Page 1 of 2

IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:06 pm
by jonah
In round 1 at Maine South, Loyola defeats OPRF, 363-305. New Trier over Niles West, 458-205.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:18 pm
by ihsa regionals
am i as good this time around?

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:49 pm
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
I'd like to thank the Peoria Christian (Class A) sectional host for doing halftime scores. I realize I'm the only watching it (and I'm only here because Jimmy was awake just long enough to wake me up for good), but it's reassuring to know that someone will actually post updates. (Egan's sectional doesn't count, because Jonah would just tweet the scores mid-question.)

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:23 pm
by jonah
OPRF 427, Niles West 319; New Trier 423, Loyola 374.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:38 pm
by jdeliverer
lisle def. latin 350-290. latin's sectional streak is finally broken.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:47 pm
by jonah
New Trier loses to OPRF but wins the points tiebreaker by ten to go downstate.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:55 pm
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
Congratulations, New Trier, you've advanced from the sectional featuring teams #3, 6, 8, and 11 (by the good quizbowl poll) because of single elimination shenanigans and a pool play tiebreaker scenario dreamed up by monkeys!


In all seriousness, congrats to New Trier for playing well today. It's the IHSA advancement procedures I'm mocking here - I was planning on doing this no matter who won this bloodbath.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:57 pm
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
Oh, and Latin - if Dwight beats Lisle and holds them to under 262, you advance from the 2-1 circle of death.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:26 pm
by abnormal abdomen
ihsa regionals wrote:am i as good this time around?
Shut up.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:34 pm
by rjaguar3
IMSA went 3-0 to advance to State.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:42 pm
by Edward Elric
styxman wrote:Oh, and Latin - if Dwight beats Lisle and holds them to under 262, you advance from the 2-1 circle of death.
Lisle is up 167-9 at the half. :neutral:

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:47 pm
by JackGlerum
jonah wrote:New Trier 423, Loyola 374.
bahahahahahahahha

INEVITABLE

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:54 pm
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
Reminder - IHSA stuff is irrelevant and bad quizbowl.

So disregard the following:

BAGO WINNNNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:14 pm
by Deviant Insider
In a big surprise, Litchfield is out.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:25 pm
by Dayo Dankole
Stevenson favorite to win State in AA.

Amirite?

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:26 pm
by abnormal abdomen
Just to let you guys know, I became victim to the blurt rule today... on a bonus.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:28 pm
by Dayo Dankole
Westwon wrote:In a big surprise, Litchfield is out.
So what's the concensus explanation for why both Masonic champs are out? Are people going to blame this on how awful they think Masonic is or on how awful they think IHSA State Series is?

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:33 pm
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
Jacopo Robusti wrote:Just to let you guys know, I became victim to the blurt rule today... on a bonus.
You know what I love? Moderators making up rules as they go along, especially in the high school of the organizer of the moderator certification program against the team coached by the organizer of the moderator certification program!

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:39 pm
by Edward Elric
Jacopo Robusti wrote:Just to let you guys know, I became victim to the blurt rule today... on a bonus.
And Coach Greene didn't complain about that?

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:42 pm
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
Edward Elric wrote:
Jacopo Robusti wrote:Just to let you guys know, I became victim to the blurt rule today... on a bonus.
And Coach Greene didn't complain about that?
She has a (very good) policy of not protesting when you are - or soon will be - up 400 points.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:47 pm
by abnormal abdomen
styxman wrote:
Edward Elric wrote:
Jacopo Robusti wrote:Just to let you guys know, I became victim to the blurt rule today... on a bonus.
And Coach Greene didn't complain about that?
She has a (very good) policy of not protesting when you are - or soon will be - up 400 points.
No, you don't understand. The score was very close at the time (and put Carey-Grove up by 20 or so points after the moderator gave the bonus to them. They swept it, of course. I had given correct answers anyway, and they may or may not have needed my answers), and Ms. Greene defended us. She essentially pointed out that there was no such rule tossups, but the moderator ended up saying something about "illegal conferring" and awarded the other team 20 points.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:12 pm
by Charley Pride
Jacopo Robusti wrote:
styxman wrote:
Edward Elric wrote:
Jacopo Robusti wrote:Just to let you guys know, I became victim to the blurt rule today... on a bonus.
And Coach Greene didn't complain about that?
She has a (very good) policy of not protesting when you are - or soon will be - up 400 points.
No, you don't understand. The score was very close at the time (and put Carey-Grove up by 20 or so points after the moderator gave the bonus to them. They swept it, of course. I had given correct answers anyway, and they may or may not have needed my answers), and Ms. Greene defended us. She essentially pointed out that there was no such rule tossups, but the moderator ended up saying something about "illegal conferring" and awarded the other team 20 points.
In arguing on a purely logical basis, I pointed out the following things:
1. The spirit of the blurt rule is to prevent the wrong player from giving answers on a tossup. In other words, there is a foreseeable point to the blurt rule; it looks to stop something bad from happening, just like all rules should. I contended that there was no foreseeable consequence of a blurt on a bonus, thus there shouldn't be a penalty enforced, especially since it's not in the rulebook already.
2. The IHSA rulebook does say the moderator needs to recognize a player to whom the captain has deferred. However, there is no specified penalty. On this, I essentially told the moderator he didn't have the right to make rules and assign points on discretion, especially when the person who, officially, is most knowledgeable on IHSA rules, is sitting in the room.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:13 pm
by Charley Pride
ITT Zahed pretended to like the blurt rule so he could prevent the invention/enforcement of a worse rule.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:16 pm
by jonah
I wrote the following questions from this set:
Round 4 tossups: ferromagnetism (physics), clarinet (music theory), conductivity (physics)
Round 4 bonuses: Michelson-Morley experiment (physics), rotational mechanics (physics)
Round 5 tossups: inverse-square variation (physics), interstate highway system (driver's ed), diffraction (physics)
Round 5 bonuses: gas theory (physics), thermal physics (physics)
Round 6 tossups: piano sonatas (music theory), exceeding the speed of light (physics)
Round 6 bonuses: terms about waves (physics)

Again, some of my submissions were modified from the versions submitted. If you want to see any of these questions (in the form they were submitted, as that's all I have), let me know. Comments on these questions are also welcome.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:38 pm
by CometCoach72
Westwon wrote:In a big surprise, Litchfield is out.

I am surprised. New Berlin's coach and I exchanged e-mails this week and she was dreading having to play them in the Sectional; I say if there was one team short of the State Finals that had the capacity to beat Litchfield, it was New Berlin. They didn't just beat Litchfield; the score was 340-230. Terrible shame for Litchfield.

Just as surprising to me is Warrensburg-Latham losing on the tiebreaker. I'm sure that the unhappiness over the tiebreaker system will start next.

Congrats to the winners. I'm looking forward to seeing great competition on Friday.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:40 pm
by Charley Pride
Questions today were markedly better, unless my opinion of regionals is swayed by me exhaustion/frustration thanks to being at school until 9:30 on a school night. Still, they were good by no means.

A new frustration I have with bad answer choices is that they replace something useful, important, and canonical (God forbid we acknowledge the canon in IHSA) with something that's not very essential to quizbowl knowledge. It's like we're being taunted when, not only is an answer ridiculous, it is directly relevant to a perfectly reasonable thing to ask. Why the heck would you tossup Guon Yin, a Chinese boddhisattva, when you can just tossup bodhisattva? I'd venture to say that 90% of Illinois teams don't know what a bodhisattva is (though they can get Buddhism on a "This religion's adherents look to rid themselves of pleasures" leadin), even though it's somewhat basic canonical knowledge. The hypocrisy is astounding; people complain about the alleged inaccessibility of HSAPQ, yet their question provider of choice is tossing up Guon freaking Yin.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:58 pm
by Charley Pride
Dude, even Henry Gorman, who was one of the best myth players in his time, didn't know Guan Yin, even if I gave him extra time to think about it.

Guan Yin was used as an answer three times in history, according a search of the packet archive. Once in Tlazolteotl Chows Down (hard college myth singles), once in a WIT (college) packet in 2001, and another time at 2010 IHSA sectionals. She was also mentioned in the leadin of a bonus in 2009 ACF winter. Something here doesn't fit...

On another note, IHSA needs to change its protest rules. It stipulation that players must speak through the coach is stupid, and, in conjunction with the restriction on when protests can be made (before the next question), it makes getting in a protest a pretty difficult task. It's just more rulefluff that adds more ways in which a team can lose because of factors besides knowledge and skill.

I know I sounds like I've discovered for the first time that IHSA is awful, but I feel like ranting is necessary, and, furthermore, I want to continue to contribute to the trove of documented IHSA stupidities.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:01 pm
by Bonito
Division A Schools ranked numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9, in the IHSSBCA poll knocked out before IHSA state?
Division AA Schools ranked numbers 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10?
What, that includes the Masonic State champeens too?
Guan Yin tossup gets 0% conversion rate across state?

Surely this is a bit too dramatic even for scholastic bowl...

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:28 pm
by jdeliverer
IHSA Scorezone wrote:New Trier (747 points) advances to the IHSA State Tournament. Loyola Academy (737 points), and OPRF (713 points) also were 2-0.
ITT 2 blurts could determine who goes to the state championship.

I"m proud to say I got called on the blurt rule today too! :cool:

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:37 pm
by Charley Pride
jdeliverer wrote:
IHSA Scorezone wrote:New Trier (747 points) advances to the IHSA State Tournament. Loyola Academy (737 points), and OPRF (713 points) also were 2-0.
ITT 2 blurts could determine who goes to the state championship.

I"m proud to say I got called on the blurt rule today too! :cool:
ITT we learn you're not supposed to stop playing the game, even if the match is effectively over.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:50 pm
by Boeing X-20, Please!
Charley Pride wrote: ITT we learn you're not supposed to stop playing the game, even if the match is effectively over.
Charley Pride wrote:Questions today were markedly better.
Who the bobcats is Guon freaking Yin.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:53 pm
by jdeliverer
Surely it couldn't hurt to advance even a tiny number of wildcards in future tournaments? Sure, this systematically favors certain teams, but the better teams could show themselves most of the time in the end. I mean, teams qualifying with half as many points as others that don't must indicate something.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:55 pm
by Irreligion in Bangladesh
jdeliverer wrote:Surely it couldn't hurt to advance even a tiny number of wildcards in future tournaments? Sure, this systematically favors certain teams, but the better teams could show themselves most of the time in the end. I mean, teams qualifying with half as many points as others that don't must indicate something.
Many future tournaments will do this. In fact, pretty much all of them that aren't the IHSA State Series or Masonic tournament!

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:55 pm
by Charley Pride
Utahraptor wrote:
Charley Pride wrote: ITT we learn you're not supposed to stop playing the game, even if the match is effectively over.
Charley Pride wrote:Questions today were markedly better.
Who the bobcats is Guon freaking Yin.
Are you quoting me because you agree?

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:56 pm
by Jane Fairfax
jonah wrote:interstate highway system (driver's ed) .
That was pretty clever.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:02 pm
by Boeing X-20, Please!
Charley Pride wrote:
Utahraptor wrote:
Charley Pride wrote: ITT we learn you're not supposed to stop playing the game, even if the match is effectively over.
Charley Pride wrote:Questions today were markedly better.
Who the bobcats is Guon freaking Yin.
Are you quoting me because you agree?
Yeah, I agree in your opinion that the questions were MUCH better than the regionals. I was quoting the second one because you're right, and not Volgmann (although in theory he could be right if in the future another sectional is decided by PPG within the circle of death and the losing team actually blurts, which we didn't do once) although its not fair to pick out that particular incident as to why we lost as we lost somewhere around 25 bonus points due to translation from my mouth to another persons paper-type scenarios.

I approve of your new avatar, Lloyd.

EDIT: gud grammar

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:09 pm
by jdeliverer
Right, I meant hypothetically.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:16 pm
by Charley Pride
Utahraptor wrote:Who the bobcats is Guon freaking Yin.
I approve of your new avatar, Lloyd.
ITT Gwan Yin becomes part of the quizbowl myth cannon...

EDIT: Fixing some things.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:19 pm
by Charley Pride
Jane Fairfax wrote:
jonah wrote:interstate highway system (driver's ed) .
That was pretty clever.
I love you, Jonah, because doing things like this results in things like the number of acceptable history tossups going from 0 to 1.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:31 pm
by CometCoach72
jdeliverer wrote:Surely it couldn't hurt to advance even a tiny number of wildcards in future tournaments? Sure, this systematically favors certain teams, but the better teams could show themselves most of the time in the end. I mean, teams qualifying with half as many points as others that don't must indicate something.
I'm all for that, but as Mr. Reinstein has already said in another thread, doing so would have to be done so it has a neutral effect on the number of dollars that IHSA spends on Scholastic Bowl State Series.

Well...back to the old drawing board...blasted money.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:11 am
by jonah
SQBS stats for the Maine South sectional can be found here.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:41 am
by Wackford Squeers
Pff, all you northerners complaining about Guam Yam. You guys must be really narrow minded or something, and like, uneducated about other cultures. Anyway, Carbondale has a mandate from the Mattoon sectional host to stick it to all of you next week. HI-HO!

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 1:11 pm
by Dayo Dankole
IHSA State Predictions:

Class A Pool 1: New Berlin > SJO > Farmington > Fairfield
Class A Pool 2: Lisle > Macomb > Winnebago > Herrin

3rd place: Macomb > SJO ... Macomb can simply put up more points than SJO
1st place: Lisle > New Berlin ... credit to New Berlin, but Lisle is Lisle

Class AA Pool 1: Stevenson > Carbondale > New Trier > Morton (although Carbondale could drop one if they decide to not bring their full team, as they have been wont to do of late)
Class AA Pool 2: Auburn > IMSA > Bradley-Bourbonnais > Hinsdale South (although I don't know much about Hinsdale South, but B-B seems to comport themselves well, so can handle big matches)

3rd place: Carbondale if they bring full roster, IMSA else
1st place: Stevenson* > Auburn

Additional prediction: Minutes after final round, Charley Pride makes at least 4 posts about how bad the questions in the final round were ("How the bobcats do you tossup _______?")

*I am a Zach Blumenfeld fanboi


Any gossip on Carbondale roster available?

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:10 pm
by jdeliverer
Ironically, although the tiebreaker used is total points allowed, the only 3-0 team in class A that scored the most points in their sectional was Macomb. :chip: In class AA it was more normal.

Also, I agree with Dayo's predictions for both classes, although I could see IMSA making the finals, Auburn beating Stevenson/IMSA, or New Trier beating Carbondale.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:02 pm
by Charley Pride
Dayo Dankole wrote:Additional prediction: Minutes after final round, Charley Pride makes at least 4 posts about how bad the questions in the final round were ("How the bobcats do you tossup _______?")
This would be amusing if it came from someone relevant. And for what it's worth, Nolan's the Secretary of Bobcats, but he's a quizbowl nobody, right, coming from the state's most overrated team? Yeah, I thought so.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:44 pm
by CometCoach72
Dayo Dankole wrote:IHSA State Predictions:

Class A Pool 1: New Berlin > SJO > Farmington > Fairfield
Class A Pool 2: Lisle > Macomb > Winnebago > Herrin

3rd place: Macomb > SJO ... Macomb can simply put up more points than SJO
1st place: Lisle > New Berlin ... credit to New Berlin, but Lisle is Lisle

Class AA Pool 1: Stevenson > Carbondale > New Trier > Morton (although Carbondale could drop one if they decide to not bring their full team, as they have been wont to do of late)
Class AA Pool 2: Auburn > IMSA > Bradley-Bourbonnais > Hinsdale South (although I don't know much about Hinsdale South, but B-B seems to comport themselves well, so can handle big matches)

3rd place: Carbondale if they bring full roster, IMSA else
1st place: Stevenson* > Auburn

Any gossip on Carbondale roster available?

Without having talked to Mrs. Lorinskas, I'm pretty confident Carbondale will be at full capacity.

Disclamier: I do not necessarily offer predictions here, just analysis. If anyone interprets my analysis as a prediction, then be prepared for me to be wrong 50% of the time (if not more).

Class A: Don't sell Fairfield short. I think SJO has had a great season and they've been hot lately, but I'm not sold just yet. They got into the finals on a tiebreaker and lost a match they should have won (against Decatur St Teresa). The only reason Warrensburg-Latham did not win that sectional is because they only put up 95 points in the match against SJO. I'm not completely sold on Fairfield either, but I am sold on New Berlin, especially after the way they excused the presumed Class A Champ (Litchfield) from the proceedings. If New Berlin loses to either SJO or Farifield, then we might have a touch of chaos on our hands. As an observer, this is the pool that could be the most fascinating of the four.

My expectation is that Lisle will have no problem with the other pool; assuming they beat Macomb. Herrin isn't that bad, Mrs. Lorinskas said that Herrin gave Carbondale mild fits during conference play this year, but I don't think they can overcome Lisle. I agree that the Lisle-Macomb match will decide the pool.


Class AA: The Stevenson-Carbondale match will likely decide that pool. My condolences in advance to the "home team," Morton. Great season, shame you are in a pool that will be nearly impossible to win given their opponents. I wouldn't count out New Trier just yet either; Steve had a monster day on Saturday according to what I read and heard from others.

I would hate to be installed as a prohibitive favorite myself, because any team and coach worth their salt would say that the games have to be played out. That having been said, given the match-ups that are in place, I've got to think that Auburn stands the best chance of winning that pool. As a reminder to my friends from Auburn who post here, it's analysis, not a prediction.

So...if I don't wind up working any of the rooms on Friday, which match up in pool play would be the best one for me to see from a fan's standpoint, and also from the standpoint of a coach who wants to take observations back to his team to mull over for next year?

As always, I wish all the participants the best and most importantly, travel safe getting there. Friday should be a very fascinating day.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:48 pm
by Charley Pride
CometCoach72 wrote:So...if I don't wind up working any of the rooms on Friday, which match up in pool play would be the best one for me to see from a fan's standpoint, and also from the standpoint of a coach who wants to take observations back to his team to mull over for next year?

As always, I wish all the participants the best and most importantly, travel safe getting there. Friday should be a very fascinating day.
I would tell you to come watch us, but chances are some people will have to stand, as we're expecting a large fan contingent once again. I'll instruct them to be less boisterous than last year.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:51 pm
by jonah
I have some other considerations to keep in mind when selecting the matches I will be watching, but here's what I would see if I were only interested in seeing the best games possible:
Round 1: Macomb-Lisle or Stevenson-New Trier
Round 2: New Trier-Carbondale
Round 3: Stevenson-Carbondale or IMSA-Auburn
and the Class AA championship.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:05 pm
by abnormal abdomen
Cavs vs. Bulls seems like the way to go on Friday.

Seriously though, if you want to see a team in order to prepare/gauge for next year, watch Stevenson. They'll be returning the same team next year, minus Julia.

Re: IHSA Sectionals results and discussion

Posted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:23 pm
by mrgsmath
While I don't have all the specfics, there was bit of controversy concerning the Litchfield / New Berlin match. Not related to either of the two teams specifically, so I don't want people to get the wrong impression as they are both great teams, but it seems the Tournament Manager had a snafu and the wrong round questions were used in one of the first two rounds and so they used a mixed set of replacements and questions from other sources for the round between the two teams. New Berlin will be a great team at State, but Litchfield may have some valid issues with the results if what I heard was true.