The Quizbowl Resource Center

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:12 pm**

Region 5 SCT at UT-Knoxville on Feb. 9

Location:
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
University Center & Down Under Recreation
Knoxville, TN 27996

Register at http://www.naqt.com/registration/regist ... nt_id=4751

Fees:
Base Registration Fee $120.00 per team
New School Discount -20.00 per team No SCT, ICT, or CCCT attendance for two years
Multiple Team Discount -20.00 per team For every team after the first
Lockout System Discount -10.00 per system Unlimited
Clock Discount -5.00 per clock Unlimited
Staff Discount -30.00 per staffer Unlimited

More detailed information about the event and hotel can be found at
http://region5.acui.org/05/leisure-week.html

There will be a break for lunch, which will be on your own.

We look forward to having you join us this year!

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2013 5:31 pm**

What time is registration?

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:57 pm**

ACUI Website wrote: Because the opening session contains lots of valuable information for all participants, Attendance is MANDATORY. Students not attending the session will be DISQUALIFIED without refund.

Does this apply to the quizbowl participants as well?

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:04 pm**

Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:
ACUI Website wrote: Because the opening session contains lots of valuable information for all participants, Attendance is MANDATORY. Students not attending the session will be DISQUALIFIED without refund.
Does this apply to the quizbowl participants as well?

Likewise, the requirement to turn in "eligibility forms" and limit participation to six years...

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:23 pm**

Like the other SCT sites, this one uses standard NAQT eligibility rules. I'll ask Region 5 to post a clarification in the announcement.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:07 pm**

Can Auburn register for this regularly even though it is not in our region? This site is closer to us than UCF.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:27 pm**

jmannor2 wrote:Can Auburn register for this regularly even though it is not in our region? This site is closer to us than UCF.

Yes, teams are always welcome to attend the SCT site closest to their own campus. You can register for the UT-Knoxville site here.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:46 pm**

Apparently this SCT site is going to have a huge number of teams.

Posted: **Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:32 pm**

Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:Apparently this SCT site is going to have a huge number of teams.

Yep. I suppose Orlando is out of the way for several people in the south east. Though I have to say, Auburn would save an hour and fifteen minutes on a six and a half hour trip by going to Knoxville and would be looking at a MUCH stiffer field.

But, ya, Orlando is 10 hours from Bama and 8 from GT. Knoxville is a lot closer. So I guess they're cannibalizing most of our district.

Posted: **Thu Jan 17, 2013 11:20 pm**

Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:Apparently this SCT site is going to have a huge number of teams.

Is the host prepared to host such a large competition? Having a 20+ team event at a site that doesn't normally host does concern me a little.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:53 pm**

They've had ACUI there for years. Some of the CBI tournaments were of good size. We @ VT are helping Steve with the process as much as possible, too.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:54 pm**

I might show up to staff.

Posted: **Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:56 pm**

I can't remember if Auburn qualified for ICT last year. I know we didn't qualify outright, but I think we might have been on the waitlist. Is there a way of finding out if we did eventually qualify?

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:15 am**

Auburn was on the Division II waitlist last year but did not attend ICT; members of that team retain their Division II eligibility for the 2013 SCT and ICT.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:58 am**

Thanks for the hotel information--I just wish you would have given us more than 48 hours advance notice that the rooms had to be reserved by January 16.

Posted: **Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:57 pm**

Coach Jim wrote:Thanks for the hotel information--I just wish you would have given us for than 48 hours advance notice that the rooms had to be reserved by January 16.

Agreed, although according to my teammate the rate was only a $14 discount/night.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:00 pm**

Are there plans for a 24th team in the field?

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2013 6:59 pm**

The Predictable Consequences wrote:Are there plans for a 24th team in the field?

Perhaps. Any team wishing to join the field at this point will be required to supply a moderator.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:15 pm**

Fred wrote:What time is registration?

Can I second this question? What time is registration?

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:50 pm**

Amy Anderson at UT-Knoxville wrote:We’ll ask that all the teams be in the University Center Auditorium no later than 8am Saturday for a meeting and check-in. The tournament will start at 8:30am. If you’re bringing buzzers/clocks, please either contact me Friday night to set those up (865-696-5213) or by 7:30-7:45 Saturday morning. I can lock all the rooms overnight if it is easier to go ahead and get that out of the way. I’ll be in the building late Friday night, and would really rather do those Friday if possible.

We’ll send out parking, directions, etc. in a mass email today.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:51 pm**

Since we're going to start playing at dawn, hopefully this thing will be over with quickly.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:24 pm**

The Predictable Consequences wrote:Are there plans for a 24th team in the field?

The College of Charleston has registered as the 24th Division II team (they will be bringing a moderator).

The Division II field is now closed.

Division I has one remaining spot; teams that might be interested in playing DI should contact me.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:37 pm**

bt_green_warbler wrote:
The Predictable Consequences wrote:Are there plans for a 24th team in the field?
The College of Charleston has registered as the 24th Division II team (they will be bringing a moderator).

The Division II field is now closed.

Division I has one remaining spot; teams that might be interested in playing DI should contact me.

Is the DI field currently at 7 or 8? I ask because that the website claims the Duke registration isn't finalized and having a spot remaining when 8 teams are signed up seems strange (to me at least).

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 3:50 pm**

Division I is at eight (so counting Duke as a position in the field). The open spot is for a prospective ninth team (adding a ninth requires no additional game rooms and makes the staff situation slightly better because players on bye can help scorekeep if needed).

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:52 pm**

We are not planning on attending (and I have no idea how to cancel the registration)... I went on looking to see what the field was like, and I think I accidentally clicked register.

Posted: **Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:58 pm**

Golran wrote:We are not planning on attending (and I have no idea how to cancel the registration)... I went on looking to see what the field was like, and I think I accidentally clicked register.

I have just cancelled Duke's registration; in general, teams can edit their registrations by clicking on them (one of the options, along with things like "add/remove players" and "change UG eligibility", is "delete registration"). The link should be of the form: http://www.naqt.com/registration/edit-team.jsp?team_id= [five-digit number goes here]

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2013 9:39 am**

bt_green_warbler wrote:
Amy Anderson at UT-Knoxville wrote:We’ll send out parking, directions, etc. in a mass email today.

Has anyone else gotten this?

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:29 am**

The Predictable Consequences wrote:
bt_green_warbler wrote:
Amy Anderson at UT-Knoxville wrote:We’ll send out parking, directions, etc. in a mass email today.
Has anyone else gotten this?

I can forward it to you if I can get your email address.

Posted: **Fri Feb 08, 2013 10:56 am**

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
The Predictable Consequences wrote:
bt_green_warbler wrote:
Amy Anderson at UT-Knoxville wrote:We’ll send out parking, directions, etc. in a mass email today.
Has anyone else gotten this?
I can forward it to you if I can get your email address.

Thanks. [email protected]

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:56 am**

OK, so some quickies.

D1:

1. Georgia Tech
2. Alabama A
3. South Carolina

D2:

1. North Carolina
2. Centre A
3. Auburn
4. WKU

Posted: **Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:30 pm**

Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:Since we're going to start playing at dawn, hopefully this thing will be over with quickly.

hahahahahaha

I'm not really sure the decision to attempt a 9 team round robin in the Division II top bracket here was the best idea. Especially when there weren't enough packets to do so.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:02 pm**

The Predictable Consequences wrote:
Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:Since we're going to start playing at dawn, hopefully this thing will be over with quickly.
hahahahahaha

I'm not really sure the decision to attempt a 9 team round robin in the Division II top bracket here was the best idea. Especially when there weren't enough packets to do so.

There were enough packets though, weren't there? I thought the last two packets went unread in Division II.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:06 pm**

sephirothrr wrote:
The Predictable Consequences wrote:
Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:Since we're going to start playing at dawn, hopefully this thing will be over with quickly.
hahahahahaha

I'm not really sure the decision to attempt a 9 team round robin in the Division II top bracket here was the best idea. Especially when there weren't enough packets to do so.
There were enough packets though, weren't there? I thought the last two packets went unread in Division II.

In case of a tie for 1st, wouldn't they be required to break it by playing a final? That would make for not enough packets, right?

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:09 pm**

sephirothrr wrote:
The Predictable Consequences wrote:
Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:Since we're going to start playing at dawn, hopefully this thing will be over with quickly.
hahahahahaha

I'm not really sure the decision to attempt a 9 team round robin in the Division II top bracket here was the best idea. Especially when there weren't enough packets to do so.
There were enough packets though, weren't there? I thought the last two packets went unread in Division II.

There weren't enough packets to break a tie for second and then run an advantaged final. 21 teams is not a great number to work with, but running a different format, such as 3x7 rebracketed into 6/5/5/5 would have left enough packets to break the tie and have a final.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:13 pm**

The Predictable Consequences wrote: There weren't enough packets to break a tie for second and then run an advantaged final. 21 teams is not a great number to work with, but running a different format, such as 3x7 rebracketed into 6/5/5/5 would have left enough packets to break the tie and have a final.

We're considering this format change for next year (as well some other alternatives like writing a 17th packet). The differences here primarily center on "where does there end up being a statistical tiebreaker?"

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 2:59 pm**

The Predictable Consequences wrote: There weren't enough packets to break a tie for second and then run an advantaged final. 21 teams is not a great number to work with, but running a different format, such as 3x7 rebracketed into 6/5/5/5 would have left enough packets to break the tie and have a final.

The problem with 6/5/5/5 would be that we have to always trust the host to create brackets of even strength if we are to have two advance from each morning pool. If there is a way to do this, then I would endorse this.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:05 pm**

Any news on when stats will be posted?
Matt Church
U of L

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:05 pm**

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:The problem with 6/5/5/5 would be that we have to always trust the host to create brackets of even strength if we are to have two advance from each morning pool. If there is a way to do this, then I would endorse this.

This is why current NAQT policy prefers the nine-team top bracket solution; it's more flexible about allowing third-place-in-their-prelim-bracket teams a shot at the finals (in cases where bracketing may not be precise).

I did provide suggested brackets to the hosts in Region 5 (and will also do so for the other bracketed SCT site at MIT on Saturday). It's worth noting that Division II SCT is difficult to bracket, because there are both 1) lots of players with limited quizbowl experience and 2) unexpected shadow effects among players recombining from the previous year's high school teams (eg, you can't just say "State University's B team has two freshmen who hit 30 ppg at last year's high school nationals," because maybe both players are science specialists or whatever.)

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:06 pm**

Church51907 wrote:Any news on when stats will be posted?
Matt Church
U of L

We expect to post stats within the next few days.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:07 pm**

bt_green_warbler wrote:
Church51907 wrote:Any news on when stats will be posted?
Matt Church
U of L
We expect to post stats within the next few days.

They were keeping stats on Saturday, did these just get lost on one of these mythical disks or something?

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 3:44 pm**

Sulawesi Myzomela wrote:
bt_green_warbler wrote:
Church51907 wrote:Any news on when stats will be posted?
Matt Church
U of L
We expect to post stats within the next few days.
They were keeping stats on Saturday, did these just get lost on one of these mythical disks or something?

Right after I left, I got a text from Harrison asking if the file could just be sent to Will, I'm wondering if we could still do this or are there errors in the stats?

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:30 pm**

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
The Predictable Consequences wrote: There weren't enough packets to break a tie for second and then run an advantaged final. 21 teams is not a great number to work with, but running a different format, such as 3x7 rebracketed into 6/5/5/5 would have left enough packets to break the tie and have a final.
The problem with 6/5/5/5 would be that we have to always trust the host to create brackets of even strength if we are to have two advance from each morning pool. If there is a way to do this, then I would endorse this.

I haven't done the math, but I think Davidson B, who would have been relegated to the second bracket this way, is likely to make ICT. I don't have their D-Value specifically, but given that they also had a high SoS value presumably (They played the team that placed 3rd twice, and also our pool had a bunch of the stronger lower bracket teams), and that they had something like 280 PP20TH, with a reasonable PPB, they'll at least be borderline.

I have no experience with this kind of thing, but what would be the issue with 7/7/7 rebracketing into 7/7/7? That would require a 17th packet if you need to break a tie and then play an advantaged final, I guess, but so does the format we used. It does avoid screwing Davidson B, who we've been over already. It also avoids the top bracket imbalance that occurred with Auburn missing 2 teams that won a collective 2 games after lunch, and Centre missing a pair of teams that went 4-2 after lunch.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 4:45 pm**

An Intergalactic Puzzlepalooza wrote:
The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
The Predictable Consequences wrote: There weren't enough packets to break a tie for second and then run an advantaged final. 21 teams is not a great number to work with, but running a different format, such as 3x7 rebracketed into 6/5/5/5 would have left enough packets to break the tie and have a final.
The problem with 6/5/5/5 would be that we have to always trust the host to create brackets of even strength if we are to have two advance from each morning pool. If there is a way to do this, then I would endorse this.
I haven't done the math, but I think Davidson B, who would have been relegated to the second bracket this way, is likely to make ICT. I don't have their D-Value specifically, but given that they also had a high SoS value presumably (They played the team that placed 3rd twice, and also our pool had a bunch of the stronger lower bracket teams), and that they had something like 280 PP20TH, with a reasonable PPB, they'll at least be borderline.

I have no experience with this kind of thing, but what would be the issue with 7/7/7 rebracketing into 7/7/7? That would require a 17th packet if you need to break a tie and then play an advantaged final, I guess, but so does the format we used. It does avoid screwing Davidson B, who we've been over already. It also avoids the top bracket imbalance that occurred with Auburn missing 2 teams that won a collective 2 games after lunch, and Centre missing a pair of teams that went 4-2 after lunch.

I think the deal is pretty much that they only have 16 packets ready to go.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:08 pm**

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
An Intergalactic Puzzlepalooza wrote:
The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
The Predictable Consequences wrote: There weren't enough packets to break a tie for second and then run an advantaged final. 21 teams is not a great number to work with, but running a different format, such as 3x7 rebracketed into 6/5/5/5 would have left enough packets to break the tie and have a final.
The problem with 6/5/5/5 would be that we have to always trust the host to create brackets of even strength if we are to have two advance from each morning pool. If there is a way to do this, then I would endorse this.
I haven't done the math, but I think Davidson B, who would have been relegated to the second bracket this way, is likely to make ICT. I don't have their D-Value specifically, but given that they also had a high SoS value presumably (They played the team that placed 3rd twice, and also our pool had a bunch of the stronger lower bracket teams), and that they had something like 280 PP20TH, with a reasonable PPB, they'll at least be borderline.

I have no experience with this kind of thing, but what would be the issue with 7/7/7 rebracketing into 7/7/7? That would require a 17th packet if you need to break a tie and then play an advantaged final, I guess, but so does the format we used. It does avoid screwing Davidson B, who we've been over already. It also avoids the top bracket imbalance that occurred with Auburn missing 2 teams that won a collective 2 games after lunch, and Centre missing a pair of teams that went 4-2 after lunch.
I think the deal is pretty much that they only have 16 packets ready to go.

Right, but 9/6/6 has the exact same problem while creating even more imbalances and leaving our B team sitting around for 2 hours doing nothing.

I mean if they weren't planning on playing a final for lack of packets, then it would seem that the other problems (SoS imbalance, B teams sitting around) should have been avoided in the process. It just feels like the 9/6/6 was only used to avoid a statistical tiebreaker, which is exceedingly unlikely to matter (The odds of putting exactly the 6 best teams in two pools, 3 apiece, are ridiculous. Something like 0.0055% of the time assuming I can still do fundamental counting theorem worth a crap), and it created other much bigger issues in the process.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 5:36 pm**

An Intergalactic Puzzlepalooza wrote: I mean if they weren't planning on playing a final for lack of packets, then it would seem that the other problems (SoS imbalance, B teams sitting around) should have been avoided in the process. It just feels like the 9/6/6 was only used to avoid a statistical tiebreaker, which is exceedingly unlikely to matter (The odds of putting exactly the 6 best teams in two pools, 3 apiece, are ridiculous. Something like 0.0055% of the time assuming I can still do fundamental counting theorem worth a crap), and it created other much bigger issues in the process.

I think the main problem is that having a 21 team field played on 16 packets just creates these kinds of situations. It's a tricky number for a TD to have to deal with and sometimes you get this result. There's a natural problem with 9/6/6 and there's a natural problem with 7/7/7.

I thought that when they had gone to 9/6/6, they were selecting 3 teams from each bracket and then having the teams play the 6 teams that they didn't play in the prelims. That still would have been tricky with 16 packets at your disposal. I don't think that would have worked out either, but at least we would have had each top bracket team playing all of the others - but unfortunately I don't think you played Alabama C or Kentucky and you may have played one or two teams twice (which is what I heard). The good news is that your tougher schedule strength should help your D-value a little bit.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:42 pm**

The Ununtiable Twine wrote: I thought that when they had gone to 9/6/6, they were selecting 3 teams from each bracket and then having the teams play the 6 teams that they didn't play in the prelims. That still would have been tricky with 16 packets at your disposal. I don't think that would have worked out either, but at least we would have had each top bracket team playing all of the others - but unfortunately I don't think you played Alabama C or Kentucky and you may have played one or two teams twice (which is what I heard). The good news is that your tougher schedule strength should help your D-value a little bit.

In retrospect, this seems like it may have been what they wanted to do. I think we didn't play the two teams that were in Centre's pool, and they didn't play the two that were in ours.

But yeah, I think our SoS is going to be insanely high for a team that won games. Like I think we're going to be in the 1.15-1.17 range for SoS, which is usually for teams that lost more than they won. We'll be fine for qualifying, but if we play their post-lunch schedule and win against Kentucky and Alabama that necessitates a final against UNC for the sake of an auto-bid, since UNC lost to Western Kentucky too, but we don't have to play WKU a second time if the schedule is switched. That leaves us both at 11-1, and while it by no means guarantees us a victory, I have to imagine we do better than we did on that utterly wacky 8th packet (Which produced, among other results, Louisville hanging 500 on WKU, a result completely contradicted by the rest of the tournament).

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:44 pm**

I think the idea behind the schedule is that you don't play a final unless it's a tie. You need 7 for the first round robin, 7 for the second non-repeat round robin, packet 15 is tiebreaker questions or half-packet tiebreakers (or maybe third-packet tiebreakers if you're paranoid) and packet 16 is finals if necessary.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:15 pm**

In the grand tradition of Aaron Swartz and Julian Assange (but for way more trivial stuff), I am hereby liberating (some of) the stats for this tournament from the Jeff Hoppes and Steve Burrell-imposed prison of secrecy. DII team stats are here. Thanks to my co-conspirators in obtaining this information, who may or may not wish to reveal themselves.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:18 pm**

As the conestoga was making its trip across the wasteland, a single shard of paper flew out of the back, supposedly never to be seen again. However, a ray of hope appeared, and we were granted a glimpse of what happened at this mythical tournament. Be grateful, O' quizzards.

Posted: **Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:20 pm**

Eh, I already have that shard of paper.

The Quizbowl Resource Center

Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville

Re: Region 5 SCT - Feb. 9 at UT - Knoxville