ICT format and logistics

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5542
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

ICT format and logistics

Post by Important Bird Area » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:29 pm

By popular request.
Cody wrote:I would also like to have a public discussion of the extremely unfair practices of: carrying over all prelim games and allowing a team down 2+ games to enter a finals and win the tournament by winning just two games.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
vinteuil
Auron
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 12:31 pm

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by vinteuil » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:30 pm

Well, what exactly is NAQT's rationale for this practice?
Jacob Reed
Chicago ~'25
Yale '17, '19
East Chapel Hill '13
"...distant bayings from...the musicological mafia"―Denis Stevens

User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
Posts: 1861
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by Sima Guang Hater » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:35 pm

I'd also like to talk about the practice of playing off placement ties with half-packets, when enough full packets were available. I could understand if Yale vs UVA had to be an advantaged final, but since that was going to burn only one packet anyway, there was absolutely no reason that UMD vs Chicago/Penn vs Chicago couldn't have each been played on a full packet.
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5542
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by Important Bird Area » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:37 pm

vinteuil wrote:Well, what exactly is NAQT's rationale for this practice?
Primarily that "dropping a prelim game to a relatively weaker team is a real measure of team strength."
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5542
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by Important Bird Area » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:38 pm

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:I'd also like to talk about the practice of playing off placement ties with half-packets, when enough full packets were available. I could understand if Yale vs UVA had to be an advantaged final, but since that was going to burn only one packet anyway, there was absolutely no reason that UMD vs Chicago/Penn vs Chicago couldn't have each been played on a full packet.
Noted, and we will consider adjustments to this policy in the future. (Note here: it's very possible that second-place ties might need half-packets because the alternative is running out of packets.)
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Sima Guang Hater
Auron
Posts: 1861
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 1:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by Sima Guang Hater » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:41 pm

bt_green_warbler wrote:Noted, and we will consider adjustments to this policy in the future. (Note here: it's very possible that second-place ties might need half-packets because the alternative is running out of packets.)
I completely understand. People may disagree, but I think having a conditional policy in which full packets are played if available (switching to half if not) makes sense.
Eric Mukherjee, MD PhD
Washburn Rural High School, 2005
Brown University, 2009
Medical Scientist Training Program, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 2018
Intern in Internal Medicine, Yale-Waterbury, 2018-9
Dermatology Resident, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 2019-

Member Emeritus, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer, NAQT, NHBB, IQBT

"The next generation will always surpass the previous one. It's one of the never-ending cycles in life."

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1822
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by Susan » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:43 pm

The practice I'd be most interested in seeing a justification of is "If one team has an advantage, it will need to win one game while the other team will need to win two", which in theory could produce even stranger final outcomes than the 2005 D2 situation (e.g., if the first-place team somehow emerged from the playoffs with a three-game lead over the second-place team, they played a two-game final, and the second-place team won, the winner of the tournament would have a worse record than the overall second-place team).
Susan
UChicago alum (AB 2003, PhD 2009)
Member emerita, ACF

User avatar
Tees-Exe Line
Tidus
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 5:02 pm

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by Tees-Exe Line » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:46 pm

The Quest for the Historical Mukherjesus wrote:I'd also like to talk about the practice of playing off placement ties with half-packets, when enough full packets were available. I could understand if Yale vs UVA had to be an advantaged final, but since that was going to burn only one packet anyway, there was absolutely no reason that UMD vs Chicago/Penn vs Chicago couldn't have each been played on a full packet.
Also, the non-timing of the half packets is pretty much an admission that the clock is dumb. I suppose the relevant model is one in which there's a tradeoff between variability of the outcome due to vagaries of which questions are asked in which part of the packet/half of the match vs. something worthwhile in the "excitement" of timed quizbowl. In that case, the judgment that entails the outcome "time full-packet matches but not half-packet matches" is a completely arbitrary decision that match outcomes decided on half packets (rather than a single ten minute "half") would be too noisy a signal but that twenty minutes is a long enough time to play quizbowl such that the noise is reduced below some threshold. Pretty much nothing convincingly locates that threshold on the interval (10 minutes, 20 minutes). And obviously, not timing those half-matches gives them a very different feel from the rest of ICT.

Also, why was the seeding among the three teams with tied records decided on PPG rather than PPB, when they'd faced different fields?
Marshall I. Steinbaum

Oxford University (2002-2005)
University of Chicago (2008-2014)

Get in the elevator.

User avatar
Cody
2008-09 Male Athlete of the Year
Posts: 2317
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 am
Location: Richmond

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by Cody » Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:51 pm

bt_green_warbler wrote:Primarily that "dropping a prelim game to a relatively weaker team is a real measure of team strength."
The problem with this is that the other teams in the playoff bracket did not play the same prelim teams, so it's unfair to carry over the games against teams they don't have in common. This is pretty much analogous to the well-accepted reason you don't use PPG to compare teams who didn't play common opponents: it has become a meaningless statistic [of course, apparently NAQT doesn't really believe this either....].

This comes into play even if you have perfect brackets, of course, but it's an especially huge problem at ICT because the brackets are always a huge mess and are never seeded anywhere close to "almost correct" (which is more of a subject for the other thread, to be fair).
Cody Voight, VCU ‘14. I wrote lots of science and am an electrical engineer.
VCU Tournament Director ‘13-‘17. HSAPQ President ‘15-16.
Hero of Socialist Quizbowl Labor (NSC ‘14). “esteemed colleague” of Snap Wexley, ca. 2016. Stats Hero (Nats ‘16).
Quizbowl at VCU

bradleykirksey
Wakka
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:09 pm

Re: ICT format and logistics

Post by bradleykirksey » Wed Apr 02, 2014 3:16 am

Tees-Exe Line wrote: Also, the non-timing of the half packets is pretty much an admission that the clock is dumb. I suppose the relevant model is one in which there's a tradeoff between variability of the outcome due to vagaries of which questions are asked in which part of the packet/half of the match vs. something worthwhile in the "excitement" of timed quizbowl. In that case, the judgment that entails the outcome "time full-packet matches but not half-packet matches" is a completely arbitrary decision that match outcomes decided on half packets (rather than a single ten minute "half") would be too noisy a signal but that twenty minutes is a long enough time to play quizbowl such that the noise is reduced below some threshold. Pretty much nothing convincingly locates that threshold on the interval (10 minutes, 20 minutes). And obviously, not timing those half-matches gives them a very different feel from the rest of ICT.
Forgive me if I'm missing something here, but I think that I disagree. Not every tournament is going to have DI ICT readers. UCF was at two tournaments at the same site in the not distant past where the readers were slow. In the NAQT tournament, neither UCF A nor B heard a full 18 tossups per game (B never heard more than 19 tossups and A heard more than than only once). At the ACF tournament, we cleared the entire pack like we were supposed to. Despite a delay at the NAQT tournament waiting for a no-show tournament, we still finished something like two hours before we did at the ACF tournament.

When you're at ICT with ICT readers and the events can take the entire day without a problem, and the match is going on at around the same time as a more important championship match, you can kill an extra 3 or 4 minutes and no one cares. If you're untiming the entire tournament from beginning to end (which I'm not opposed to) you can stretch the overall tournament time a couple of hours.
Tees-Exe Line wrote: Also, why was the seeding among the three teams with tied records decided on PPG rather than PPB, when they'd faced different fields?
That's always bothered me too. That and the playing half-packets when you can play a full pack are the two things coming out of this thread that I think are really worth reconsidering, personally.
Bradley Kirksey
Mayor of quiz bowl at the University of Central Florida (2010-2015)

Locked