QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

It's worth noting how awesome a round robin between the top six teams would be. Personally, I think there's a fairly clear top six, but I'll admit that the top twelve is the safest system.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

Journey to the Planets wrote:It's worth noting how awesome a round robin between the top six teams would be. Personally, I think there's a fairly clear top six, but I'll admit that the top twelve is the safest system.
The problem is that you don't want to have a team that had one loss be eliminated from winning the championship. Losses happen, and teams shouldn't be left out of the running for that one loss they might have had when they were tired in Round 1 after a multi-hour drive.

Including more teams in the "real playoffs" is the best bet... can you imagine if PACE-NSC last year only let undefeated teams in its top bracket after the initial round-robin?
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15327
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by AKKOLADE »

Lapego1 wrote:my initial bracketing (which is surely fallible)
Let me know if you need help with this.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:
Journey to the Planets wrote:It's worth noting how awesome a round robin between the top six teams would be. Personally, I think there's a fairly clear top six, but I'll admit that the top twelve is the safest system.
The problem is that you don't want to have a team that had one loss be eliminated from winning the championship. Losses happen, and teams shouldn't be left out of the running for that one loss they might have had when they were tired in Round 1 after a multi-hour drive.

Including more teams in the "real playoffs" is the best bet... can you imagine if PACE-NSC last year only let undefeated teams in its top bracket after the initial round-robin?
...the top 8 other than Ike would have been completely unchanged?

Anyway, at PACE, there were enough teams good enough to beat the best in the nation on the right packet to make this system necessary. Here...let's face it. State College is going to trample the rest of the field, putting up 28+ ppb in the process.

That said, if I'm overlooking a seventh team capable of upsetting one of the top six, the twelve-team playoff is for the best.

EDIT: words
Last edited by The King's Flight to the Scots on Tue Nov 17, 2009 12:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

The point is that you don't want to rely on bracketing so much and have that one loss sticking out there that you wouldn't have had "if we were in that other bracket." We've already seen tournaments this year where bracketing (under/overestimating a team) affected the playoffs, and i think this would make it more possible here as well.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Lapego1
Tidus
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Richmond, VA/Philadelphia, PA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Lapego1 »

Just a couple more announcements. We will likely stick with the 12-team top playoff brackets barring some epiphany about a better format over the course of the next couple of days.

Because I've had staff kind of hemorrhaging over the last couple of days (which is okay because we had plenty, at least for the prelims) and I want to relieve coaches that have signed on to read for part of the day, we're probably going to have to resort to some kind of single elimination structure for some portion of the field for playoffs. This is unfortunate I know as people want to get as many rounds in as possible. Given the staff I have, I'll see if I can't make a third round robin playoff bracket at least.

Also, to any coaches that have agreed to read, I've received the questions and will have time to make hard copies, so no need to bring laptops. It's easier this way I think.
Mehdi Razvi
Maggie Walker Gov. School '07
University of Pennsylvania '11

"A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-James D. Watson (1928-)

User avatar
TheKingInYellow
Rikku
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 5:13 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by TheKingInYellow »

I think there is enough distinction between teams the a 6 team playoff bracket would work just fine, and probably be more exciting for both the top 6 and 7-12. I hope this prompts you to epiphany
Graham Moyer
State College 2011
Harvard 2015

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Edward Powers »

How about a counter-epiphany?

When New Trier defeated State College at the HSNCT last year in a major upset on Day 2, did this loss eliminate State College from the Tournament and from a chance at winning the Championship? It did not---it took a 2nd loss to do this. Yet here there is advocacy to eliminate teams from championship contention based on one loss in the Prelims? I know this is not the HSNCT, but should one loss ever eliminate teams in PRELIMS where careless or less than thoughtful seeding can mean everything? And let's be candid---State College is exceptional this year so far---13-0 at a recent College tournament, 13-0 last week at Harvard---so odds are whatever the 2nd best team is in State's Prelim bracket this weekend will likely have a very hard time winning, and thus advancing if we stick to the 6 team epiphany, no matter how excellent that team is---even Maggie Walker was overwhelmed by State College several weeks ago, and we all know how great a team MWGS is. So, what if, per chance, this 2nd best team in SC's bracket this weekend is actually the 2nd best team overall at QuAC---would you deny it the chance to play in the Championship bracket due to this probable one loss to SC? At Harvard last weekend, only one team, Hunter, played State College a somewhat competitive match. What if Hunter were bracketed with State in the Prelims? Should Hunter be eliminated based on one loss, if things unfold here as they did at Harvard? My school, Saint Joe's, opened 3 tournaments this year in the prelims with National Powerhouses if the preseason ratings are to be believed. At U Md we opened with eventual & undefeated winner GDS, and obviously lost, but played them almost as well as anyone. At Princeton, we opened with eventual & undefeated winner Wilmington Charter, and lost, but played them fairly well as well. At Harvard, we opened with Hunter, and lost on the last question. In your scenario, we would have been eliminated after our first match in all of these tournaments. In several of these tourneys, we traveled 8-10 hours round trip by bus to have a chance to play against the best competition we could find. We are not a national powerhouse, but we are a good & developing team, and we would not wish to be eliminated simply because someone brackets us in our first match with the best team in the field and thus lose the opportunity to play for the championship after ONE loss. Two losses---OK, I think we all can accept that, but ONE? I understand the desire of the top 6 Teams to play each other---but do we already know who they are? Would anyone last year say New Trier was better than State College? Not even the New Trier Coach believed this, and he admitted this on this site after the tournament. Yet his team defeated State College. And last week we were within microseconds of defeating a very gifted Hunter College High School team in the first round---does anyone think we are better than Hunter? I hope this helps to produce a counter-epiphany. Remember---developing teams would also love to play the best--and not just one of the best and then get sent packing. No one should be eliminated by one loss. I rest my case and trust that it too will be considered before any sudden & possibly arbitrary epiphanies change the proposed 12 team format. And again---this is not an effort to undermine the understandable desire of the best to play the best---it is, rather, an arugument for a fairer opportunity to actually determine who are the 6 best, at least this weekend. And if this does not persuade, maybe the sure-fire 6 best that "everyone knows"are the 6 best can meet--- in the the Prelims---with only one or at most two advancing to Championship Round play. There is room for this scenario---this way, the six best will play each other in the Prelims---think how exciting this will be---but only one or two could advance to the championship round, depending on whether a 6 or 12 team format is finally "epiphanied". This argument is possible---call it my "sudden" epiphany. But is it wise or even respectful of the other teams in attendance?

Of course, this is not my tournament---we are merely one of many schools, and we will compete in whatever format is chosen. So---this is merely some food for some "counter-epiphanic' thought...and is shared respectfully and with good cheer with all competitors.

Edited & elaborated for greater clarity.
Last edited by Edward Powers on Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:33 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

Edward Powers wrote:No one should be eliminated by one loss.
Emphasis added.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

TheKingInYellow wrote:I think there is enough distinction between teams the a 6 team playoff bracket would work just fine, and probably be more exciting for both the top 6 and 7-12. I hope this prompts you to epiphany
Are you really saying that you know, for absolute fact, the top 6 teams at this competition? And that nothing could ever possibly happen to deviate from this magic half dozen that you've contrived?

Who are they then? Sure, i could rank a top whatever list of teams, but you really think that a top 6 is that clear cut, that all of them will be in separate brackets for the day in the prelims and go undefeated?
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:
TheKingInYellow wrote:I think there is enough distinction between teams the a 6 team playoff bracket would work just fine, and probably be more exciting for both the top 6 and 7-12. I hope this prompts you to epiphany
Are you really saying that you know, for absolute fact, the top 6 teams at this competition? And that nothing could ever possibly happen to deviate from this magic half dozen that you've contrived?

Who are they then? Sure, i could rank a top whatever list of teams, but you really think that a top 6 is that clear cut, that all of them will be in separate brackets for the day in the prelims and go undefeated?
Publishing a list on a public forum might bruise some egos, but I agree with him. It's pretty clear who's going to go undefeated.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Mechanical Beasts »

I count eight teams that could go undefeated depending on bracketing, and since two brackets will contain (in all likelihood) 5-8 and 6-7, I really can't predict which two of the bottom four of those eight will. This is one of the few times that I'll suggest either top twelve or a wild card system, and the latter is infeasible.
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:I count eight teams that could go undefeated depending on bracketing, and since two brackets will contain (in all likelihood) 5-8 and 6-7, I really can't predict which two of the bottom four of those eight will. This is one of the few times that I'll suggest either top twelve or a wild card system, and the latter is infeasible.
Really?

Okay, in the interest of transparency, I'll post my predictions for the top bracket. In no particular order:

Us
State College
TJ
DCC
Hunter
Charter

Kellenberg would be up there, but IIRC, they're undermanned this Saturday.

If Kellenberg isn't undermanned, then I guess a twelve-team playoff would be for the best.

EDIT: words
Last edited by The King's Flight to the Scots on Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Mechanical Beasts »

If Kellenberg's undermanned, then think I'm certainly on your side.
Andrew Watkins

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Edward Powers »

Andy---just for fun, who are your 8 possible undefeated squads?

Might I speculate? Without trying to bruise anyone's ego, and simply trying to do what a good TD might do, using results so far this year and national polls that try to reflect undertandings of strengths this year based on last year & graduation, and overall annual quality of programs, might not the list go something like this, with some minor quibbles around #'s 6,7 & 8?:

#1, State College, by acclamation given recent overwhelming performances,
# 2 Charter ( winning both Princeton & LIFT with tremendous ppg averages & a clear national calibre program);
# 3 Hunter (preseason # 3) and powerful performances at both LIFT & Harvard & at ACF Fall at MIT,
# 4,DCC for its annual national excellence,
#5 Saint Anselm's based on fine perforamnces at RM & UMD and at the Fall AFC;
# 6, TJ, excellent performances last week and at UMD, just edging
# 7 Kellenberg, who won Yale & finished 3rd at Princeton,defeating Dorman B along the way, and 4th at Harvard

or would you place Kellenberg 6th & TJ 7th---but TJ defeated K-berg at UMD--but K-Berg did not have all of its starters so....???? ..so, really tougher here...given K-berg's fine perforamnce at AFC as well...

and perhaps last but not least,

#8 perhaps Caesar Rodney, pre-season # 40? But, do not forget Moravian---it has 2 players back from a team that defeated both SC A & B at the Pennsylvania State NAQT Championships last year and made the playoffs earleir this year at Princeton---

so---is this close?

If so, I wonder who the "clear" 6 are of these 8/9? And, might there be any "New Triers" in any Prelim brackets for any of these clear cut best & sure to be undefeated teams?

Or should we not all be a little more judicious and merely think these thoughts but not say them "out-loud'?

What do you think, Andy? You're a TD---is this roughly how you would have seeded the top line or so and thus SAY what everyone else is surely thinking? Or should I edit this and remove all possible bruises to anyone's ego? Or leave it, to give everyone in the field the chance to prove it either right or wrong? These last are, obviously, rhetorical---I will leave these remarks, since i assume we all love competition and we all love to be challenged and we are not so thin skinned that we cannot have a little fun with each other beforehand. So---let's see where the dust settles when all is said and done. Good luck everyone, and may the best teams demonstrate their excellences---not just competively, but in their sportsmanship and civility as well, and may we all amicably tip our hats to such excellences whenever & wherever we find them.

Still---is this how you would have seeded the top of the field, Andy? Or, anyone else, for that matter?

EDIT: While I was writng this, I see that Andy & Matt have already posted---and if Kellenberg is undermanned, I see they are in aggreement with each other about the top 6---and with me if K-berg is shorthanded---but who was your 8th potential undefeated team, Andy, if I might ask?
Last edited by Edward Powers on Thu Nov 19, 2009 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

Edward Powers wrote:
national polls
no dont

Seriously, I hope nobody's been using the preseason poll to seed their prelim brackets.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) »

This is absurd.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Edward Powers »

Not just the poll---actual performances as well, which are clearly more important.

And what's absurd? Having a little fun? Making some harmless predictions? It's meant to be friendly. If it's interpteted as otherwise, I certainly apologize, but where's the absurdity? Have we violated a taboo? Be honest---when deciding to go to one of two tournaments held on the same day, with one having a field of good local teams, and another having a field of teams who have proven themselves to be among the best in the country, would you not know right away which field is tougher and make some quick estimate in your mind how the two tournamnets would be seeded? And if you thoght going to the tougher tournament would be best for your program, would it be absurd for you to pretend that now you have no idea about how teams will probably be seeded, or would it be natural to estimate probable seedings and where your team might fit in? And, if it is natural, where's the absurdity---other than perhaps sayng it out loud? But if you also indicate that this "saying it out loud" was meant to be a friendly thing, what's the problem? We all know we have to actually compete, and big talk scores no points at all---it still will come down to the TU's and Bonuses in every room through every round---which, for God's sakes, was my real point. Virtually everyone thought the New England Patriots would defeat the Giants in hte Supertbowl several years ago---but that's why they play the game. At the end of the year, the Giants had SIX losses, the Patriots had ONE. The Giants were Champs. Yet here it was suggested that one loss should eliminate teams. I doubt the argument would have been made if it was also believed the TD would seed teams in prlims arbitrarily, by lottery---but in efffect, once the great teams are SPARED from playing each other in Prelims, isn't this what happens to unknown teams without a National rep---sort of a lottery? So, will you not destroy tournaments if the best teams are almost seeded into championship brackets regularly because they do NOT play each other very often in prelims, while other teams who lose once are already eliminated after driving for 5 hours to play becaause, let's say, their first match is with State College? Is there not an inevitable loss of enthusiam guaranteed if if one loss elimiantes teams? And is there not an ARROGANCE in eliminating so called lesser tams in Prelims, but demanding advantaged finals in Championship Round Robins when there is onlly one game separating the two top teams? Chip Beale eliminated teams year after year with one loss AT NATIONALS---which is one reason why most of trhe best programs left Chip and helped start organizations like PACE & NAQT. So, I was simply surprised when the argument for ONE loss in preliminaries was made. I thought teams and programs at such respected events at QuAC understood that teams like mine come in order to have a chance---not a guarantee---but a chance to play the best--and we will travel long distances to do so. But when you start every tournament with a GDS or a Charter or a Hunter, odds are the trip has been in vain---even iif you play as well against them as anoyone else will throughout the day---you'll still see only ONE top team if ONE loss eliminates you. So---if this keeps up, what's the incentive to travel so far, unless the rules allow a 2nd loss before elimination from championship play? And any team who says "toughen up", I challenge them right now to volunteer the rest of this year to be in a Prelim bracket with SC or MWGS, with one loss as the rule in Prelims, and, further, I ask that when they volunteer to do this, they also volunjteer to travel 8-10-12 hours round trip for the privilege. That's all. Of course, no school will volunteer, for it would be a fool's errand most of the time.

But I've said way too much already, and given how often my poll remark has been misinterprted or not even read in context at all, I will stop here. And if all of this is absurd or a waste of time, let me know. I know how to be silent as well. I was just trying to make a point and be friendly in the process. If these traits are not really wanted here, then that's a shame, for I will always try to be friendly, and if necessary, I will speak my mind if I think the issue is worthy of consideration by the quizbowl community. But for now, I think I will joyfully sink back into the joys of silence.
Last edited by Edward Powers on Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:07 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

User avatar
Nine-Tenths Ideas
Auron
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: MD

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Nine-Tenths Ideas »

I would certainly hope that people do not actually believe we're 38th in the nation anymore.
Isaac Hirsch
University of Maryland '14
Never Gonna Play Again

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Edward Powers »

Again---perfomances first, polls to help if there are no performances to look at---but even then, obviously used judiciously---not mindlessly. But that was part of my point---how CAN we know beforehand who the 6 best really are UNTIL WE PLAY? An argument was being made to eliminate teams from the Championship bracket based on one loss!!!!!!!!!!!

And it was made based upon performance, yes--but also reputation. And that' s the problem. It was at the heart of my argument about New Trier and SC last year. New Trier had a great team---but surely its defeat of SC at HSNCT was an upset---hence my point that SC should NOT be eliminated from championship competition based on one loss in the playoffs. But some were arguing here that teams should be eliminated based on one loss in Prelims. I disagreed. Hence all that I wrote. But it seems people now think I simply wanted to use polls---I did not. But a TD who has no other evidence about the calibre of a team MIGHT use the judicious assesssments made by others who know the team. That is all I meant by that. That is why i asked Andy who his 8th potentially undefeated team would be---since i could not for the life of me figure out who it might be based on my observations so far this year.

So---in my hypothetical "seeding", I used performaces this year wherever i could.

That is all.
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

Edward Powers wrote:lots of really good posts
Let it be known that i pretty much agree with everything that Ed said. While i ain't relying on any polls, i certainly cannot agree that a team should be eliminated from championship contention in an early round with one and only one loss. That's ridiculous.

Look, these brackets were used just fine at TJ earlier this year: 6 brackets, 6 teams each. The top two from each were taken into a next playoff bracket and faced up against teams ranked (1-6) in that bracket, 5 more games. We went 4-1 with a huge loss to GDS and great wins against two or three other really competitive teams in the prelims, and then placed in a playoff bracket (note: we had 1 loss) where we went 3-2... then paired up with WJ for the 5th place game in a cross-bracket "final" and just came up short to get 6th place. And it was a great day! Why is this bracket not the one that tons of tournaments with really good fields use?
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:
Edward Powers wrote:lots of really good posts
Let it be known that i pretty much agree with everything that Ed said. While i ain't relying on any polls, i certainly cannot agree that a team should be eliminated from championship contention in an early round with one and only one loss. That's ridiculous.

Look, these brackets were used just fine at TJ earlier this year: 6 brackets, 6 teams each. The top two from each were taken into a next playoff bracket and faced up against teams ranked (1-6) in that bracket, 5 more games. We went 4-1 with a huge loss to GDS and great wins against two or three other really competitive teams in the prelims, and then placed in a playoff bracket (note: we had 1 loss) where we went 3-2... then paired up with WJ for the 5th place game in a cross-bracket "final" and just came up short to get 6th place. And it was a great day! Why is this bracket not the one that tons of tournaments with really good fields use?
Okay, here's my reasoning:

1. There is no championship contention. There is, however, an extremely fierce competition for second. The twelve team system is inherently unfair for determining 2nd place.

The team with the best record in bracket 2 will go to the final and come in second to State College. However, no odd-seeded team has a chance to play in the final and take second place. Since the competition is not for first, but second, you're essentially screwing over any team that ends up with an odd seed.

2. This tournament has the most geographically diverse field this season. It's possible that we won't see Hunter, Charter, State College, and DCC in the same field until Nats. It's a shame to deprive the top teams of such great competition.

All that said, if Mehdi decides that a 12 team playoff system would best suit this field, I'll submit to his better judgment.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Mechanical Beasts »

I think it's not 100% illegitimate reasoning to say that entrance into the championship bracket requires going undefeated. The only teams that could plausibly go undefeated given some set of fairly determined brackets will probably do so; there's some ambiguity among one or two of the brackets; that's only more reason to tell the (seeded second-best, possibly not actually) second-best team in each bracket to work hard over the next couple of days.

This gives the fairest ranking among the top six teams. That's a valuable thing and will be useful data for future seedings. It's unfortunate that this will introduce some ambiguity around the borders of the top bracket, but it will eliminate ambiguity in other places. A better playoff format would perhaps shuck off the bottom team from each bracket (at which you'd hear the plea "but you're eliminating us after only five losses!"), have them play a round robin while you form five brackets of six, eliminate five teams and play five brackets of five, eliminate five teams and play four brackets of five, eliminate four teams and play four of four, eliminate four teams and play three of four, eliminate three teams and play three of three, eliminate three teams and play two of three, eliminate two teams and play cross-bracket games, and then play a seven game series.

Note that this method makes bracketing and seeding any more of an issue and requires a million times more work and time. Eliminating fewer teams at any given stage: not always the answer.

Actually, here's the clearest way to express my thoughts. If you can seriously tell me that there's more clarity in picking a top twelve teams out of this set than there is picking a top six, then I'm game. But I think you're more likely to be surprised by team 14 upsetting 11 or something than 8 upsetting 5.
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
Theory Of The Leisure Flask
Yuna
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:04 am
Location: Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Theory Of The Leisure Flask »

We're leaning toward an 8-team top bracket at the moment.
Chris White
Bloomfield HS (New Jersey) '01, Swarthmore College '05, University of Pennsylvania '10. Still writes questions occasionally.

User avatar
Nine-Tenths Ideas
Auron
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:14 pm
Location: MD

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Nine-Tenths Ideas »

Theory Of The Leisure Flask wrote:We're leaning toward an 8-team top bracket at the moment.
This was something I had mentioned elsewhere as being a good possible compromise.
Isaac Hirsch
University of Maryland '14
Never Gonna Play Again

User avatar
btressler
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:23 pm
Location: West Chester, PA
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by btressler »

(Since spots opened up...) We are in the process of getting Charter D together.

If someone else can take the last spot, that would be best.
Bill Tressler,
Dickinson ('97) Carnegie Mellon ('99) Delaware ('06)
Seen moderating at various SE Pennsylvania events.

User avatar
Lapego1
Tidus
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Richmond, VA/Philadelphia, PA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Lapego1 »

Yes, that said, if anyone's reading this and can manage to bring extra players, we'll have to have a scab team to fill out the field so said extra players would almost certainly get extra playing time.
Mehdi Razvi
Maggie Walker Gov. School '07
University of Pennsylvania '11

"A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-James D. Watson (1928-)

User avatar
Theory Of The Leisure Flask
Yuna
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:04 am
Location: Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Theory Of The Leisure Flask »

Congratulations to State College, who defeated St. Anselm's in the first game of an advantaged final to win QuAC II; Matt Bollinger of St. Anselm's was the highest scorer from the prelims.

I'm sure Mehdi will have more complete results soon.
Chris White
Bloomfield HS (New Jersey) '01, Swarthmore College '05, University of Pennsylvania '10. Still writes questions occasionally.

User avatar
Lapego1
Tidus
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Richmond, VA/Philadelphia, PA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Lapego1 »

Brief results: Following playoffs, State College A was undefeated while St. Anselm's had one loss (to State College A). We did an advantaged final with State College A emerging as Champion, winning 545-165. I'll have stats up shortly, but here are brief results (including finals):
1. State College A (8-0 in playoffs)
2. St. Anselm's (6-2)
3. Hunter (5-2)
4. TJ A (4-3)
5. Charter A (2-5)
6. Kellenberg A (2-5)
7. DCC (1-6)
8. Caesar Rodney A (1-6)

EDIT: D'oh. Chris beat me. Ninja'd.
Last edited by Lapego1 on Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mehdi Razvi
Maggie Walker Gov. School '07
University of Pennsylvania '11

"A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-James D. Watson (1928-)

User avatar
Theory Of The Leisure Flask
Yuna
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:04 am
Location: Brooklyn
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Theory Of The Leisure Flask »

Lapego1 wrote:Brief results: Following playoffs, State College A was undefeated while St. Anselm's had one loss (to State College A). We did an advantaged final with State College A emerging as Champion, winning 545-165. I'll have stats up shortly, but here are brief results (including finals):
1. State College A (8-0 in playoffs)
2. St. Anselm's (6-2)
3. Hunter (5-3)
4. TJ A (4-4)
5 or 6. Charter A (2-6)/Kellenberg A (2-6)
7. DCC (1-7)
8. Caesar Rodney A (1-7)

EDIT: D'oh. Chris beat me.
That should probably read:
1. State College A (8-0 in playoffs)
2. St. Anselm's (6-2)
3. Hunter (5-2)
4. TJ A (4-3)
5 or 6. Charter A (2-5)/Kellenberg A (2-5)
7. DCC (1-6)
8. Caesar Rodney A (1-6)

There were also two more consolation brackets of six, and single-elimination consolation games for the remaining sixteen teams. I don't know who won those brackets.
Chris White
Bloomfield HS (New Jersey) '01, Swarthmore College '05, University of Pennsylvania '10. Still writes questions occasionally.

User avatar
Lapego1
Tidus
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Richmond, VA/Philadelphia, PA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Lapego1 »

Stats are up for prelims and playoffs, including the final game. Many, many thanks to Bill Tressler, who took it upon himself to do virtually all of the playoff stats.

Thanks also go out to Chris Mote, Marisol Brady, Bill Tressler (again), Jason Jones, Andrew Chrzanowski, Ed Powers, and Bro. Nigel, who were awesome enough to staff for all or part of the day. I hope teams enjoyed themselves. I know there were some delays after lunch--we will probably just make it a longer lunch next time rather than have you guys wait...

Results: We did 6 prelim brackets of 6 teams each. After prelims, we took the bracket winners and two wild-cards (highest PPB among those who finished second in their bracket) to a championship playoff round robin of 8. The remaining four second place teams and two wild cards among the third place formed a second bracket with 6 teams for another round robin. The remaining four third place teams and two wild cards formed a third bracket with 6 teams. The remaining 16 teams competed in a single-elim playoff tree. The final official ranking of teams is as follows (with ties broken by PPG as usual in the playoff brackets):

1. State College A
2. St. Anselm's
3. Hunter
4. TJ A
5. Charter A
6. Kellenberg A
7. DCC
8. Caesar Rodney A

9. St. Joseph's A
10. TJ B
11. Charter B
12. Millburn A
13. Charter C
14. Charter D

15. St. Joseph's B
16. Moravian A
17. Mt. Pleasant A
18. Kellenberg B
19. HHH West A
20. Moorestown Friends B

21. St. Joseph's C
22. Pennridge A
23. State College B
24. HHH West B
25t. Moorestown Friends A
25t. Millburn B
25t. Bloomfield A
25t. Woodbridge
29t. Caesar Rodney B
29t. Moravian B
29t. Mt. Pleasant B
29t. Scab
29t. Octorara
29t. Kellenberg C
29t. Bloomfield B
29t. Pennridge B

Thanks again to everyone for coming out! We hope to see you again next year!
Mehdi Razvi
Maggie Walker Gov. School '07
University of Pennsylvania '11

"A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-James D. Watson (1928-)

master15625
Rikku
Posts: 291
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 11:12 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by master15625 »

Congratulations to State College for another win and St. Anselm's for their runner up performance.

Did this HSAPQ ACF Style Set seem better than the last ACF Style Set?
Neil Gurram
'10 DCDS
'15 MIT
'16 MIT

User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Frater Taciturnus »

master15625 wrote:Congratulations to State College for another win and St. Anselm's for their runner up performance.

Did this HSAPQ ACF Style Set seem better than the last ACF Style Set?
Was there an issue with the last one?
George Berry
[email protected]
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

I'll write more tomorrow, but...

~great competition at this tournament, i was glad to see lots of good teams... good performances all around... nice job to SC and St. Anselm's in particular

~these questions were hard, the hardest "regular difficulty" set HSAPQ has ever produced... maybe the questions were "good" but they were too difficult if this was supposed to be a regular tournament... the difficulty was probably 25% more difficult than the last HSAPQ set, and i'm sure that many teams (including my B Team) were completely unready for this... compare this tournament to any of the sets online for free on HSAPQ.com and this is substantially harder

~this set featured more of what Bill Tressler has coined "Eiffel questions" with huge difficulty cliffs and buzzer races between top teams on stock clues... i thought we were going to get away from this and i trusted HSAPQ to do that... it didn't happen

~there was a math computation bonus in the set for the first answer of a math bonus... :w-hat:

~it was a good set that attempted to distinguish between the upper teams, but left a lot of the lower teams struggling... i can see why some schools left early
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Matt Weiner »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:the difficulty was probably 25% more difficult than the last HSAPQ set
Where do you get that figure? According to the numbers I have for the last two Mid-Atlantic uses of HSAPQ questions:

Tournament #8 at Maryland: 84% of tossups answered, 16.94 overall bonus conversion, 14.35 median bonus conversion
Tournament #9 at Penn: 80% of tossups answered, 16.67 overall bonus conversion, 13.88 median bonus conversion

So it looks like the difference was more like 5% in the tossups and 1-3% in the bonuses. That's before accounting for the likely increased overall strength of a 24-team DC-area field compared to a 36-team Philadelphia-area field.

If you thought there were particular questions that were too hard, please send me or Shawn an e-mail.

HSAPQ wants to see more like 85-90 percent of tossups answered and a median bonus conversion of 15, so we still have work to do, but I think we're coming pretty close to our targets, and we've improved a lot since last year with difficulty. I also thought that the hundreds of powers awarded at Penn meant we're doing better on writing buzzable early clues, but as always, if there's outliers you want to discuss, you know where to reach us.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

User avatar
Lapego1
Tidus
Posts: 675
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 8:06 pm
Location: Richmond, VA/Philadelphia, PA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Lapego1 »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:~there was a math computation bonus in the set for the first answer of a math bonus... :w-hat:
This is something I've been pushing for. Math computation is a major part of science and many high school math classes. I think it's important to stick it in there somehow, and, as has been already discussed extensively, math comp tossups are very hard to write pyramidally. Bonuses, though, are a good, fair way to leave math comp in sets.
Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:~it was a good set that attempted to distinguish between the upper teams, but left a lot of the lower teams struggling... i can see why some schools left early
Officially, I don't think anyone left early, let alone because of the questions...I mean, Moravian told me ahead of time they'd have to leave by 4:30 for a school event, and they were the only ones that left without completing their scheduled games.
Mehdi Razvi
Maggie Walker Gov. School '07
University of Pennsylvania '11

"A goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid."
-James D. Watson (1928-)

User avatar
Ted
Lulu
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:28 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Ted »

QuAC II was a great tournament. It was my first Quizbowl tournament and my school's first as well. (Moorestown Friends B). It was organized very well, and I my whole team had a great time. The only thing was that my first two matches were against easy teams (Mount Pleasant B, Octarara) and we crushed, getting the impression that we could win the bracket, only to lose to Charter C about 200-100, DCC 500-100 or so, and St. Joe's A 515- -10. (Yes, negative 10). In the end, my team went 2-8 overall, but we did well for our first time ever. (20th) Thanks a lot for running this tournament!

Ted
Ted Barrett
Moorestown Friends '12

"I'm a big believer in luck, and I find that the harder I work, the more I have of it"

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

Matt Weiner wrote:
Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:the difficulty was probably 25% more difficult than the last HSAPQ set
Where do you get that figure? According to the numbers I have for the last two Mid-Atlantic uses of HSAPQ questions:

Tournament #8 at Maryland: 84% of tossups answered, 16.94 overall bonus conversion, 14.35 median bonus conversion
Tournament #9 at Penn: 80% of tossups answered, 16.67 overall bonus conversion, 13.88 median bonus conversion

So it looks like the difference was more like 5% in the tossups and 1-3% in the bonuses. That's before accounting for the likely increased overall strength of a 24-team DC-area field compared to a 36-team Philadelphia-area field.

If you thought there were particular questions that were too hard, please send me or Shawn an e-mail.

HSAPQ wants to see more like 85-90 percent of tossups answered and a median bonus conversion of 15, so we still have work to do, but I think we're coming pretty close to our targets, and we've improved a lot since last year with difficulty. I also thought that the hundreds of powers awarded at Penn meant we're doing better on writing buzzable early clues, but as always, if there's outliers you want to discuss, you know where to reach us.
More people/teams will back me up on this once they get home, but...

~State College was at this tournament, which automatically increases the percentage of conversions for the field because they're so awesome

~the top ELEVEN teams from this tournament, i believe, have already qualified for a Nationals tournament... St. Anselm's did not have their top player at Maryland so their ppb should have been way higher then... plus other examples i could give to explain why the first set was easier and this one was absolutely certainly not the same in difficulty... yes i will look at the packets i have kept and think about what answers were too hard; there were quite a few (not just 30s on bonuses, i mean tossups)
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

Lapego1 wrote:
Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:~there was a math computation bonus in the set for the first answer of a math bonus... :w-hat:
This is something I've been pushing for. Math computation is a major part of science and many high school math classes. I think it's important to stick it in there somehow, and, as has been already discussed extensively, math comp tossups are very hard to write pyramidally. Bonuses, though, are a good, fair way to leave math comp in sets.
I thought HSAPQ disagreed with you, via this page: http://www.hsapq.com/math.html

Is this now no longer true?

I'm aware that the page focuses on math tossups but the implication is that all math calculation will not be used. I wasn't aware that this would be changed. This was the first instance of math calculation i've seen in any HSAPQ packet in two years.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Susan »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:
Lapego1 wrote:
Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:~there was a math computation bonus in the set for the first answer of a math bonus... :w-hat:
This is something I've been pushing for. Math computation is a major part of science and many high school math classes. I think it's important to stick it in there somehow, and, as has been already discussed extensively, math comp tossups are very hard to write pyramidally. Bonuses, though, are a good, fair way to leave math comp in sets.
I thought HSAPQ disagreed with you, via this page: http://www.hsapq.com/math.html

Is this now no longer true?

I'm aware that the page focuses on math tossups but the implication is that all math calculation will not be used. I wasn't aware that this would be changed. This was the first instance of math calculation i've seen in any HSAPQ packet in two years.
that there page you linked to wrote: 4. Math is covered in other questions in the packet

We do ask math calculation bonuses in some of our sets, since they eliminate most of the problem by taking away the “bad tossup” factor. We also cover conceptual math questions that do not require calculation to answer—tossups on the fundamental theorem of algebra, on logarithms, etc. Mathematics in general is an important part of the HSAPQ distribution; it is only math calculation tossups that we exclude.
Susan
UChicago alum (AB 2003, PhD 2009)
Member emerita, ACF

User avatar
Mechanical Beasts
Banned Cheater
Posts: 5673
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 10:50 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Mechanical Beasts »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote: ~State College was at this tournament, which automatically increases the percentage of conversions for the field because they're so awesome

~the top ELEVEN teams from this tournament, i believe, have already qualified for a Nationals tournament...
State College being extra-awesome (as opposed to the top team at Maryland just being largely awesome, or something) can affect the mean but not the median. This may well be why the median suffers more of a drop, but Matt pretty much accounted for that when he said 1-3%; that's why he cited two numbers.

Also, you're citing a page about tossups with respect to an argument about bonuses. While I agree with you that math computation bonuses can be bad, I am hesitant to condemn this one without having seen it.
Andrew Watkins

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

Also, in the playoff statistics, for Caesar Rodney A, Ryan was given Seth's points in the win against DCC... Seth scored 1-2-0, and Ryan was 0-0-0 that game.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Frater Taciturnus »

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:
Lapego1 wrote:
Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:~there was a math computation bonus in the set for the first answer of a math bonus... :w-hat:
This is something I've been pushing for. Math computation is a major part of science and many high school math classes. I think it's important to stick it in there somehow, and, as has been already discussed extensively, math comp tossups are very hard to write pyramidally. Bonuses, though, are a good, fair way to leave math comp in sets.
I thought HSAPQ disagreed with you, via this page: http://www.hsapq.com/math.html

Is this now no longer true?

I'm aware that the page focuses on math tossups but the implication is that all math calculation will not be used. I wasn't aware that this would be changed. This was the first instance of math calculation i've seen in any HSAPQ packet in two years.
The Document You Just Linked To wrote:We do ask math calculation bonuses in some of our sets
I mean, does this somehow need to be made clearer?
George Berry
[email protected]
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

that there page you linked to wrote: 4. Math is covered in other questions in the packet

We do ask math calculation bonuses in some of our sets, since they eliminate most of the problem by taking away the “bad tossup” factor. We also cover conceptual math questions that do not require calculation to answer—tossups on the fundamental theorem of algebra, on logarithms, etc. Mathematics in general is an important part of the HSAPQ distribution; it is only math calculation tossups that we exclude.
[/quote]
Very well. It still remains the first math calculation bonus question i've ever seen in an HSAPQ set, i believe. Teams did not have paper and were taken back by it, and kinda annoyed, it appeared.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Matt Weiner »

Yeah, we'll definitely put pencil-and-paper reminders in front of the question/packet when using such bonuses in the future.

Also, I'd like to hear what people think of calculation bonuses at the next HSAPQ forum, which will be held sometime before the end of the calendar year.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

User avatar
Kouign Amann
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 1153
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:44 am
Location: Morristown, NJ

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Kouign Amann »

This tournament was highly enjoyable. Many thanks to the folks at UPenn and anyone else who made it happen. Most of our moderators were excellent, and things ran smoothly.

The set definitely had a few issues with random difficulty outliers, but it was still largely the same excellent product we have come to expect from HSAPQ.

This was probably the best playoff bracket we've ever had a chance to participate in, and I would like to thank all the other teams, especially State College, for making our afternoon extremely exciting. Sure, losing our first match with SC on two buzzer races and a technicality was pretty frustrating, but that was still a fun game.
Aidan Mehigan
St. Anselm's Abbey School '12
Columbia University '16 | University of Oxford '17 | UPenn GSE '19

User avatar
pleasewalkforward
Wakka
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:43 pm
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by pleasewalkforward »

Prof.Whoopie wrote:Sure, losing our first match with SC on two buzzer races and a technicality was pretty frustrating, but that was still a fun game.
Seconded. Many thanks to UPenn for running a really excellent tournament and efficiently completing it in time for us to make our train.
Jacob Lawrence Wasserman
Saint Anselm's Abbey School, '12
Yale University, '16
University of California, Los Angeles, '19
Former Treasurer and Member, Yale Student Academic Competitions
Former Secretary, Staff Recruitment Volunteer, and Member, Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence

User avatar
Down and out in Quintana Roo
Auron
Posts: 2907
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 7:25 am
Location: Camden, DE
Contact:

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Down and out in Quintana Roo »

Matt Weiner wrote:
Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:the difficulty was probably 25% more difficult than the last HSAPQ set
Where do you get that figure? According to the numbers I have for the last two Mid-Atlantic uses of HSAPQ questions:

Tournament #8 at Maryland: 84% of tossups answered, 16.94 overall bonus conversion, 14.35 median bonus conversion
Tournament #9 at Penn: 80% of tossups answered, 16.67 overall bonus conversion, 13.88 median bonus conversion

So it looks like the difference was more like 5% in the tossups and 1-3% in the bonuses. That's before accounting for the likely increased overall strength of a 24-team DC-area field compared to a 36-team Philadelphia-area field.

If you thought there were particular questions that were too hard, please send me or Shawn an e-mail.

HSAPQ wants to see more like 85-90 percent of tossups answered and a median bonus conversion of 15, so we still have work to do, but I think we're coming pretty close to our targets, and we've improved a lot since last year with difficulty. I also thought that the hundreds of powers awarded at Penn meant we're doing better on writing buzzable early clues, but as always, if there's outliers you want to discuss, you know where to reach us.
Now that i've had a little more time to think...

What if this set were played in Missouri? Or upstate New York? Or Idaho? Do you really think you would get even close to "85-90" percent conversion? It didn't even happen here (and yeah, i completely disagree with your assertion that Maryland's tournament had a "likely increased overall strength" there; just because something is held around DC does not automatically mean the teams attending are better), in what was probably the best field of teams at a tournament this season (and probably the best for quite some time). If your goal is for that conversion rate, and the tournament that had the most great teams in the country attend it can't even do it... how can you possibly justify the difficulty of it? You're comparing one competition with lots of good teams to another competition with even more good teams (and fewer "bad" teams). Are you saying that you're content with all those North/South Carolina teams getting no higher than 18ppb on this set last weekend as well?

I mean, even though you had all these great teams at Penn yesterday, i still count 8 teams that got 20 or fewer tossups correct in the 5 prelim rounds. You're telling me that scores like this are okay? 90-10 (round 1), 120-25 (round 5), 80-70 (round 3), 95-10 (round 3), 125-55 (round 2), 100-80 (round 3).

The ultimate point that i'm making is that we agreed to use an HSAPQ/modified-Virginia set for our tournament at CR in April. We like HSAPQ a lot; we're excited to expose Delaware teams to it. But, if you're telling me that it's going to be this difficult (and, yes, more difficult than the last set, which i really enjoyed a lot apart from some of the repeats and typos), then i'm not sure if we can agree to that.
Mr. Andrew Chrzanowski
Caesar Rodney High School
Camden, Delaware
CRHS '97-'01
University of Delaware '01-'05
CRHS quizbowl coach '06-'12
http://crquizbowl.edublogs.org

Blahhunter
Lulu
Posts: 19
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by Blahhunter »

Well after the first two bonuses, my team felt that this tournament was going to be pretty hard, though that lessened as the day went on. The main problems I had with this set was the frequent repetition, and there were many cliffs that were still in power which proved frustrating. Poetry overshadowed the other lit, and astronomy had a larger than usual share of the distribution in later rounds. There also seemed to be a distribution for a certain region in Europe, including a tossup on a very minor unimportant person from that region which was extremely difficult. :w-hat:
Zihan Zheng
Hunter College High School '13

User avatar
The King's Flight to the Scots
Auron
Posts: 1494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:11 pm

Re: QuAC II at UPenn in Phila., PA (11/21/09)

Post by The King's Flight to the Scots »

Congrats to Penn for running a great tournament. It was awesome to play great teams like Charter, Hunter, and DCC for the first time. Nevertheless, all those matches pale in comparison to our match against TJ, which came down to the last two tossups: they powered 7 questions and we powered 8, for a total of FIFTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEN powers. It's a little scary to think that State College, Hunter, and TJ are all returning everyone next year.
Matt Bollinger
UVA '14, UVA '15
Communications Officer, ACF

Locked