Page 1 of 1

2004-2005 Predictions?

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:09 am
by suds1000
Hey folks, it's November, and time to start putting together some predictions for nationals (i.e. ACF and NAQT) if you have any. I'll wait to see other responses and then I'll probably post my own thoughts here at some point.

See if you can come up with the top 3-5 for ICT and ACF Nationals, along with undergrad and Division II winners (do the latter if you have any clue, I sure as hell don't).

Additionally, I wanted to ask Matt Weiner if he's playing either national tournament this year...this will certainly affect various predictions.

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:12 pm
by Rothlover
What are some teams that are still fielding all undergrad A squads?

Re: 2004-2005 Predictions?

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:42 pm
by Matt Weiner
suds1000 wrote:Additionally, I wanted to ask Matt Weiner if he's playing either national tournament this year...this will certainly affect various predictions.
I'm planning on going to ACF and still thinking about NAQT. The best I can realistically hope for is sixth or seventh at ACF and tenth or so at NAQT, I suppose.

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 4:24 pm
by zotlbusy
Since nobody else is making predictions, I'll jump in.

NAQT: Berkeley looked awfully good last year. If it hadn't been for an out-of-this-world performance by Subash, they'd be going for a three-peat this year. Since I don't think Subash is playing, I'll pick them to win back-to-back titles. Has that ever been done? I assume that Florida, Michigan, Illinois, and Chicago will again be near the top, but a notch below Berkeley.

ACF: Chicago looked awfully good last year, but with Andrew editing the tournament they are unlikely to dominate. Michigan hasn't looked very strong thus far. There doesn't seem to be a clear-cut favorite, so I'll pick Berkeley to win ACF as well. Again, the midwestern powers of Michigan, Illinois, and Chicago might have something to say about that.

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:50 pm
by MLafer
NAQT: Berkeley looked awfully good last year. If it hadn't been for an out-of-this-world performance by Subash, they'd be going for a three-peat this year. Since I don't think Subash is playing, I'll pick them to win back-to-back titles. Has that ever been done? I assume that Florida, Michigan, Illinois, and Chicago will again be near the top, but a notch below Berkeley.

ACF: Chicago looked awfully good last year, but with Andrew editing the tournament they are unlikely to dominate. Michigan hasn't looked very strong thus far. There doesn't seem to be a clear-cut favorite, so I'll pick Berkeley to win ACF as well. Again, the midwestern powers of Michigan, Illinois, and Chicago might have something to say about that.
NAQT: I think Berkeley's team from last year definitely has the best shot at winning the title again, although I don't know how intact that team will remain. Seth is of course gone, and I don't know about Pennington or Farris. At any rate, they still have Hoppes and Jerry should be a good replacement for Seth. I think other teams that have a good shot are Chicago, Illinois, and Florida (if both Raj and Comer are playing). Michigan has a similar team to last year's, with Leo Wolpert replacing Paul Litvak. If we can keep our negs down I think we have as good a shot as any of the above teams (yes, a big IF).

ACF: There are probably four teams that can win: Chicago, Berkeley, Michigan, and Illinois. I think Berkeley takes a bigger hit on ACF than on NAQT with the loss of Seth. Hopefully Illinois will actually attend and show that they can play with the best. And I'm not sure where you're coming from with the comments about Michigan. ACF Fall, ok, we lost to Chicagos A-C, but does that have any relevance to our level of play on ACF Nationals level questions? We were missing a starter at Illinois Open and Chicago had their three best plus Paul Litvak and we beat them once and played another game close. I'd be interested to know if your team has performed comparably, and if you signed your post I could perhaps look up this information on my own.

Matt Lafer

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:51 pm
by NotBhan
MLafer wrote: I think other teams that have a good shot are Chicago, Illinois, and Florida (if both Raj and Comer are playing).
Nope. I'm out.

--Raj Dhuwalia

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:22 pm
by Captain Sinico
MLafer wrote:...I don't know about Pennington or Farris.
According to Farris at ICT last year, Farris is playing again this year. Various reports have Pennington being finished, though, of course, nobody ever really retires, so make of them what you will.
I also agree with Matt that Michigan has a good shot against most anyone, especially on hard questions, in light of their aforementioned victory over that Chicago bastard team (Litvak, Maddipoti, Teitler, Yaphe) at Illinois Open. It seems like Michigan usually looks a little less dominating at the beginning of the year than they do at the end; I cannot say why. However, anyone who can take down the Chicago A team from IO (albeit in only one match of three, but still) at least has a decent shot to beat pretty much anybody.
Also, I agree with your predictions about the national championships, except for Illinois, whom I will neg into ignominious oblivion.

MaS

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:18 pm
by setht
MLafer wrote:
NAQT: Berkeley looked awfully good last year. If it hadn't been for an out-of-this-world performance by Subash, they'd be going for a three-peat this year. Since I don't think Subash is playing, I'll pick them to win back-to-back titles. Has that ever been done? I assume that Florida, Michigan, Illinois, and Chicago will again be near the top, but a notch below Berkeley.

ACF: Chicago looked awfully good last year, but with Andrew editing the tournament they are unlikely to dominate. Michigan hasn't looked very strong thus far. There doesn't seem to be a clear-cut favorite, so I'll pick Berkeley to win ACF as well. Again, the midwestern powers of Michigan, Illinois, and Chicago might have something to say about that.
NAQT: I think Berkeley's team from last year definitely has the best shot at winning the title again, although I don't know how intact that team will remain. Seth is of course gone, and I don't know about Pennington or Farris. At any rate, they still have Hoppes and Jerry should be a good replacement for Seth. I think other teams that have a good shot are Chicago, Illinois, and Florida (if both Raj and Comer are playing). Michigan has a similar team to last year's, with Leo Wolpert replacing Paul Litvak. If we can keep our negs down I think we have as good a shot as any of the above teams (yes, a big IF).

ACF: There are probably four teams that can win: Chicago, Berkeley, Michigan, and Illinois. I think Berkeley takes a bigger hit on ACF than on NAQT with the loss of Seth. Hopefully Illinois will actually attend and show that they can play with the best. And I'm not sure where you're coming from with the comments about Michigan. ACF Fall, ok, we lost to Chicagos A-C, but does that have any relevance to our level of play on ACF Nationals level questions? We were missing a starter at Illinois Open and Chicago had their three best plus Paul Litvak and we beat them once and played another game close. I'd be interested to know if your team has performed comparably, and if you signed your post I could perhaps look up this information on my own.

Matt Lafer
NAQT: first, my impression of the 2003 ICT was that the Berkeley-Michigan game for the right to get trampled by Chicago was very close, so even if Subash hadn't been there, I don't think it's a given that Berkeley would have won. Second, I also don't know who they'll have--I assume the team will have Jeff and Jerry, but after that things get less clear. I think Jerry is an improvement on me. Berkeley has many fine players to choose from, including the unsung Paul Lujan. I feel like I ought to sing his praises to the tune of a plaintive Guatemalan folk ballad, but I'll refrain. For now.

No one has ever won two ICT DI titles in a row.

I'm guessing the top 10 will be pretty much the top 8 from this last ICT, plus Matt Weiner (if he shows), and Chicago.

Speaking of Chicago, if we ever figure out which players are meant to get roaring drunk the night before a tournament, and which should lay off the sauce and get some sleep, I think we'll do well.

I don't think anyone knows what to predict for Div. I undergrad or Div. II. Chicago's planning to send teams in pursuit of all three titles; from what I've seen, Chicago's Div. I undergrad and Div. II teams will be good.


ACF: I figure the usual suspects (Berkeley, Chicago, Michigan, and Illinois if they show up) are good candidates for top 5. It occurs to me that I haven't actually seen Illinois play since their various lineup changes, but I have great confidence that their team will continue to come down like the wolf on the fold. Texas A & M, Princeton, Matt Weiner and most of the top 10 at the last ACF Nationals will also probably continue to do well. Funny how that works.

zotlbusy, you are definitely selling Michigan short.


I look forward to a thoroughly incestuous season of regional and national tournaments.

-Seth

edit: removed an extraneous "the"

Posted: Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:34 pm
by Theory Of The Leisure Flask
I will boldly predict Harvard for Div I Undergrad (same team as last year's runners-up, I think) and Virginia for Div II (aka Thomas Jefferson Alumni Squad). I think both of these teams need to be considered (heavy?) favorites, pending any surprises at Sectionals.

Also-rans for UG will probably include Virginia and Carleton, and may also have Weiner (if he plays) and Princeton (if Frankel goes UG like he's been threatening). We certainly don't expect championships, but will hopefully be somewhat competitive in either UG or II, depending on where (and if) Wren plays.

As for the real title, I will only say that the big four (Berkeley, Chicago, Illinois, and Michigan) seem to have been identified already. With the addition of Matt C., and possible weakening at the other three, I think Illinois is a very sensible sleeper pick. (Of course, if Maddipoti and Yaphe aren't really retired, the choice is obvious.)

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:11 am
by grapesmoker
Seeing as how I'm being flattered in this thread for no good reason, I feel obligated to reply with several points.

1) I don't think Farris reads this board (and I'm sure Pennington doesn't), but I think the rumors concerning their retirements are not exaggerated. The feeling I get from Farris is that he feels that he's won all that there is to win (well, that he cares about anyway) and that he's not interested in going out of his way to play in national tournaments. He does come out for local ones, but unless heavy pressure is applied, I don't see him making the trip out to either ACF Nationals or ICT. As for Jon, he is still technically a student, but I believe he is finishing his dissertation and looking for jobs. It may be that he will want to play again, but I don't know. The last time I saw him was months ago and he doesn't show up at practice anymore. Speaking of which...

2) Where is ACF Nationals anyway? It'd be nice to know so we can plan in advance.

3) Our team this year will almost certainly include myself and Jeff Hoppes. I am going to try to persuade Kenny Easwaran, who was our fourth last year, to come out again; if he had no conflicts, I think he would. For a fourth, it is too early to know for sure, but I will be making an effort to persuade Paul Lujan to go. Participation may be influenced by location of the tournament, so until we know where it's going to be, we may not have teams finalized. Paul may also be more partial to NAQT than to ACF and he may only want to attend one of the two.

I don't know enough about other teams to predict how they will do, but of course the traditionally strong teams will likely do well: Michigan, Chicago, Illinois, and hopefully Berkeley. I'm also suprised that no one has mentioned Texas A&M; they did get 3rd last year, and unless Chris and Candace aren't playing, it's likely they'll do well again this year.

Jerry

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:42 am
by Dan Greenstein
2005 is an odd-numbered year. What happens in odd years? Chicago wins the NAQT ICT. This truth is almost as self evident as ACF Nationals being at Maryland in even-numbered years.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:14 am
by suds1000
As has been mentioned, Berkeley has taken a noticeable step down, in losing Seth Teitler, Jon Pennington, and possibly Dave Farris. I've never played Jerry Vinokurov, but I've never heard anything but good things about his ability to get science questions, which will be a great help to Jeff Hoppes, who's an even better history/geography player than the one I'm used to losing to in practice, Adam Malamen.

At ACF Fall, I asked Andrew Yaphe if he'd be playing at the ICT, and he responded in the affirmative...given that Subash is helping to edit and therefore cannot play, a Chicago A team including Teitler, Yaphe and other assorted players (is Ed Cohn done, or not? He'd give them a huge current events boost, which is crucial on NAQT questions) would certainly be the favorite to win.

However, the difference for this year's ICT lies in the fact that there will be no team as dominant as Berkeley and Chicago were in 2004, unless Yaphe really puts a lot of work into studying, which I guess is a possibility since he's editing ACF Nationals...however, I will address that particular tournament in just a minute. As far as other teams who could win the ICT, that list most definitely includes Michigan, presuming that Zeke can be convinced to play...when I asked him at IO if he'd be at ICT, he claimed to not be sure, citing the fact that he doesn't like the questions very much. Without Zeke, Michigan cannot win the ICT. Florida's gone from the list if Raj Dhuwalia won't be around to play, and Illinois is certainly an interesting case this time around, losing Andrew Ullsperger but picking up Matt Cvijanovich. Assuming that Sorice doesn't neg us into ignominious oblivion and I find some damn time to study, we should be fairly competitive...and I guess that was my point, that none of these top four teams will truly be able to dominate. This leaves the tournament crown up for grabs.

As for the undergraduate title, I'm actually kind of sad we won't be able to play for it again this year, although without Andrew we'd probably have a much more difficult time winning, especially when you add Weiner and a possible Princeton team to the mix. I'll pick Matt Weiner to win the undergrad title if he makes the trip to New Orleans, as I do think he's better than the Harvard team that took runner-up last year. I'll predict that, most likely, that Harvard team will finish higher overall, but Weiner will pull it out in the series of finals games.

As for ACF Nationals, I'd just like to endorse the idea of holding it at Chicago this year :wink: Three of the major teams (Berkeley, Michigan, Illinois) all have a decent shot to win, although Chicago gains an additional advantage in picking up Subash, especially given the editorship. The claim that Chicago will not succeed on Yaphe's questions is absurd: if anything, Subash certainly knows enough of both the ACF canon and Yaphe's pet question topics by now to be ridiculous on this set, and he'll have excellent science/mythology help from Teitler. My personal prediction is that Chicago will face off against Michigan in the finals, as Illinois has an outside chance at best and Berkeley loses the strength of the NAQT distribution to aid them. But who knows...after all, these are just predictions.

Additionally, I predict that Jason Mueller will not become a member of the ACF cabal (just so I can claim that one of my calls was a good one later on when all of this goes to shit).

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:43 am
by Susan
I expect that Ed will find it difficult to make it back from Russia (where he'll be on his Fulbright) for the ICT.

Susan

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:08 am
by Dan Greenstein
Remember when our dear friend Sudheer Potru announced his retirement? Whatever happened with that?

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:19 am
by grapesmoker
suds1000 wrote: The claim that Chicago will not succeed on Yaphe's questions is absurd: if anything, Subash certainly knows enough of both the ACF canon and Yaphe's pet question topics by now to be ridiculous on this set, and he'll have excellent science/mythology help from Teitler.
I hope that this will not be the case. After all, given that Chicago is a serious contender for the title, I would think that Andrew would go to an extra effort to write/edit in such a way that a team familiar with his personal preferences does not have an advantage over other teams.

Jerry

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:37 am
by suds1000
I'm playing a maximum of five tournaments this academic year:

SCT (if they really want me to, although it would involve going to the shithole that is Rolla)
ICT (of course, even with the 16-hour trip AND the MCAT the weekend after)
ACF Regionals (we can't win since Sorice is editing, but it's the best tournament of the year)
ACF Nationals (possibly)
Manu Ginobili (possibly, depends on the workload, seems like good preparation for Nationals)

Since I've started to suck as of late, our franchise player will have to pick up the slack...and since he'll most likely be heading off to one of the coasts next year to study plasma physics for eternity, this is the last year we'll be nationally competitive. Might as well take advantage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, please don't get the wrong idea about what I said...I'm sure Andrew will work his hardest to make ACF Nationals as fair as possible, but just the very fact that he's editing will give Subash an extra advantage...well, in my opinion anyway.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:02 am
by jazzerpoet
Since I do not know much about the teams outside of the Southwest and lower Midwest, I thought that I would just mention some teams here that have a shot at winning.

ACF Nationals: I do believe that Texas A&M Grad will once again challenge for the title. Unless things have changed, their team will consist of the same four players who earned third place last year (Chris Romero, Candace Benefiel, Trey Morris, and Susan Mitchell). I know that ACF Fall does not come close to the difficulty of Nationals, but as a one man team, Romero averaged about 391 PPG. Also, I think that the Texas-Austin team is very good. They have a nice balance and averaged over 430 PPG at ACF Fall. I think that they could surprise some teams who overlook them, especially if Adam Escandell is still around to give them four strong players. Those are pretty much the only teams who are talented enough to fare well at ACF Nationals.

NAQT Nationals (Division I): I am not sure about any team in this region who could legitimately challenge for either title. Texas A&M Grad usually does not go to NAQT Nationals, preferring ACF Nationals. However, if they do go, I don't think they will challenge for the title. Maybe things have changed since the last time I played against them in NAQT, but they do not seem to be strong in either geography or pop culture, which is a necessity for NAQT. Texas-Austin could challenge, but I do not think that they have a strong enough player in pop culture or geography to distance themselves from other potential top 10 teams, unless, again, Adam Escandell plays.

NAQT Nationals (UG): There are no teams in this region with a real shot at winning, at least from what I have seen so far this semester. Truman State is a good team, but they lost some experienced players. And I don't even know if Rice still has a team. I guess one could say that Missouri has a slim chance of winning, but then again, it is Jason Mueller's team. Arkansas is still one of the top tier teams in the region, but without Josh Hill and Andy Wehrman, they do not have enough firepower.

NAQT Nationals (Division II): This is where the Southwest will be really strong. First of all, only two teams made it to Nationals from Sectionals last year, even though it was the second largest one in the nation. That means that almost every good team in the region maintained their Division II status for at least one more year. Secondly, there are a couple of new teams, as well as teams with impact freshmen. Missouri-Rolla will be a strong team, since they finally wised up at consolidated their best players into one team. Washington University-St. Louis will be strong this year because of Andrew Brantley, who guided St. John's to third place at last year's NAQT HSNCT. Arkansas always seems to reload on good freshmen, so they have a good chance. Harding is thrown into the mix because of Jason Loy; also, he is not a one man team anymore. Oklahoma State seems to have improved this year, simply from gaining more and more experience, but I cannot definitively say that they are national championship caliber. Lastly, not to be arrogant or to incur bad karma, but my team (Tulsa) has a legitimate shot at winning DII Nationals. We have the same exact team from last year, plus we have some really good freshmen. The only issue will be whether or not Grant (the Laurel to my Hardy) will be able to attend Sectionals; if he plays, we can win; if he doesn't, we're kinda screwed. Without him, it would take a monumental performance on my part just to qualify for Nationals; I hope he goes, just for the simple fact that I have played in three NAQT tournaments this year and have never had more than one other player beside me. The only tournament where I had more than one teammate (2 of them) was at TRASH Regionals, which we won.

Anyway... I am sorry to ramble. I hope this can help to put the national championship discussions into more perspective, as well as give teams a heads up on some teams flying under the radar. Thanks.

Cheers!
Angelo Malabanan

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:03 pm
by bsmith
My easy prediction: no Canadian teams will win titles ;)

But don't write off Toronto (D1), McGill (D2) or Ottawa (D2) (or our west coast teams if they decide to make the trip). Give us a good run of non-American questions, and we'll pull the upsets. Heck, we might even get out of the bottom bracket...

Ben,
U of O.

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:50 pm
by ValenciaQBowl
A prediction no one will likely care about, but which hasn't been discussed:

Valencia will likely not win its fourth consecutive CC ICT title this year, as the last of our core group has finally moved on (and I realize that even whether such folks should be allowed to play more than once in DII is a major bone of contention with some of you, but nonetheless it is okay by NAQT rules, but at least it's not an issue with us this year (whew!)). I think we'll qualify and have fun in New Orleans, though, with only one holdover player from last year: Syed Bukhari, the Pakistani Punisher.

My prediction is that Bevill State (AL) will take the CC ICT, though if Matt from Tallahassee CC plays at that level rather than for Florida State (at which he's concurrently enrolled), I may have to go with them.

Start your wagering!

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:45 pm
by setht
grapesmoker wrote:Seeing as how I'm being flattered in this thread for no good reason, I feel obligated to reply with several points.
Jerry, you're being flattered for a very good reason. We're all hoping you'll become complacent and skip studying for nationals.
grapesmoker wrote:1) I don't think Farris reads this board (and I'm sure Pennington doesn't), but I think the rumors concerning their retirements are not exaggerated.
Like I said before, Berkeley has many fine players besides Jeff and Jerry with which to construct disturbingly good teams. Players like Kenny Easwaran, Larissa Kelly, and Paul Lujan (the top 3/4 of the 8th place team at 2003 ICT). I guess Nick Meyer is not eligible this year (?).
grapesmoker wrote:I'm also suprised that no one has mentioned Texas A&M; they did get 3rd last year, and unless Chris and Candace aren't playing, it's likely they'll do well again this year.
I did mention Texas A&M. I don't think they'll win it all, but I wouldn't be surprised if they beat at least one of Berkeley, Chicago, Illinois, and Michigan along the way. The team I should have mentioned, but didn't, is UT-Austin. I have never seen them play at full strength, but they have multiple players who are actively dedicated to self-improvement. If they can get a full squad, hopefully including my old crony Caleb Lo, out to more tournaments, I think they'll do very well.
suds1000 wrote:(is Ed Cohn done, or not? He'd give them a huge current events boost, which is crucial on NAQT questions)
Unfortunately, it seems thoroughly unlikely that Ed Cohn will play nationals this year. Fortunately, we have started working on a top-secret current events-destroying cyborg, using a small fraction of our club budget of infinity dollars.
suds1000 wrote:none of these top four teams will truly be able to dominate. This leaves the tournament crown up for grabs.
This may prove true, but I suspect one of these teams will end up clearly in front of the rest of the pack. I also think Michigan without Zeke could still take it all.
suds1000 wrote:I'm sure Andrew will work his hardest to make ACF Nationals as fair as possible, but just the very fact that he's editing will give Subash an extra advantage...well, in my opinion anyway.
I disagree. Andrew and Subash have a lot of knowledge overlap (it's a little hard not to, with two people who know that much), but I think their specific pet interests don't really overlap--they have different interests in literature, history, arts, etc. Now, if you're saying that Andrew's editing means that the questions will require deep knowledge, I agree that that will help Subash, but that's how the questions at ACF Nationals are supposed to be. But I'm probably getting the wrong idea about what you said.
jazzerpoet wrote:The only issue will be whether or not Grant (the Laurel to my Hardy) will be able to attend Sectionals; if he plays, we can win; if he doesn't, we're kinda screwed.
If he doesn't play, I expect you to turn to him and exclaim, "This is another fine mess you've gotten me into!"
bsmith wrote:don't write off...McGill (D2)...[they] might even get out of the bottom bracket...
If McGill gets out of the bottom bracket, I will wear my very ratty McGill shirt the next day in their honor. And if that's not motivation, I don't know what is.
ValenciaQBowl wrote:Start your wagering!
I guess I'll put my Monopoly money on Bevill State, but in my heart I'll be rooting for the Pakistani Punisher.

-Seth

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:51 pm
by mreece
setht wrote:Fortunately, we have started working on a top-secret current events-destroying cyborg, using a small fraction of our club budget of infinity dollars.
What is it with Chicago and cyborgs, anyway?

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:52 pm
by suds1000
Seth, my point wasn't that Subash and Andrew necessarily enjoy all the same things in terms of art, literature, history, etc., although I'm sure they probably do to some extent. All I'm saying is that it's easier for Subash to pinpoint specific subjects that will probably come up, given how long he's known Andrew and how many Yaphe questions that he's played on over the years. This, of course, isn't to say that I couldn't do the same thing if I went back and did an extensive statistical analysis of the subjects found in all of the packets that Andrew has ever written or edited, but it would certainly be a much longer and much harder process for me.

I could easily make a similar comparison using my own teammates: if I were about to play on a packet written by my current Illinois team, I'd know their interests well enough to study up on ancient Rome, Hitchcock films, and Latin American literature, to name just a few examples. We all have things we know better than others and, like it or not, we're more inclined to include questions in our niche areas, both due to interest in said niche areas and the resulting relative ease of question-writing.

At last year's ICT, Paul Litvak claimed to have read most of the NAQT writers' blogs in search of clues that would come up as leadins. While I was flabbergasted by this claim and I'm not sure whether or not he was yanking my chain by saying this, I have to admit that it's a study tool that might theoretically earn you some points if you were to study their interests hard enough.

Quizbowl is rapidly reaching a state of question-writing insularity so extensive that strategies involving such meta-quizbowl could feasibly work. Whether or not that trend will continue is based on how much new question-writing blood will be injected into the circuit over the next few years...but anyway, I'm starting to sound preachy so I'll stop.

I didn't mean to get this much off course, as this is a thread about predictions. But I'll leave it here for now and let the moderators move it around as they see fit.

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:56 am
by Susan
mreece wrote:What is it with Chicago and cyborgs, anyway?
Well, we lost our first one, didn't we?

Posted: Fri Dec 10, 2004 2:24 am
by mps4a_mps4a
Everyone's got the overall championship pretty covered, it seems like.

For UG- unless there's some super undergrad team out there I don't know about, I can't imagine someone who's not Harvard or Weiner winning UG. It will probably drop quite a bit after that. I think we (Virginia) could get third UG (whatever the threatened Frankel-goes-UG thing is could easily drop us another place), and even that's only if we hurt our Div 2 team by pulling up Steve Young, who may or may nor be playing. If he plays Div 2, Virginia's Div 2 team will do really well, but I'd be reluctant to put us as favorites for that just yet. I'm not sure who would win in a Harvard-Weiner battle, but it seems like those are the only two contenders right yet for that. If Swarthmore plays Wren Div 1, they'll be up there too, and Carleton seems like a generally good UG team too.