The Quizbowl Resource Center

Here are some results prior to the final, to the best of my knowledge:

1. Chicaqo A 12-0
2. Michigan A 11-1
3. Berkeley 10-2
4. Springfield Clown College (aka 4 students who attend an Ivy league school in New Jersey) 7-5
4. Texas A&M 7-5
6. VCU 6-6
7. Harvard 5-7

8. Rochester 10-2
9. Kentucky

Romero wrote:Here are some results prior to the final, to the best of my knowledge:

1. Chicaqo A 12-0
2. Michigan A 11-1
3. Berkeley 10-2
4. Springfield Clown College (aka 4 students who attend an Ivy league school in New Jersey) 7-5
4. Texas A&M 7-5
6. VCU 6-6
7. Harvard 5-7

8. Rochester 10-2
9. Kentucky

Michigan A won the final after posting two wins against Chicago A. Second match came down to the last question.

Litvak will have the SQBS information up soon.

Full results posted at

http://www.acf-quizbowl.com/nationals.html .

Chicago C was also Division II.

Susan

What exactly were the Div. II qualifications? I couldn't find them on the ACF website, at least not in the eligibility link.

Quoted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quizbowl/message/15339 :

"Finally, just a quick note on div 2 eligibility. Any undergrad who has
not been to acf nationals before is eligible in division 2."

Shouldn't VCU and Harvard also be noted as top UG teams?

I noticed that the guy entering stats was entering round number, so I'd be interested in seeing a report with the "include round report" or whatever option checked if that's feasible.

Sorry folks, my bad. I don't have a listing of D2 or UG eligible teams off hand, so please correct any mistakes that you see.

Leo Wolpertx is one, but I'm not sure how I can edit that so not to break the tag. Let me work on that one.

If you get the chance to edit the main results page, my teammates and fellow clowns-in-training were Dan Benediktson and Philip Levitz. Also, Ryan Westbrook is the Michigan B player in the high scorers list.

While I'm at it, I'll note that while he is indeed a delightfully whimsical character, your friend and mine "Matt Lafter" appears to be the recipient of a superfluous "t" in his last name as the result of a typo.

Caltech A was D2, but Caltech B was not (since it had two grad students).

someone alluded to this earlier, but all of the Div 2 teams deserve a lot of credit. With Chicago C that makes 7 teams - is that some kind of ACF nats record? The middle bracket, then, was made up of more D2 teams than D1 teams. I don't think it will be any surprise when those D2 teams that were brave enough to show up at ACF Nats this year will be the ones winning UG in a couple. Great job to all of them.

Since ACF has no official Division II, I'm not terribly up on what it consists of; Susan quoted its definition for this tournament, but I think it is a different definition than used for other events (Fall and Regionals, for example, where it has been often definied as "any player in his first two years of competition, irregardless of standing as undergraduate/graduate student, irregardless of whether they have been to Nationals before").

I have in the past been uneasy with the concept of a Division II, and I am an absolute opponent of a segregated field. However, I think the recent trend in ACF to recognisse the acheivements of first/second years and undergraduates, while not seperating them from the rest of the competitors, is a salutary development; I myself would extend it further to encompass individual awards as well. The message of ACF has always been that, no matter where you are now, with enough industry you can be better, and I think awards for the quizbowl novices will provide further encouragement.

Finally, I echo the sentiment of the others in parise of these younger teams; on packets which were occasionally brutal against murderous competition, many of these teams fared very well, and I didn't hear of any tantrums against the difficulty of either. With this kind of skill and attitude, the future of the game seems to be in good hands.

Some of the Div II teams were indeed quite good, but like Seth alluded to, it's a little hard to compare their performance with past Div II teams since the definitions were different. That's certainly not to take away from their performances, though.

When did Virginia have to leave? I know we got a forefeit win in the final round against them, though the stats don't indicate it. They just gave us fictionalized scores instead of checking the "forefeit" box in SQBS, so I'm wondering if any other matches were scored as such.

vandyhawk wrote:When did Virginia have to leave?.

We left after our game against Texas, so that would have been the 3rd-to-last round. Then we had a bye, then we were to have finished up against you. We were going to try to get that bye switched to the end somehow so we wouldn't miss anything by leaving a round early, but we ended up having to leave two rounds early, so that wasn't an issue. It was an issue of making our flight back to D.C., sorry about that.

Great tournament, by the way, and thanks to everybody that made it happen. It was a real learning experience for a rookie like myself.