. We then finished beating Chatam 335 to 240 or 250. Just the way, the bracket worked out I assume.

I went with David Riley and Mike Laudermith to Sterling, where we moderated for their Kickoff. It was a very interesting and enlightening experience, which has led me to understand some aspects of quizbowl/Scholastic Bowl in Illinois that I couldn't before. If you want to hear about it, please email (or Facebook or IM or whatever) me, because you're going to hear a different amount of detail based on whether I can reveal question content to you.

Well, then it doesn't sound like Macomb get hosed. If you want to win a tournament, you beat the next team. This doesn't sound like something malicious the TD did to favor Litchfield or hose Macomb. It does bolster the argument for a round-robin championship with an advantaged final, though. Such an arrangement isn't always possible, though, and doesn't guarantee there'll be no upsets along the way.

Can anyone actually explain the format of the playoffs for tournament? Also, how many brackets were there? From the previous several posts, people are saying, it seems like it was either:
Single elim on 4 teams, with pool 1 winner playing pool 2 runner up and vice versa (which is as fair seeding as you're going to get if you've got to run single elim for some reason)
or
Some kind of round robin with each pool winner playing other pools' runners up and then winners, in which case seeding beyond "you won a pool" vs. "you were second in a pool" is irrelevant (can only change the order in which you play people, which is an absurd thing to complain about.)
So either way complaints about a lack of effective playoff seeding are probably misplaced.
If these complaints are about the fact that the tournament used single elim and effectively ended in an unresolved n-and-1 triangle of death, then that's a fair thing to complain about. The problem here is that I have no idea if that's what happened, because the posts about this tournament make no sense to me. It is necessary that people, before they complain about a tournament, take the time to understand what their issue was and communicate it effectivey. It would also be cool if hosts posted their results.

MaS

Woody Paige wrote:If you want to win a tournament, you beat the next team.

That's a poor argument. Single elim allows obvious travesties like letting a team with a worse overall record win a tournament over a team with a better. You can't justify it be saying "Well, just win every game;" that's no kind of standard for a fair format.

MaS

Captain Sinico wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:If you want to win a tournament, you beat the next team.

That's a poor argument. Single elim allows obvious travesties like letting a team with a worse overall record win a tournament over a team with a better. You can't justify it be saying "Well, just win every game;" that's no kind of standard for a fair format.

MaS

I understand, but I never let my team use that as an excuse for not finishing higher in a tournament. But maybe that's just me.

Captain Sinico wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:If you want to win a tournament, you beat the next team.

That's a poor argument. Single elim allows obvious travesties like letting a team with a worse overall record win a tournament over a team with a better. You can't justify it be saying "Well, just win every game;" that's no kind of standard for a fair format.

MaS

No man it's fair people say this all the time in college football therefore

Part of the problem is that we've always used single elimination for the Kickoffs. It's probably time we investigate the use of another format. However, (crystal ball gazing here) many teams in this state will not play a tournament format that is longer than 8-9 matches.

Woody Paige wrote:

Captain Sinico wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:If you want to win a tournament, you beat the next team.

That's a poor argument. Single elim allows obvious travesties like letting a team with a worse overall record win a tournament over a team with a better. You can't justify it be saying "Well, just win every game;" that's no kind of standard for a fair format.

MaS

I understand, but I never let my team use that as an excuse for not finishing higher in a tournament. But maybe that's just me.

We're not talking about your team or the excuses you let them use; we're talking about whether a format is fair.

MaS

Sure, Coach Riley. Well, a having two pool winners and runners up play across pools is only two games, same as single elim (though you potentially need one more game for finals, I guess.)

MaS

David Riley wrote:Part of the problem is that we've always used single elimination for the Kickoffs. It's probably time we investigate the use of another format.

I may be wrong about this, but I thought that tournament structures for Kickoffs were at the discretion of the individual hosts; the only thing that was necessarily common to all sites was the set. Is this not the case?

edit: ENGLISHES

In theory that is true, but in practice virtually all hosts have used single elimination format in the past (save for the occasional southern Kickoff that has used round-robin due to a small number of teams).

David Riley wrote:In theory that is true, but in practice virtually all hosts have used single elimination format in the past (save for the occasional southern Kickoff that has used round-robin due to a small number of teams).

Got it. Your phrasing made it sound like the tournament structures were centrally decided, so I was confused.

David Riley wrote:In theory that is true, but in practice virtually all hosts have used single elimination format in the past (save for the occasional southern Kickoff that has used round-robin due to a small number of teams).

...So out with the past and in with the new. Wheaton North isn't opposed to good quizbowl, is it?

Wheaton North probably still has vestiges of the "Old Guard". I would expect that they do old school stats (no-SQBS, individuals based on total tossups, people crowded around continuous slideshows, etc.) and single elimination playoffs.

JackGlerum wrote:Wheaton North probably still has vestiges of the "Old Guard". I would expect that they do old school stats (no-SQBS, individuals based on total tossups, people crowded around continuous slideshows, etc.) and single elimination playoffs.

Sounds about right.

Just so you all know: this is what our state organization is spending your tax dollars on:

http://www.ihsa.org/announce/2009-10/2009-11-10.htm

Also, in more relevant news, if you are a "Scholastic Bowl" player in addition to participating in another IHSA sanctioned activity, you might consider applying for this, as the deadline fast approaches, and it would be nice if we could get some representation so the IHSA stops treating us like second class citizens (realistically, though, that will never happen).

BGSO wrote:

JackGlerum wrote:Wheaton North probably still has vestiges of the "Old Guard". I would expect that they do old school stats (no-SQBS, individuals based on total tossups, people crowded around continuous slideshows, etc.) and single elimination playoffs.

Sounds about right.

Does anyone know the field for WN Kickoff? All I've been able to piece together so far is: WN, my old compatriots, Loyola, and Lloyd-less Auburn.

JackGlerum wrote:Wheaton North probably still has vestiges of the "Old Guard". I would expect that they do old school stats (no-SQBS, individuals based on total tossups, people crowded around continuous slideshows, etc.) and single elimination playoffs.

I will be reading on Saturday. If you want me to contact Ms. Kidd about anything, please let me know; maybe something will happen.

I'm probably not the best candidate to tell someone how to run their tournament which I have zero stake in; perhaps a player/coach who is actively involved in the circuit and who feels strongly about such changes should open lines of communication.

Well expecting WN to end up with at least 50 teams I'm not sure what more they can really do.

One option could be to have however many brackets there are take the winners of the bracket and then fill out 16 teams by ppg. Then Seed those teams based on PPG into 4 brackets of 4, after those three matches play out reseed by placing in the bracket into another set of 4 brackets of 4. Depending on how many teams are in the smaller brackets this uses from 10-12 packets.

On second thought for an Illinois tournament this is a rather large amount of matches, especially considering that we have to allow 10 seconds per bonus conferral. On that note did the policy of 15 point TU's ever get changed?

Overall, preferably the tournament could run similar to what I laid out above but I find it doubtful of that happening.

BGSO wrote:Well expecting WN to end up with at least 50 teams I'm not sure what more they can really do.

One option could be to have however many brackets there are take the winners of the bracket and then fill out 16 teams by ppg. Then Seed those teams based on PPG into 4 brackets of 4, after those three matches play out reseed by placing in the bracket into another set of 4 brackets of 4. Depending on how many teams are in the smaller brackets this uses from 10-12 packets.

On second thought for an Illinois tournament this is a rather large amount of matches, especially considering that we have to allow 10 seconds per bonus conferral. On that note did the policy of 15 point TU's ever get changed?

Overall, preferably the tournament could run similar to what I laid out above but I find it doubtful of that happening.

If the field is really that large, perhaps Ms. Kidd could work out a power-pairing system? I know it's not ideal, but at least it will keep the prelim rounds running efficiently. And then maybe she could be talked into doing round-robin pools for the afternoon? If the non-elite teams are averse to a 10-round tournament, then there need only be a championship pool and a consolation pool.

BGSO wrote:On that note did the policy of 15 point TU's ever get changed?

Yes. Scoring is normal NAQT except there are no negs.

Woody Paige wrote:Well, then it doesn't sound like Macomb get hosed. If you want to win a tournament, you beat the next team. This doesn't sound like something malicious the TD did to favor Litchfield or hose Macomb. It does bolster the argument for a round-robin championship with an advantaged final, though. Such an arrangement isn't always possible, though, and doesn't guarantee there'll be no upsets along the way.

I was not complaining that my team got "hosed," but that the tournament ended in a way that didn't seem right to me with respect to the top few teams. One of my biggest problems with it (which I forgot to add in my earlier post) was that Glenwood deserved to be in an advantaged final, but because it was single elimination Litchfield only had to beat them once.

Captain Sinico wrote:Can anyone actually explain the format of the playoffs for tournament? Also, how many brackets were there? From the previous several posts, people are saying, it seems like it was either:
Single elim on 4 teams, with pool 1 winner playing pool 2 runner up and vice versa (which is as fair seeding as you're going to get if you've got to run single elim for some reason)
or
Some kind of round robin with each pool winner playing other pools' runners up and then winners, in which case seeding beyond "you won a pool" vs. "you were second in a pool" is irrelevant (can only change the order in which you play people, which is an absurd thing to complain about.)
So either way complaints about a lack of effective playoff seeding are probably misplaced.
If these complaints are about the fact that the tournament used single elim and effectively ended in an unresolved n-and-1 triangle of death, then that's a fair thing to complain about. The problem here is that I have no idea if that's what happened, because the posts about this tournament make no sense to me. It is necessary that people, before they complain about a tournament, take the time to understand what their issue was and communicate it effectivey. It would also be cool if hosts posted their results.

MaS

What I was complaining about was that the eight team single elimination effectively ended with the "n-and-1 triangle of death." I realize now that I probably could have communicated that more effectively had I put a little more thought into my original post.

Last word (directly from Ms. Kidd herself) is that there will be sixty teams at Wheaton North.

EDIT: There are several problems I see with trying to use SQBS:

1. Readers/coach-readers aren't used to actually having to keep score. At least when I was last playing in 2008, most tournaments' scoresheets simply contained a line for winning team, winning score, losing team, and losing score, without any indication of how the points were earned.
2. The particular software that Wheaton North uses was developed five to ten years ago and there's only one person who knows how to run it (again, I'm speaking from my last experience with WN hosting a tournament, which would be Kickoff 2007).
3. Ms. Kidd has asked that I read instead of keep stats, which I presume is a necessity, given that when there are 30 readers necessary, the cost of me scorekeeping instead of replacing a less-capable reader is too high. (2nd EDIT: Of course, I can just read my rounds and keep stats during the [inevitable] pauses between rounds, like at ABC.) Leading to...
4. Someone will have to be taught how to use SQBS either by text or video before Saturday, since I will not be home until Friday night.
5. The system for projecting the data is integrated into the current program. It would be more difficult to copy the data and re-project it in a neat way as the current program can do.

rjaguar3 wrote:Last word (directly from Ms. Kidd herself) is that there will be sixty teams at Wheaton North.

Wow, well good luck working out a format. I'm also reading, and I really hope that Ms. Kidd will do something ACF-esque (especially no single elim). In other news, the Dan-Don Lit Singles Tourney is official: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8896&start=0

T287 wrote:

Woody Paige wrote:Well, then it doesn't sound like Macomb get hosed. If you want to win a tournament, you beat the next team. This doesn't sound like something malicious the TD did to favor Litchfield or hose Macomb. It does bolster the argument for a round-robin championship with an advantaged final, though. Such an arrangement isn't always possible, though, and doesn't guarantee there'll be no upsets along the way.

I was not complaining that my team got "hosed," but that the tournament ended in a way that didn't seem right to me with respect to the top few teams. One of my biggest problems with it (which I forgot to add in my earlier post) was that Glenwood deserved to be in an advantaged final, but because it was single elimination Litchfield only had to beat them once.

Captain Sinico wrote:Can anyone actually explain the format of the playoffs for tournament? Also, how many brackets were there? From the previous several posts, people are saying, it seems like it was either:
Single elim on 4 teams, with pool 1 winner playing pool 2 runner up and vice versa (which is as fair seeding as you're going to get if you've got to run single elim for some reason)
or
Some kind of round robin with each pool winner playing other pools' runners up and then winners, in which case seeding beyond "you won a pool" vs. "you were second in a pool" is irrelevant (can only change the order in which you play people, which is an absurd thing to complain about.)
So either way complaints about a lack of effective playoff seeding are probably misplaced.
If these complaints are about the fact that the tournament used single elim and effectively ended in an unresolved n-and-1 triangle of death, then that's a fair thing to complain about. The problem here is that I have no idea if that's what happened, because the posts about this tournament make no sense to me. It is necessary that people, before they complain about a tournament, take the time to understand what their issue was and communicate it effectivey. It would also be cool if hosts posted their results.

MaS

What I was complaining about was that the eight team single elimination effectively ended with the "n-and-1 triangle of death." I realize now that I probably could have communicated that more effectively had I put a little more thought into my original post.

I see. I think the idea of an advantaged final is a foreign concept to downstate tournament directors, but it's worth pursuing for the very reason you cited. Would there have been enough question sets to do such a final?
From my own perspective, the Septemberist was our (BHS) first direct exposure to an advantaged final, and I've never seen it in a MS tournament.

Hmm, it seems like we won't be able to do a good format because for some reason there's only 8 packets for kickoffs. I assume we're gonna be doing 5 prelims and a 16-team single elim playoff. Even if we were to do 5 prelims and re-bracket into groups of 4 we only have 3 packets, so any ties or circles of deaths couldn't be played off and I'm not too sure how 60 teams would feel if we didn't crown a champion off of playing games (even though many of us feel single-elim isnt really doing that) or how they'd feel about making only 4 teams be eligible for being champions, considering 12 teams will have gone undefeated.

There are nine packets available.

jonah wrote:There are nine packets available.

Well then...The whole 12 teams going undefeated and only 4-5 being in contention for championship still stands.

A few questions about the questions at kickoffs:
Will there be comp. math?
What style of bonuses are we using? 3 part 30 point bonuses or IHSA format?

As for the tournament format, I'd guess there'll be 10 groups of 6. Winners of each pool+ 6 wildcards move on(probably based on ppg). 16 team single elim.
It's not the best format, but I'm not sure what else can be done with 60 teams and 9 packets.

drose4prez wrote:A few questions about the questions at kickoffs:
Will there be comp. math?
What style of bonuses are we using? 3 part 30 point bonuses or IHSA format?

IS set with computation (one or two questions per round). Normal (NAQT) bonuses. Powers, but no negs. Twenty seconds for computation tossups; five for others. Ten seconds per bonus part (prompt at seven seconds), rebounding with three seconds for the non-controlling team. No blurt rule, no matching tops required, and you can play with fewer than 5 players. Everything not contradicted by the above is IHSA rules.

IIRC, doing something other than single elimination (for all kickoffs) was raised at the summer meeting of the IHSSBCA and was immediately shouted down (well, that's an exaggeration, but it was not welcomed) by most present.

Secondly, I don't think anything is going to change given that the Kickoff is a few days away. Perhaps we'll have better luck next year.

For the record, I have put in a "bid" to host the Kickoff next year if Wheaton North elects not to host it. And contrary to popular belief, Loyola is much more accessible (adjacent to a major highway).

David Riley wrote:IIRC, doing something other than single elimination (for all kickoffs) was raised at the summer meeting of the IHSSBCA and was immediately shouted down (well, that's an exaggeration, but it was not welcomed) by most present.

Secondly, I don't think anything is going to change given that the Kickoff is a few days away. Perhaps we'll have better luck next year.

For the record, I have put in a "bid" to host the Kickoff next year if Wheaton North elects not to host it. And contrary to popular belief, Loyola is much more accessible (adjacent to a major highway).

Given the enormous field size at Wheaton North this year, I think it might be good to just split it off into 2 sites with about 30 teams each, or if most schools decide to stay at Wheaton we could still probably muster 16-24.

MoCity02 wrote:

David Riley wrote:IIRC, doing something other than single elimination (for all kickoffs) was raised at the summer meeting of the IHSSBCA and was immediately shouted down (well, that's an exaggeration, but it was not welcomed) by most present.

Secondly, I don't think anything is going to change given that the Kickoff is a few days away. Perhaps we'll have better luck next year.

For the record, I have put in a "bid" to host the Kickoff next year if Wheaton North elects not to host it. And contrary to popular belief, Loyola is much more accessible (adjacent to a major highway).

Given the enormous field size at Wheaton North this year, I think it might be good to just split it off into 2 sites with about 30 teams each, or if most schools decide to stay at Wheaton we could still probably muster 16-24.

What, this year? On such short notice?

Dan-Don wrote:

MoCity02 wrote:

David Riley wrote:IIRC, doing something other than single elimination (for all kickoffs) was raised at the summer meeting of the IHSSBCA and was immediately shouted down (well, that's an exaggeration, but it was not welcomed) by most present.

Secondly, I don't think anything is going to change given that the Kickoff is a few days away. Perhaps we'll have better luck next year.

For the record, I have put in a "bid" to host the Kickoff next year if Wheaton North elects not to host it. And contrary to popular belief, Loyola is much more accessible (adjacent to a major highway).

Given the enormous field size at Wheaton North this year, I think it might be good to just split it off into 2 sites with about 30 teams each, or if most schools decide to stay at Wheaton we could still probably muster 16-24.

What, this year? On such short notice?

No...next year.

MoCity02 wrote:

Dan-Don wrote:

MoCity02 wrote:

David Riley wrote:IIRC, doing something other than single elimination (for all kickoffs) was raised at the summer meeting of the IHSSBCA and was immediately shouted down (well, that's an exaggeration, but it was not welcomed) by most present.

Secondly, I don't think anything is going to change given that the Kickoff is a few days away. Perhaps we'll have better luck next year.

For the record, I have put in a "bid" to host the Kickoff next year if Wheaton North elects not to host it. And contrary to popular belief, Loyola is much more accessible (adjacent to a major highway).

Given the enormous field size at Wheaton North this year, I think it might be good to just split it off into 2 sites with about 30 teams each, or if most schools decide to stay at Wheaton we could still probably muster 16-24.

What, this year? On such short notice?

No...next year.

Oh ok. 200th post!

JackGlerum wrote:Wheaton North probably still has vestiges of the "Old Guard". I would expect that they do old school stats (no-SQBS, individuals based on total tossups, people crowded around continuous slideshows, etc.) and single elimination playoffs.

No thats pretty much verbatim what will happen

rockinzeppelin wrote:

JackGlerum wrote:Wheaton North probably still has vestiges of the "Old Guard". I would expect that they do old school stats (no-SQBS, individuals based on total tossups, people crowded around continuous slideshows, etc.) and single elimination playoffs.

No thats pretty much verbatim what will happen

Actually, I think we will be using SQBS. Whether individual stats will be kept is another matter.

Wheaton North will have 60 teams, but I don't have a list of them.

This was the list Mrs. Kidd sent out. I believe there have been 2 more added on to bring the number to 60.

Barrington 2
Bishop McNamara 1
Bradley-Bourbonnais 2
Buffalo Grove 1
Carmel Catholic 2
Culver Academies 3
Fenton 2
Fenwick 2
Fremd 2
Glenbard East 2
Glenbard North 2
Hoffman Estates 1
Homewood Flossmoor 1
Lake Zurich 2
Latin 1
Libertyville 1
Lisle 1
Loyola 2
Marist 1
Naperville Central 1
Naperville North 2
New Trier 2
Niles North 1
Oak Park River Forest 1
Oswego East 1
Plano 1
Riverside Brookfield 1
Rockford Auburn 4
Roycemore 1
St Charles East 1
St Ignatius 1
St Viator 2
West Chicago 1
Wheaton Academy 1
Wheaton-Warrenville South 2

There was a mistake on that original list, Loyola is bringing 3 teams.

That's crazy. 60 teams playing 5 rounds of hybrid IHSA/NAQT style? There's no way the morning takes less than 5.5 hours.

Dresden The Moderator wrote:That's crazy. 60 teams playing 5 rounds of hybrid IHSA/NAQT style? There's no way the morning takes less than 5.5 hours.

Well Depending on the moderators that are in the bracket I see the possibility of Some brackets finishing way ahead of others, like way way ahead.