The Quizbowl Resource Center

This is an announcement for a new house-written tournament to be held at the University of Chicago this winter. I will act as chief editor with a writing team consisting of several of my UChicago teammates. Bruce Arthur kindly volunteered to contribute to the history distribution.

The tournament will be held on Saturday, February 19, 2011. Precise location details will be added when they are known.

As to eligibility, this will be an open tournament.

Cost
Due to popular discontent, the base cost has been reduced to $120 (contributing to harmful disinflation!). The following further discounts are available:

-$5 per functioning buzzer set, max 2 per team and 4 per university if fielding more than one team.

-$10 travel discount if the majority of your team traveled over 200 miles.

Distribution

5/5 Science and Math

1/1 Biology
1/1 Chemistry
1/1 Physics
1/1 Math (including statistics)
1/1 Miscellaneous science (Computer Science, Earth Science and Geology, Astronomy)

5/5 History

1/1 American
2/2 European, including British
1/1 Ancient and Classical
1/1 non-Western and miscellaneous

4/4 Literature

1/1 American
1/1 British
1/1 Literature written in English
1/1 European and World (not in English)

3/3 Arts

1/1 Painting
1/1 Music, including opera
1/1 Miscellaneous arts (film, photography, architecture, sculpture, installation)

4/4 Others

1/1 Religion
1/1 Philosophy and Mythology
1/1 Economics and Geography
1/1 Other social science (psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology), current events, and trash


Please leave a note here if you have any questions, or alternatively email me at msteinbaum [at] gmail [dot] com. If anyone has a side-event they want to attach to this, let me know since that is certainly a possibility. And of course, either drop a note here or by email to me if you plan on coming.

UPDATE!

I am looking for mirrors if anyone is interested in hosting one, especially on the coasts. Please contact me by email if you are.

ANOTHER UPDATE: FIELD

Please email me or post to this thread if you speak for a team that's planning to attend. Here's the field at present:

Vinokurov, Teitler, Lafer, and Westbrook (1)
WUSTL (1-2)
Illinois (1)
William Butler and teammates (1)
Ohio State (1-2)
Winkler, Carbery, Donohue, and guest (1)
Michigan (2-3)
Bowling Green (1)
Michigan State (1-2)
Notre Dame (1-2)
House teams (?)

50% more expensive than the typical base fee, and 25% more expensive than the premium $120 base fee!

Woo!

We're operating a highly efficient auction here, designed by no less than three nobel-prize winning economists. Price will adjust in response to demand.

There is no demand from Mizzou unless you drop the prices.

I might be interested in attending depending on my schedule and if I can find some good deals on plane tickets.

Not to mention 50% more travel required to get a discount.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:We're operating a highly efficient auction here, designed by no less than three nobel-prize winning economists. Price will adjust in response to demand.

Is this a joke, or are you seriously going to adjust the price downward if you get a bigger field?

I think $150 is a bit much for a base fee myself, especially for a new tournament, but if this tournament was open, I would definitely consider coming.

No Jerry, I'm going to adjust the price down if I get a field that is too small.

(I think that you just effectively made the argument for greater representation for economics in all tournaments, to which I say: since the mission of this tournament has now been accomplished, maybe I don't actually have to hold the tournament after all. Just kidding.)

(And please understand this is meant in the kindest possible terms.)

Oh, and the tournament is open.

(at least, that's what I meant to say. Is something in the announcement inconsistent with that?)

This gets my vote for weirdest tournament announcement this year.

grapesmoker wrote:

Tees-Exe Line wrote:We're operating a highly efficient auction here, designed by no less than three nobel-prize winning economists. Price will adjust in response to demand.

Is this a joke, or are you seriously going to adjust the price downward if you get a bigger field?

I'd assume that he meant he'd lower the price if the demand is low (i.e., the actual demand curve is southwest of whatever estimated demand curve is currently being used), not if the quantity demanded is high (i.e., the point on the demand curve shifts right along the line). If I figure out a way to attach charts to this post, I will include a visual demonstration of this point sometime in the future.

I'll see if some number of players from UIUC are interested in attending when I next attend practice.

If the question writing ability is at all commensurate with the pomposity, this tournament is going to be really good.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:No Jerry, I'm going to adjust the price down if I get a field that is too small.

(I think that you just effectively made the argument for greater representation for economics in all tournaments, to which I say: since the mission of this tournament has now been accomplished, maybe I don't actually have to hold the tournament after all. Just kidding.)

(And please understand this is meant in the kindest possible terms.)

No offense taken, but I believe you have misunderstood my question, which, to be fair, I didn't phrase particularly well. You see, assuming that the number of packets you are going to produce for the tournament doesn't vary with size (which is a pretty safe assumption for most events, but correct me if I'm wrong), there is virtually no additional marginal cost associated with running a 6-team tournament vs., say, a 12 or 15-team tournament. As such, one might reasonably believe that the economy of scale should induce you to lower your price in the hopes of bringing more teams to your event, assuming you still come out ahead in such a scenario relative to a scenario where you attract fewer teams but charge them more.

I'm not an economist, but I think I understand a little something about how such things work. Quizbowl is good for something other than learning about Latin American literature.

edit:

Tees-Exe Line wrote:Oh, and the tournament is open.

(at least, that's what I meant to say. Is something in the announcement inconsistent with that?)

No, I was just wasn't sure if "no eligibility requirements" signified that. I guess it does.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:We're operating a highly efficient auction here, designed by no less than three nobel-prize winning economists. Price will adjust in response to demand.

Hey, quizbowl community: let's collude to force the price down. Since there's no question of packet submission, we can all sign up the week beforehand anyway.

Hey, quizbowl community: let's collude to force the price down. Since there's no question of packet submission, we can all sign up the week beforehand anyway.

You could do that, though I'd be interested to find out what model of inter-temporal pricing in the market for plane tickets and hotel rooms you're using.

In seriousness, I apologize for my tone if this thread has come across as pompous and/or confusing. Nothing of the kind was intended.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:

Hey, quizbowl community: let's collude to force the price down. Since there's no question of packet submission, we can all sign up the week beforehand anyway.

You could do that, though I'd be interested to find out what model of inter-temporal pricing in the market for plane tickets and hotel rooms you're using.

No one ever said we had to buy hotel and plane tickets at the same time we registered

Ohio State would like to play this. Who amongst your many talented teammates will be major contributors to the question writing?

Tees-Exe Line wrote:

Hey, quizbowl community: let's collude to force the price down. Since there's no question of packet submission, we can all sign up the week beforehand anyway.

You could do that, though I'd be interested to find out what model of inter-temporal pricing in the market for plane tickets and hotel rooms you're using.

In seriousness, I apologize for my tone if this thread has come across as pompous and/or confusing. Nothing of the kind was intended.

No problems with tone; I just see no cause for this inflation. In particular, inflating quizbowl entry fees are increasingly prohibitive to new teams that can't host tournaments of their own.

The more important thing is that I will gladly pay extra money to an airline for the sake of the quizbowl community and stand strong with my from-the-midwest-and-therefore-not-flying brethren in colluding to lower prices.

First of all, a thread which brings us more Marshall Steinbaum is always a good thing. A Marshall distribution is also extremely exciting, especially if his fellow editors include noted crackpot Paul Gauthier.

Secondly, speaking for myself who vaguely represents the conservative wing of the Minnesota team, both the price and the sheer number of winter tournaments are giving me "claws for concern." The winter already features Penn Bowl, SCT, ACF Regs, Illinois Open, Buzzerfest, and to use a charitable definition of "winter," ICT and ACF Nats. This is not counting the as of yet un-announced but possibly to happen MUT and Harvard International plus T-Party (???). The February 12 or February 19 spots would put this tournament in between SCT and Regs, and I'm not entirely convinced that we need to have a tournament every weekend.

Somebody who understands economics should probably make some witty Marshallian demand joke here. As for me, I think Carleton would be interested, although Mike makes a good point about the possibility of too much quizbowl in the winter.

Cheynem wrote: Secondly, speaking for myself who vaguely represents the conservative wing of the Minnesota team, both the price and the sheer number of winter tournaments are giving me "claws for concern." The winter already features Penn Bowl, SCT, ACF Regs, Illinois Open, Buzzerfest, and to use a charitable definition of "winter," ICT and ACF Nats. This is not counting the as of yet un-announced but possibly to happen MUT and Harvard International plus T-Party (???). The February 12 or February 19 spots would put this tournament in between SCT and Regs, and I'm not entirely convinced that we need to have a tournament every weekend.

I don't see how this year's "winter" calendar is significantly different enough from last year's "winter" calendar. A quick comparison of this thread with my calendar from last year shows an increase in free weekends from last "winter" to this "winter" (at this point in time). Even if you add MUT, HI, and T Party, you'd have the same number of free weekends (1 free weekend) both this "winter" and last "winter."

HI's not happening. T-Party's not happening unless it gets editing offers beyond, like, two people who seem happy to do around 1/1 per packet.

April 16 is not winter, but the point about calendar compression is well-taken, as it is every year. Is there a possibility that this event could coordinate with another event to share a date?

$80 and you got a deal.

Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:I just see no cause for this inflation. In particular, inflating quizbowl entry fees are increasingly prohibitive to new teams that can't host tournaments of their own.

To bring the perspective of a new team to the table, I completely agree with this. Tournament fees are already quite steep, and raising them much higher pretty much eliminates the possiblity of a newer team like WKU going to a tournament.

I felt there were too many tournaments last winter too, for what it's worth.

NOW GET OFF MAH LAWN

how difficult is this supposed to be?

Is this event going to be mirrored anywhere?*

*Specifically, the east coast, I suppose.

Since the distribution seems to indicate 22/22, is the actual tournament going to have 22/22 or just 20/20 per game?

Heh, I hadn't seen the distribution yet--delightful indeed. 1/1 philosophy AND mythology? A guaranteed econ question every round? 1/1 math? 22/22 total?

The tournament is to be regular difficulty--so say about a notch or two short of Minnesota Open. And the final packets will be 20/20.

And yes, a guaranteed econ question every round (well, 'guaranteed' in the sense that 2/2 are coming off each packet). And for the econ distribution, I won't be using the Economist as a source!

Tees-Exe Line wrote:5/5 Others

1/1 Religion
1/1 Philosophy and Mythology
1/1 Economics and Geography
1/1 Other social science (psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology), current events, and trash

This seems to be missing 1/1 in the breakdown of Others.

-Seth

Seth raises a good point. There is 21/21 allocated for each round, so only 1/1 will be removed.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:Seth raises a good point. There is 21/21 allocated for each round, so only 1/1 will be removed.

Alternatively, you could keep it at 22/22 and add 1/1 "your choice" to let people write interdisciplinary stuff or whatever.

If by "people," Susan, you mean me, then I could, but I don't think I will (at least not at the moment). We'll see if the packets are well-balanced as planned.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:If by "people," Susan, you mean me, then I could, but I don't think I will (at least not at the moment). We'll see if the packets are well-balanced as planned.

Oh, I brilliantly forgot that this was not packet-submission. Never mind!

This is the same day as Penn Bowl. Although, Chicago called it way before Penn did.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:Seth raises a good point. There is 21/21 allocated for each round, so only 1/1 will be removed.

Is there a target for the 21/21, or will you just be removing a random 1/1?

If so, doesn't this make it possible that a round could only have 3/3 Literature or no philosophy, no mythology, etc.? Alternatively, is the 21/21 distribution posted the target final distribution for packets, and if so, what's the extra 1/1 in "Others?"

I apologize if I sound slightly bewildered--it's because I am slightly bewildered.

Given the already-light literature, the 1/1 removed won't be literature, but aside from that it will be flexible.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:Given the already-light literature, the 1/1 removed won't be literature, but aside from that it will be flexible.

So a round could presumably have no philosophy, no mythology, or no non-economics social science?

Charbroil wrote:

Tees-Exe Line wrote:Given the already-light literature, the 1/1 removed won't be literature, but aside from that it will be flexible.

So a round could presumably have no philosophy, no mythology, or no non-economics social science?

But 5/5 science! I love my new overlords.

Tees-Exe Line wrote:And yes, a guaranteed econ question every round (well, 'guaranteed' in the sense that 2/2 are coming off each packet). And for the econ distribution, I won't be using the Economist as a source!

While I'd normally consider the market for quizbowl tournaments close to perfectly competitive and the attempt of an atomistic producer to influence prices silly, a guaranteed economics question per round changes the game. Profit maximizing with demand faced by the editing leader? I like it.

Is this being considered for a West Coast mirror?

Charbroil wrote:

Tees-Exe Line wrote:Given the already-light literature, the 1/1 removed won't be literature, but aside from that it will be flexible.

So a round could presumably have no philosophy, no mythology, or no non-economics social science?

This presumes that the 1/0 and 0/1 will be from different subjects, by the way--if not, then my question changes to "a round could presumably have none of any of the topics which currently get 1/1?" Since such topics include Painting, Music, Miscellaneous Arts, or any of the major subdivisions of Science or History, you'll understand why I'm more than a little curious.

Is this being considered for a West Coast mirror?

I'm certainly open to it. Email me if you have a proposal.

This presumes that the 1/0 and 0/1 will be from different subjects

That is correct.

regular difficulty--so say about a notch or two short of Minnesota Open.

I fear you may be doing it wrong, my friend!

regular difficulty--so say about a notch or two short of Minnesota Open.

I fear you may be doing it wrong, my friend!

Hey, I like the sound of this! Unless your notches are, like, extremely widely spaced notches.

I'm looking for teammates for this.

No Rules Westbrook wrote:

regular difficulty--so say about a notch or two short of Minnesota Open.

I fear you may be doing it wrong, my friend!

Hey, I like the sound of this! Unless your notches are, like, extremely widely spaced notches.

So what exactly is this difficulty going to be, then? Is this going to be a Regionals-level tournament or a Nationals one or halfway in between? My team at its current stage of development really needs a Regionals-level "regular" tournament right now but would be far from ready for a Nationals-level tournament, so it would be helpful to know which one we're in for if we attend a mirror of this.

This is definitely not a nationals level tournament. I guess I should simply state outright that it's regular difficulty. The reason I compared it to Minnesota Open in that prior post is that I thought this most recent MO was easier than the prior one, and that prior one was what I would have called a hard tournament that wasn't nationals. This is intended to be yet easier than the most recent MO.

I think that's enough vague and probably unhelpful description of the difficulty level, since it seems like everyone has different operating definitions of what these terms mean. I understand people want to know what this tournament will be like since it hasn't happened before--the best I can say is you should come and see.