ICT Bid discussion

Old college threads.
Locked
Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

ICT Bid discussion

Post by Rothlover »

If this merits consolidation with the other NAQT thread going feel free to combine it, but I figured it might deserve its own space.

How does everyone feel about the way NAQT bids came out? Anyone notice glaring omissions/oversights in either Division? Anyone think there is any likelyhood we will actually see a British team at ICT?

I guess this would also be a place to start the preliminary ICT chatter. Over/under on pope-related bonuses?

User avatar
Dan Greenstein
Auron
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD

Post by Dan Greenstein »

I would like to see NAQT post the full results and statistics from every SCT on their website before I post a more comprehensive analysis.

I noticed many of the SCTs had the entire field, both D1 and D2, playing on D2 questions. I sincerely hope that NAQT accounted for this when putting together their invites, but until I see the full statistics, I am not so sure.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico »

Hey,
I made a spreadsheet of all the information that I can find about teams with Division I ICT bids (adapted to SQBS format stats.) http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/msorice/www/ic ... stats.html has it available for your perusal.

A couple notes:
1. Italicized teams have incomplete stats. If you have information about these teams, please let me know and I'll update the sheet.
2. The toss-ups heard stat for the UMD sectional had to be calculated from rounded-off stats as it was not available directly. It may have an error of 1 tossup heard either way.
3. Thanks to the millions of dollars we give them every semester, CITES is unable to run a webserver that will load pages on the first try. Please just reload the page and it should view correctly after a couple tries. Sorry about that.

Edit: Added "Set Used" column to track whether D1 or D2 questions used.

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3190
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

I suppose nobody cares enough for D2 to do the same for it?
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw »

I made a spreadsheet from the seven sectionals I have stats for (I'm not counting NW since I don't know which ones were D2; it's irrelevant since none of them received a D2 bid), but I'm not going to post it online anywhere.

Breakdown by sectional (excluding CCs):
North: Carleton, Grinnell, Macalester (3)
South: Baylor, Texas (champ) (2)
West: UC Davis (champ) (1)
Midwest: Harding, Tulsa, Missouri-Rolla (host), Wash U (champ) (4)
Southeast: Florida (champ), Kentucky, UTC (host), UTK (4)
New England: Dartmouth, Harvard, Williams, Yale (4)
Mid-Atlantic: Swarthmore (champ) (1)
Great Lakes: Case Western Reserve (host), Chicago, Michigan (champ) (3)
Canada: McGill (champ), Ottawa (host) (2)

Of those, the only thing that doesn't make a lot of sense is Tennessee-Knoxville getting a bid when two teams that did not even make the waitlist finished ahead of them in their own sectional. I assume UTK's bonus conversion must have been very high, since all five waitlist teams had higher PPTH and three of them had bonus conversion >17.

I commend UTK for earning a spot in the D2 ICT field and I'm sure they earned it; I just can't see why NAQT has gone against its past tradition of picking teams in the order of finish at their sectional tournament.

NotBhan
Rikku
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Post by NotBhan »

In reply to cvdwightw, I think only one non-qualifying team (FSU A) finished ahead of UTK -- I presume they did some kind of bracketed thing, so the 7-5 Georgia team was behind UTK.

Based on the posted stats, UTK had a bonus conversion of about 17.14, if I calculated that right, versus 14.91 for FSU.

EDIT: As jonpin notes below, the indiv stats for UTK may be missing a round, which I failed to notice, so my calculation may not be valid. Sorry.
Last edited by NotBhan on Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05

User avatar
bsmith
Tidus
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by bsmith »

Since division 2 has been mentioned:

I think Alfred got burned out of a D2 bid because of the format of the Canadian SCT. Their 6 losses came to D1 teams and the one D2 team that finished ahead of them. They did great in the full round-robin, but were then squashed by a top 4 bracket with D1 teams...

By subtracting games against D1 teams (including the McGill A team that finished 8th), a 12 PPTH and 16 P/B is comparable to some of the bid-winners and wait list (not that I have anything against the current invitation list)

Alfred has had a great first season so far; a D2 invite should have been in their cards to cap it off. Perhaps they're the 6th team on that wait list...

Ben Smith,
(not speaking for) U of O.

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

I will try and phrase this as nicely as possible... "Why the fuck did UTK get a bid over FSU? FSU had a better record and a better quality of opponent," yet one got a bid and one doesn't look to be on the waitlist.

Also, to piggyback, does anyone see the irony of DePauw, the school that tried to enforce mandatory cancellation fees, only to back out of SCT like 12 hours before the tournament weighing in on issues of dead-beatness?

NotBhan
Rikku
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Post by NotBhan »

Rothlover wrote:I will try and phrase this as nicely as possible... "Why the fuck did UTK get a bid over FSU? FSU had a better record and a better quality of opponent," yet one got a bid and one doesn't look to be on the waitlist.
If UTK refers to Tennessee-Knoxville, then they had the same opponents as FSU A (except for each other, of course), and therefore the same "quality of opponent." Statistically, UTK lost one more match than FSU, but they had an advantage of over 1.5 on points per tossup heard and over 2.2 in bonus conversion. Perhaps those statistics, especially the latter, were the basis for UTK getting a bid over FSU.

--Raj Dhuwalia, not affiliated with any organization whatsoever
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

I was noting the much higher total ppg (sum of ppg and opponent ppg).

User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Post by jonpin »

Yes, but FSU heard 19 more tossups. In terms of combined PPTH, FSU was 20.78, Tenn was 21.02.
The individual stats appear to be missing one of Tennessee's rounds, as they have 11 rounds, but they have Tennessee powering 17 or 7.0% to FSU's 19 or 7.25%
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15, '17; ACF '14, '17, '19; NHBB '13-'15; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico »

Hey again,
I updated my sheet with the stats from the Brandeis SCT. I still need stats from Minnesota and the UK (assuming the UK teams qualified in an SCT?) It's still available at http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/msorice/www/ic ... stats.html and I've also uploaded to http://netfiles.uiuc.edu/msorice/www/ict_bids_stats.xls the Excel sheet I'm using so anyone can do whatever interactive category rankings or make any modifications they'd like.

MaS

biggreen
Lulu
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Hanover, NH

Post by biggreen »

Are the Brandeis stats posted anywhere?

samer
Wakka
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 3:01 pm

Post by samer »

cvdwightw wrote:I commend UTK for earning a spot in the D2 ICT field and I'm sure they earned it; I just can't see why NAQT has gone against its past tradition of picking teams in the order of finish at their sectional tournament.
As careful perusal of the Y! site would show, that has never been a true "tradition." The one exception to that has been that when there are bracketed playoffs (1-3, 4-6, 7-9, etc.), a team from a lower bracket can never advance ahead of a team from a higher bracket, regardless of statistics.

As far as teams' records go, the S-value assigns a statistical score to each team based on their tossup performance (adjusted for opponent strength) and their bonus performance (unadjusted). For the sake of argument, let's say it's on a scale from 0 to 100. For teams where the bracket rule doesn't apply, every additional loss requires a difference of, say, 5 points to get in ahead of a team with a better record.(*) So, for example, a 12-2 team with an S-value of 80 would get in ahead of an 11-3 team with an S-value of 82, but a 10-4 team with an S-value of 91 would get in ahead of either.

(*) These numbers are made up, but the basic principle holds.
samer dot ismail -at- gmail dot com / Samer Ismail, PACE co-founder, NAQT editor

User avatar
Dan Greenstein
Auron
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD

Post by Dan Greenstein »

I believe the most relevant issue this year, and the one I originally brought up, is how NAQT compared the D1 performances of those teams at SCTs that played D2 questions. At all of those affected sites (Northwest, Canada, South), you cannot put the D1 teams that competed at those locations into the formula as is; you must compensate for them having played an easier set than their D1 counterparts at the other SCT sites. Otherwise, the bubble teams at those other sites would be penalized for playing harder questions, which almost everyone would agree would be a bad thing. Can Samer or someone else explain how NAQT handled this issue with regard to assigning S-values?

vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk »

I would also be interested to see full stats from Brandeis. I'm guessing Columbia was one of the last teams in, as we (Vanderbilt) had a better PPTH than they, though they had a slight bonus conversion advantage, and records are very similar (8-5 vs. 7-4). The difference, then, had to be in strength of opponent. Were there at least 4 D1 teams at the northwest sectional? I see how Cornell was easily chosen despite their playing on D2, and if I'm right that there were the right # of D1 teams, UBC deserves their bid regardless of which set was used. My guess, which could be way off, is that Rice was arbitrarily placed on top of the waiting list. They "won" the D1 title, but I don't see how NAQT could really quantitatively compare them with the other D1 teams. Putting them on top of the wait list would kind of be like saying "you don't quite deserve an automatic bid but we don't feel right about not inviting you either." I was pretty confident of our getting in from 2nd on the wait list, but this 18 acceptances, 0 declines is making me a bit nervous...

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

samer wrote: As far as teams' records go, the S-value assigns a statistical score to each team based on their tossup performance (adjusted for opponent strength) and their bonus performance (unadjusted). For the sake of argument, let's say it's on a scale from 0 to 100. For teams where the bracket rule doesn't apply, every additional loss requires a difference of, say, 5 points to get in ahead of a team with a better record.(*) So, for example, a 12-2 team with an S-value of 80 would get in ahead of an 11-3 team with an S-value of 82, but a 10-4 team with an S-value of 91 would get in ahead of either.
If these three teams are in the same SCT and NAQT's formula allows for such a thing to happen, I would claim said formula is deeply flawed. Previously, I had been under the impression that the S-value was only used to compare teams across sectionals, but this seems quite preposterous. It shouldn't matter if the 10-4 team has a better S-value than the 12-2 team; they lost more games to the same opposition! They wouldn't get to finish ahead of the 12-2 team at an invitational or at any other competition, so why should the SCT be an exception? Given that I am generally inclined to disregard QB statistics to begin with (other than as rough, very rough guidelines), I find it difficult to believe that any statistical variation between teams could justify inviting a lower-placed team over a higher-placed one from the same sectionals.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

Romero
Wakka
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 11:05 pm
Contact:

Post by Romero »

I have sent a letter of protest with regard to the fact that in the SCT that I ran UTD finished ahead of Baylor and got jumped in the bid process. It does not make logical sense. If the formula allows this to happen, then it must be wrong.

One ironic aspect of these scenarios is the fact that NAQT requires that ties in the standings be played off; obviously to avoid having that some random statistic decide order of finish. What is farcical is that while requiring tie play-offs, NAQT chooses its field randomly based on some formula, disregarding the match standards it ostensibly requires.

I think NAQT should publish its infamous S-formula, though if they did so they would lose the unreproachable ability to capriciously choose which teams it wishes to include. My guess is that they are not interested in this scenario.
Last edited by Romero on Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

The D2 thing is a big deal. NAQT needs to end entirely the practice of combined fields or D1 teams playing on D2 questions. It would be better for all involved if, for example, a sectional that drew only two D1 teams played them off six times on D1 questions to create a reference, then put them into the D2 field on an exhibition basis to give them some extra opponents. For several reasons, I am willing to give a lot of credibility to NAQT on the issue of lower-finishing teams qualifying ahead of higher-finishing teams on the basis of the S-value, but the reliability of any statistic goes out the window when one has to make an essentially arbitrary correction for D2 questions/opponents.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Matt Weiner wrote:For several reasons, I am willing to give a lot of credibility to NAQT on the issue of lower-finishing teams qualifying ahead of higher-finishing teams on the basis of the S-value, but the reliability of any statistic goes out the window when one has to make an essentially arbitrary correction for D2 questions/opponents.
But in the case of the Southeast sectionals, there was no problem regarding the comaparability of the teams in question, since there were (a) plenty of DII teams that (b) played on the same questions (c) against each other. Obviously, it is a problem that different questions were used in the same division at different SCTs, and I'm willing to admit the S-value as a valid instrument of distinguishing teams across various regionals. What I find objectionable is using S-value to compare teams from the same regional; overall record should take place over any statistical considerations.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

For those who want to see NE stats, I finally got ahold of the fixed files (the few minor things that remain were corrected by NAQT in their final analysis) and the stats can be reached at:

http://www.danpassner.com/NAQT%20Round% ... dings.html

http://www.danpassner.com/playoffs_standings.html

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter »

The D2 issue does not only apply to D1 teams forced to play on D2 questions. There must also be some compensation for D2 teams that play D1 teams on D2 questions, or a team may be unfairly passed over (as Ben said earlier about Alfred in his post). I know that in the South Baylor lost to both division 1 teams, while UTD beat LSU (made up entirely of grad students), and Baylor got a bid while UTD is nowhere to be seen. Even if NAQT doesn't adjust for the actual losses, the difference in other stats that should theoretically result due to playing the division one teams should be noted.

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

Post by Susan »

Maybe I'm missing something, but shouldn't the strength-of-schedule compenent of the S-value account for the supposed disadvantage of having to play DI teams on DII questions? It doesn't seem to me that it should be all that different from having to play against a very strong DII team.

That said, I'd be happy to see NAQT go back to using the same packet set for DI and DII, as they have sometimes done. I know some of our DII players thought that questions in the DII set were pretty idiotic (one food question in particular leaps to mind), and it generally pains me when we spend money to have our teams play on (packets partially composed of) IS sets. It also seems like it'd be less of a pain in the ass on NAQT'S end to not have to produce two packet sets.

Susan

User avatar
Scipio
Wakka
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:12 pm

Post by Scipio »

That said, I'd be happy to see NAQT go back to using the same packet set for DI and DII, as they have sometimes done.
I agree. I have always thought that the most compelling argument for the continued existence of a Division II at all has been that it ostensibly prepares the younger players for their eventual emergence into Division I. By offering different packet sets for both Divisions, the eventual transition is only made more painful: players whose only experience is on the (allegedly) easier Div II questions will find that questions have gotten harder while the competition has gotten better (and thus wins harder to come by) when they join the veterans.

Of course, the whole problem can be surmounted by scrapping Division II altogether, which is beginning to look like a better and better idea. Quizbowl once did exist before the second Division, and I have yet to see how it has been strengthened by the instution. Maybe the time has come for Division II to end.
Seth Lyons Kendall
University of Memphis, 1993-1997
University of Kentucky, 1997-1999, 2000-2008

Trey
Lulu
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:31 am

Post by Trey »

There seems to be an incongruity between NAQT's stance that a team from a lower playoff bracket won't be chosen over a team from a higher bracket but that teams from the same bracket will not necessarily be taken in order of finish. What's the logic that makes rank order inviolable from the prelims but not from the playoffs?

User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Post by jonpin »

vandyhawk wrote:...if I'm right that there were the right # of D1 teams, UBC deserves their bid regardless of which set was used.
British Columbia got an automatic bid for hosting the sectional.
Trey wrote:There seems to be an incongruity between NAQT's stance that a team from a lower playoff bracket won't be chosen over a team from a higher bracket but that teams from the same bracket will not necessarily be taken in order of finish. What's the logic that makes rank order inviolable from the prelims but not from the playoffs?
The idea is that they're not playing the same schedule, and to prevent match throwing. Say you have 10 teams, and you're splitting 5/5 for playoff games. A team that estimates themselves as 4th or 5th in the field could throw a couple games to finish 6th in the round-robin, then beat down the bottom teams, inflating their stats, while if they had played to form and just made the top bracket and then gotten blown out, they would have worse stats.

My continuing thought is that there is no good reason for the S value to not be public. I think last year, someone lamely set that if it was public, sectionals could rig their format to increase the chances of getting more bids, and I wonder (a) how the hell that's possible, (b) why any sectional would be so eager to do that [unless it was a 'I'll do it this year, you do it next year, and we can both celebrate' deal, which I doubt], and (c) why any statistic which suffers from this flaw should be used.
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15, '17; ACF '14, '17, '19; NHBB '13-'15; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov

STPickrell
Auron
Posts: 1501
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 11:12 pm
Location: Vienna, VA
Contact:

Post by STPickrell »

Scipio wrote:Of course, the whole problem can be surmounted by scrapping Division II altogether, which is beginning to look like a better and better idea. Quizbowl once did exist before the second Division, and I have yet to see how it has been strengthened by the instution. Maybe the time has come for Division II to end.
The more schools that play quizbowl, the better.

Has D2 furthered this?

If so, keep it. If not, scrap it.
Shawn Pickrell, HSAPQ CFO

User avatar
QuizbowlPostmodernist
Wakka
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:22 am

Post by QuizbowlPostmodernist »

The teams "on the bubble" are probably sufficiently close in ability that it may come down to who was feeling better that day. With so many SCT fields, I can't see a consensus ever being reached on exactly who should be at the ICT. There are two models here: the BCS statistical formula model and the March Madness closed room model.

I can understand the desire of NAQT to use the former; it has the appearance of impartiality, it's relatively simple to use, it avoids having to make hard decisions. On the other hand, formulas tend to be problematic; no one likes the BCS and things like the Sagarin ratings often seem to diverge from reality. I'm firmly convinced that there is no perfectly accurate way to determine the top x teams across several fields by examining statistics, but that certain formulas may be useful if they are sufficiently efficient despite being less than 100% error free. (One test that no one has done to my knowledge is to see if S values accurately predict ICT results for teams which do not change personnel between the two tournaments.)

The compromise solution is for NAQT to say publicly they are scrapping S-values and assign field selection to a committee made up of people who just happen to like S values anyways and let that play a major role in their decisions.

User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Post by jonpin »

The problem a lot of sports fans have with the BCS (besides the fact that the formula seemingly changes at random from year to year) is that it only takes two teams. The equivalent would be NAQT saying that only Michigan, Maryland, Berkeley and Florida could play for the D-1 championship last year. I personally would love a 12 or 16-team playoff with seeds based on the BCS formula.
[There are other people who don't like the fact that you have to add and multiply crap in the BCS, but I think the majority would still not like it if the 6 conference heads went into a dark room and came out with the two teams to play for the title.]
Jon Pinyan
Coach, Bergen County Academies (NJ); former player for BCA (2000-03) and WUSTL (2003-07)
HSQB forum mod, PACE member
Stat director for: NSC '13-'15, '17; ACF '14, '17, '19; NHBB '13-'15; NASAT '11

"A [...] wizard who controls the weather" - Jerry Vinokurov

mps4a_mps4a
Wakka
Posts: 102
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 12:42 am
Location: University of Virginia
Contact:

Post by mps4a_mps4a »

it looks like maybe the stakes of this discussion are raising, since apparantly no one is declining invitations: http://www.naqt.com/ict/2005/invitations-di.html . Only six teams have yet to respond. Div 2 is a little more open, but still no declines. yikes.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico »

Just so you all know, though the list doesn't yet indicate it, we (Illinois) took both our bids as well, so there are only potentially four still open, at most. Even given that two are UK schools that must be considered very likely to decline (given past history,) this still leaves very little margin.

MaS

User avatar
bucktowntiger
Lulu
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Arkansas
Contact:

Post by bucktowntiger »

As far as the high percentage of teams accepting their invites, I think last year's rather good ICT set could have a lot to do with it. But 88%/88% of teams accepting? Wow...
I pledge allegiance to the stripes of the Panthera tigris altaica, and to the subspecies for which they stand: one tiger, orange and black, inextinctable, with bonuses and tossups for all.

vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk »

ImmaculateDeception wrote:Just so you all know, though the list doesn't yet indicate it, we (Illinois) took both our bids as well, so there are only potentially four still open, at most. Even given that two are UK schools that must be considered very likely to decline (given past history,) this still leaves very little margin.

MaS
Doh. I was hoping you guys would only take one bid, meaning only one British school would have to decline to allow us in. Guess we have to hope for both of them not coming or A&M/St. Thomas to decline. I have to believe that the location is a big draw too, since New Orleans is a much cooler trip than St. Louis. If only one team declines and Rice gets in ahead of us, I may have some issues with their placement...

User avatar
QuizbowlPostmodernist
Wakka
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 12:22 am

Post by QuizbowlPostmodernist »

mps4a_mps4a wrote:it looks like maybe the stakes of this discussion are raising, since apparantly no one is declining invitations: http://www.naqt.com/ict/2005/invitations-di.html . Only six teams have yet to respond. Div 2 is a little more open, but still no declines. yikes.
In the past, how many teams have accepted, only to retract that acceptance at some point before the ICT?

biggreen
Lulu
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 3:48 pm
Location: Hanover, NH

Post by biggreen »

Dartmouth will accept its Div-II bid, pending final funding approval.

User avatar
Dan Greenstein
Auron
Posts: 1034
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD

Post by Dan Greenstein »

Good news Vanderbilt. As of 15 minutes ago, St. Thomas declined, Rice was elevated, and you are now On Deck.

User avatar
bsmith
Tidus
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by bsmith »

3 Canadian teams coming, the most yet...

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

Congrats to Vanderbilt who, (I have from a reliable source) got its bid due to the decline of Manchester.

NotBhan
Rikku
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Post by NotBhan »

NAQT has posted SCT stats on their page, or at least the team stats.
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05

Locked