Re: Northwestern Wildcat XII
Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:40 pm
So. If the sixteenth spot is still open, I (and my brother) can take it.
Sponsored by the Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence (Twitter: @PACENSC)
https://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/
Make it happen.adeveau wrote:So. If the sixteenth spot is still open, I (and my brother) can take it.
10 for bottom bracket, 13 for everyone else.jdeliverer wrote:How many rounds are guaranteed and what is the plan for lunch?
Stop not responding to emails you are sent about this, and it's yours.adeveau wrote:So. If the sixteenth spot is still open, I (and my brother) can take it.
Tournament format is 2x8, then break into 2 pools of six, and a pool of four.Extinction threshold wrote:10 for bottom bracket, 13 for everyone else.jdeliverer wrote:How many rounds are guaranteed and what is the plan for lunch?
EDIT: I might as well just post the format here, Morning: 2 brackets of 8
Playoffs: 2 brackets of 6, bottom bracket of 4.
Re-EDIT: I'm now being told it might be 2x8, break ties, 2x8 new teams only, break ties, finals???
Kevin Malis is a wolf. Can't you read?Dan-Don wrote:Haha yes. I've started a trend. The 2010 WIldcat is just gonna be a tournament full of hobo teams.
I'm never speaking to Nolan again.jonah wrote:Loyola A has taken a loss to Niles North.
Deveau is here after St. Brutus's 5 point win over Wolfpack. Just had to brag. :Pjonah wrote:One-game final right now between Auburn A and the Deveaus..
Rightly so.JackGlerum wrote:I'm never speaking to Nolan again.jonah wrote:Loyola A has taken a loss to Niles North.
Well, I think you're right that the questions are easy. Isn't Set 11 cannibalized from the VHSL sets, which are intentionally easier?Dan-Don wrote:I'm not gonna bitch about the question quality. It's been done. However, I would like to compliment the NU guys on a great tournament that was a major improvement with respect to some of the logistical errors with Penn Bowl. This was just a downright fun tournament.
More importantly, the field featured no less than 5 rogue teams! I'm stoked that players are sending the message to coaches: "We like good quizbowl. If you can't or won't take us, we'll go ourselves." (Of course a lot of bad coaches will never receive this message.)
To avoid any possible confusion or misinterpretation, I wasn't doing this because I was frustrated with my coaches or school. I just seen my opportunities and I took 'em. By the time I registered, it was too late to get my school involved (though I doubt somewhat whether we would have gone).Dan-Don wrote: More importantly, the field featured no less than 5 rogue teams! I'm stoked that players are sending the message to coaches: "We like good quizbowl. If you can't or won't take us, we'll go ourselves." (Of course a lot of bad coaches will never receive this message.)
That could be. However, there were some difficult answer lines that I would presume to be too hard for VHSL; the tossups just featured very easy clues.Cantaloupe (disambiguation) wrote:Well, I think you're right that the questions are easy. Isn't Set 11 cannibalized from the VHSL sets, which are intentionally easier?Dan-Don wrote:I'm not gonna bitch about the question quality. It's been done. However, I would like to compliment the NU guys on a great tournament that was a major improvement with respect to some of the logistical errors with Penn Bowl. This was just a downright fun tournament.
More importantly, the field featured no less than 5 rogue teams! I'm stoked that players are sending the message to coaches: "We like good quizbowl. If you can't or won't take us, we'll go ourselves." (Of course a lot of bad coaches will never receive this message.)
Same deal here, I just happened to be in Chicago this weekend.jdeliverer wrote:To avoid any possible confusion or misinterpretation, I wasn't doing this because I was frustrated with my coaches or school. I just seen my opportunities and I took 'em. By the time I registered, it was too late to get my school involved (though I doubt somewhat whether we would have gone).Dan-Don wrote: More importantly, the field featured no less than 5 rogue teams! I'm stoked that players are sending the message to coaches: "We like good quizbowl. If you can't or won't take us, we'll go ourselves." (Of course a lot of bad coaches will never receive this message.)
edit: i are talk well
What do you mean? I believe Wildcat X was run in full-on NAQT format, complete with clock. That might affect ppg.jdeliverer wrote:lol @ the individual PPG in last year vs. this year.
Oh gotcha. Yeah, a lot people wrote off Illinois quizbowl this year after the loss of so many Class of '09 superstars, but we're continuing to prove them wrong. Of course, last year's field was considerably weaker.jdeliverer wrote:I mean the number of 1-man and 2-man teams this year made individual statistics crazy.
Last year: 3 individuals over 50 PPG
This year: All 10 top individuals over 60 PPG (prelims)
Maybe they consider the Junior Wildcat of 2009 to be the 11th iteration?Dan-Don wrote: Question: Why is this called Wildcat XII? The 2008-2009 ihssbca.org tournament database indicates that last year's iteration was Wildcat X.
Tough to say. Obviously we're talking about two really strong teams. But the set also had a lot of questionable power-mark placement/clues in power.jdeliverer wrote:I haven't seen many championship games, but is it normal for the finals to have 15 powers in 20 questions?
Dan, your sarcastic citing of the QB Tribune "article" is misleading because, in my estimation, pyramidality issues (describing works in leadins is good; describing the most famous work never is), not difficulty itself, was the biggest problem in this set. There were several instances of some really serious clue mixups, but answer lines and bonuses were generally good.Dan-Don wrote:That could be. However, there were some difficult answer lines that I would presume to be too hard for VHSL; the tossups just featured very easy clues.Cantaloupe (disambiguation) wrote:Well, I think you're right that the questions are easy. Isn't Set 11 cannibalized from the VHSL sets, which are intentionally easier?Dan-Don wrote:I'm not gonna bitch about the question quality. It's been done. However, I would like to compliment the NU guys on a great tournament that was a major improvement with respect to some of the logistical errors with Penn Bowl. This was just a downright fun tournament.
More importantly, the field featured no less than 5 rogue teams! I'm stoked that players are sending the message to coaches: "We like good quizbowl. If you can't or won't take us, we'll go ourselves." (Of course a lot of bad coaches will never receive this message.)
Yeah you can tell power placement is not very well done when somebody gets 78 powers.Dan-Don wrote:Tough to say. Obviously we're talking about two really strong teams. But the set also had a lot of questionable power-mark placement/clues in power.jdeliverer wrote:I haven't seen many championship games, but is it normal for the finals to have 15 powers in 20 questions?
Well this is why I cited the article. I don't know if you read it, but it's a satirical way of saying of what you've just posted.Charley Pride wrote:Dan, your sarcastic citing of the QB Tribune "article" is misleading because, in my estimation, pyramidality issues (describing works in leadins is good; describing the most famous work never is), not difficulty itself, was the biggest problem in this set. There were several instances of some really serious clue mixups, but answer lines and bonuses were generally good.Dan-Don wrote:That could be. However, there were some difficult answer lines that I would presume to be too hard for VHSL; the tossups just featured very easy clues.Cantaloupe (disambiguation) wrote:Well, I think you're right that the questions are easy. Isn't Set 11 cannibalized from the VHSL sets, which are intentionally easier?Dan-Don wrote:I'm not gonna bitch about the question quality. It's been done. However, I would like to compliment the NU guys on a great tournament that was a major improvement with respect to some of the logistical errors with Penn Bowl. This was just a downright fun tournament.
More importantly, the field featured no less than 5 rogue teams! I'm stoked that players are sending the message to coaches: "We like good quizbowl. If you can't or won't take us, we'll go ourselves." (Of course a lot of bad coaches will never receive this message.)
That said, it bothers be that difficulty is always rashly criticized in these HSAPQ sets, especially when performance is affected by confounding variables, the most notable one being that people in fact do get better at quizbowl as the season progresses. Sure, powers did seem to come easily today (I commented on it during matches myself), but the fact remains that judging the difficulty of many early and middle clues becomes a somewhat subjective process. In quizbowl you often see paradigm shifts where an early or middle clue gets overused (or overlearned, as may be the case) into giveaway oblivion. Quizbowl knowledge is very much organic, and, unfortunately, its evolution is gradual. This means that some stuff will be written that seems really easy, though it may not have been considered as such in the past, even in the recent past. That stuff seems grossly misplaced, and it often is, but making blanket statements on a set is irresponsible.
When I see people complain about questions being too easy, I often see not just the "I-know-it-therefore-it-is-easy" fallacy, but its cousin, the "I-know-it-very-well-therefore-it-is-very-easy" fallacy. Obviously, sets can have difficulty issues (at varying levels of isolation), but complaining about good questions, whether directly or passive-aggressively, contributes first to the "Illinois kids think they're too cool for school" opinion and secondly to the (lesser discussed) "quiz bowl players dismiss questions and question sets as a means to make themselves look better" opinion. I know that you, Dan-Don, aren't trying to do what the latter suggests, but that's what it often looks like, especially when the former opinion is so prevalent.
Ultimately, my appraisal of the set is that, despite big issues with a lot of specific questions, HSAPQ ACF-11 was a pretty good set. Answer lines weren't, in my opinion, too easy or too hard, and bonuses, with a few notable exceptions, seemed rock-solid with good easy-medium-hard breakdowns.
Guys, every set has its issues. HSAPQ is consistently better than other providers, and I know they fix their sets once they get feedback. ACF-11 may not have been HSAPQ's best work; it very well may have been HSAPQ's worst work, but overall, I still don't think it was that bad. Good question sets suffer most from being juxtaposed with other good sets.
Honestly, I don't know if anyone will ever produce a perfect set, so people should either stop expecting one or start producing one.
I thought you were sarcastically referring to the sarcastic article, implying that the questions were bad, but you weren't allowed to complain about them because QB Tribune mocked Nolan for complaining. I don't get it.Dan-Don wrote:Well this is why I cited the article. I don't know if you read it, but it's a satirical way of saying of what you've just posted.Charley Pride wrote:Dan, your sarcastic citing of the QB Tribune "article" is misleading because, in my estimation, pyramidality issues (describing works in leadins is good; describing the most famous work never is), not difficulty itself, was the biggest problem in this set. There were several instances of some really serious clue mixups, but answer lines and bonuses were generally good.Dan-Don wrote:That could be. However, there were some difficult answer lines that I would presume to be too hard for VHSL; the tossups just featured very easy clues.Cantaloupe (disambiguation) wrote:Well, I think you're right that the questions are easy. Isn't Set 11 cannibalized from the VHSL sets, which are intentionally easier?Dan-Don wrote:I'm not gonna bitch about the question quality. It's been done. However, I would like to compliment the NU guys on a great tournament that was a major improvement with respect to some of the logistical errors with Penn Bowl. This was just a downright fun tournament.
More importantly, the field featured no less than 5 rogue teams! I'm stoked that players are sending the message to coaches: "We like good quizbowl. If you can't or won't take us, we'll go ourselves." (Of course a lot of bad coaches will never receive this message.)
That said, it bothers be that difficulty is always rashly criticized in these HSAPQ sets, especially when performance is affected by confounding variables, the most notable one being that people in fact do get better at quizbowl as the season progresses. Sure, powers did seem to come easily today (I commented on it during matches myself), but the fact remains that judging the difficulty of many early and middle clues becomes a somewhat subjective process. In quizbowl you often see paradigm shifts where an early or middle clue gets overused (or overlearned, as may be the case) into giveaway oblivion. Quizbowl knowledge is very much organic, and, unfortunately, its evolution is gradual. This means that some stuff will be written that seems really easy, though it may not have been considered as such in the past, even in the recent past. That stuff seems grossly misplaced, and it often is, but making blanket statements on a set is irresponsible.
When I see people complain about questions being too easy, I often see not just the "I-know-it-therefore-it-is-easy" fallacy, but its cousin, the "I-know-it-very-well-therefore-it-is-very-easy" fallacy. Obviously, sets can have difficulty issues (at varying levels of isolation), but complaining about good questions, whether directly or passive-aggressively, contributes first to the "Illinois kids think they're too cool for school" opinion and secondly to the (lesser discussed) "quiz bowl players dismiss questions and question sets as a means to make themselves look better" opinion. I know that you, Dan-Don, aren't trying to do what the latter suggests, but that's what it often looks like, especially when the former opinion is so prevalent.
Ultimately, my appraisal of the set is that, despite big issues with a lot of specific questions, HSAPQ ACF-11 was a pretty good set. Answer lines weren't, in my opinion, too easy or too hard, and bonuses, with a few notable exceptions, seemed rock-solid with good easy-medium-hard breakdowns.
Guys, every set has its issues. HSAPQ is consistently better than other providers, and I know they fix their sets once they get feedback. ACF-11 may not have been HSAPQ's best work; it very well may have been HSAPQ's worst work, but overall, I still don't think it was that bad. Good question sets suffer most from being juxtaposed with other good sets.
Honestly, I don't know if anyone will ever produce a perfect set, so people should either stop expecting one or start producing one.
Clarification: The set had some misplaced clues, which was probably its biggest issue. I expected players to also complain about question ease, but I just wanted to remind people that we Illinois folk who are posting in this thread are all pretty skilled and therefore might perceive the high number of powers and good bonus conversion as a bigger problem than it was (a la the satirical article).Katamari Damacy wrote:I must say your post was not clear at all what your real thoughts were (and I'm still unsure).
Katamari Damacy wrote:I must say your post was not clear at all what your real thoughts were (and I'm still unsure).
Wait. Why are high bonus conversion and lots of powers inherently problematic?Dan-Don wrote:Clarification: The set had some misplaced clues, which was probably its biggest issue. I expected players to also complain about question ease, but I just wanted to remind people that we Illinois folk who are posting in this thread are all pretty skilled and therefore might perceive the high number of powers and good bonus conversion as a bigger problem than it was (a la the satirical article).Katamari Damacy wrote:I must say your post was not clear at all what your real thoughts were (and I'm still unsure).
I don't know. Ask the subjects of that article. I share your opinion; powers and high ppb are are not bad, and are in fact good signs for this state that heads into NASAT tryouts in a week.Charley Pride wrote:Wait. Why are high bonus conversion and lots of powers inherently problematic?
Ah. I meant it as I won't "[complain]" about the questions because they are not as poor as many (myself included) have made this year's HSAPQ questions out to be, and therefore not worthy of any great deal of complaining.Charley Pride wrote: you said you wouldn't "[complain]" about questions...I perceived that as "we've talked about how easy these questions are before, so I'm not even going to bother talking about them now".
Dude, they were solo, or at least effectively solo.Springfield Grade Road wrote:3 people over 130 ppg?!?!?