SSI Results

Old college threads.
Locked
User avatar
MCDoug
Rikku
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Gainesville, FL

SSI Results

Post by MCDoug »

Stats are available here: http://plaza.ufl.edu/drobeson/drobeson/ ... dings.html

Div 1:
1. USF A 8-2
2. FSU A 6-4
3. GTech 4-6
(Technically the Borglum et al team won with a record of 9-1, but they dont count)

Individual:
Chris 76 PPG
1. Rob - USF A - 46 PPG
2. Matt - FSU A - 39 PPG
3. Ahmad - USF B - 36.5 PPG

Neg Award:
1. Ahmad - USF B - 25
2. Billy - FSU A - 20

Div 2:
Playoffs:
Valencia 330
FSU B 85

Athens State 150
UTC B 105

Final:
Valencia 205
Athens State 115

Third Place:
FSU B 150
UTC B 115

1. Valencia
2. Athens State
3. FSU B

Individual:
1. Sean - Valencia - 55.71 PPG
2. Daniel - LSU - 55.0 PPG
3. Jacob - UTC B - 54. 29 PPG

Congrats to all and thank you all for coming.

wd4gdz
Tidus
Posts: 740
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tallahassee

Post by wd4gdz »

Thank you UF for supplying some superb 2-*sentence* tossups and having Div2 play 7 rounds total. Well worth the $100 entry fee, I say.

Billy
FSU

edit: I changed the word line to sentence.
Last edited by wd4gdz on Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

miamiqb
Lulu
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Miami
Contact:

Post by miamiqb »

wd4gdz wrote:Thank you UF for supplying some superb 2-line tossups and having Div2 play 7 rounds total. Well worth the $100 entry fee, I say.

Billy
FSU
ouch...
I like to eat peanut butter

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

Post by NotBhan »

I'll interpret Billy's comments to mean "There were some intros which were too easy for the D1 portion of the field" (as there were no actual two-line tossups) and "The format should have been structured so that all of D2 got to play during the playoff rounds instead of just the top handful of teams." I've passed both comments along to the UF folks, and next year's tournament will improve on both of those areas.

--Raj Dhuwalia
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05

User avatar
MCDoug
Rikku
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:56 am
Location: Gainesville, FL

Post by MCDoug »

I assure you (Billy and anyone else out there who may attend future UF tournaments) that the person in charge of editing the questions and running the tournament in general (who didn't actually show up to the tournament and only told us the night before that he wouldn't be there) will not be running or editing future UF tournaments. To my knowledge he's no longer at UF.

Looking at the stats, the questions couldn't have been all that bad, otherwise there should have been lots of teams averaging over 300 PPG. And, the desired bonus difficulty looks to have been pretty good... the best teams got right around 20 PPB, the middle teams got around 15 PPB, and the newer teams got between 5 and 10 PPB.

The top 4 Division 2 teams got 9 games and I know that at least some of the other teams were told that if they did not make the playoffs and they wanted to stay and play, they could and we would provide a reader for them. As far as I know, no teams asked to stay and play.

Both of these issues will be addressed when planning for next year's tournament. Hopefully, we'll have more then 10 rounds of well written questions next year.

wd4gdz
Tidus
Posts: 740
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tallahassee

Post by wd4gdz »

Yes, I think Raj correctly interpreted my comments in a more gentle way. I was a bit frustrated after this tournament, so I really didn't mean for what I wrote to have such a scathing tone. In the future, I'll probably wait a day to comment, so I can simmer down. Now, instead of being so negative, I'll offer some advice:

While tossups whose first line include clues like "The Gift Outright" (Frost) and "Deriving its name from the Latin for chalk", etc., might be suitable for Div2, I don't feel they are for Div1. Answers such as Frost, Cretaceous, and Lyme disease are certainly suitable for a tournament like this, but it's important to write tossups that are pyramidal and won't lead to 8-person buzzer races.

A majority of the teams only played seven rounds, although some got to play nine or ten. Was there a shortage of packets? A trade swap with Michigan might be a good idea in the future (if they are willing), especially since the comments have all been favorable concerning that tournament this year. Another idea would be to make the tournament packet submission.

Packets with 18 bonuses. Numbering the bonuses might help with this. This is the first time I've ever heard of one team making up a bonus for the opposition.

Despite these complaints, the tournament was still fine. The rounds went quickly, and the readers were good. Most rooms even had scorekeepers. I think the errors are mostly in regards to planning, which might include writing questions the day before, or not having the TD at the tournament.

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

Post by Matt Weiner »

MCDoug wrote:Looking at the stats, the questions couldn't have been all that bad, otherwise there should have been lots of teams averaging over 300 PPG. And, the desired bonus difficulty looks to have been pretty good... the best teams got right around 20 PPB, the middle teams got around 15 PPB, and the newer teams got between 5 and 10 PPB.
I think he's saying that the questions sucked, not that they were too hard.
A majority of the teams only played seven rounds, although some got to play nine or ten. Was there a shortage of packets? A trade swap with Michigan might be a good idea in the future (if they are willing), especially since the comments have all been favorable concerning that tournament this year.
This was tried last year, to the derision and laughter of everyone who had to endure the Florida packets. "Name the Louis from the years of his reign for 5 points each!"
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

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

Post by STPickrell »

Matt Weiner wrote:This was tried last year, to the derision and laughter of everyone who had to endure the Florida packets. "Name the Louis from the years of his reign for 5 points each!"
Well, after XIII, they are pretty easy for the college level, aside from IX. But Louis the Fat, Louis the Indolent ... are they canon these days for tournaments which are designed to be played on D1 and D2?

Who knows, maybe too many years of writing HS packets has left me in the dust with regard to what's canon these days.
Shawn Pickrell, HSAPQ CFO

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

Post by Matt Weiner »

StPickrell wrote:Well, after XIII, they are pretty easy for the college level, aside from IX. But Louis the Fat, Louis the Indolent ... are they canon these days for tournaments which are designed to be played on D1 and D2?

Who knows, maybe too many years of writing HS packets has left me in the dust with regard to what's canon these days.
Again, it's an issue of quality, not difficulty. I'm sure most teams could pull at least 10-15 points on that question, but it's a completely lazy and uninteresting bonus that is no fun to play on.
Matt Weiner
Founder of hsquizbowl.org

barnacles
Lulu
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:08 pm

Post by barnacles »

I must say that I, for the most part, enjoyed the tournament, playing in Div II and reaching the playoffs for the two extra rounds. I will also begin by saying that the tournament ran smoothly and efficiently and that the Florida folks did a good job during the tournament. I will agree, however, that the quality of the questions was lacking in a few respects. Bonus difficulty was up and down all day and there were many questions with rather easy lead-ins, which wasn't a huge problem in Div II, but I can imagine it being rather frustrating in Div I. Also, I happened to take a look at a packet after we were done playing and was dismayed to see several questions with words that were still "hyperlinked" on the printed page. If I had only gotten seven rounds, I would imagine being upset at that as well. While the lack of 20 bonuses in packets didn't end up mattering in any of my rounds, that is a rather peculiar thing to do.

Overall, though, I had a good time at the tournament and look forward to coming to UF tournaments in the future.

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

Post by grapesmoker »

barnacles wrote:I must say that I, for the most part, enjoyed the tournament, playing in Div II and reaching the playoffs for the two extra rounds. I will also begin by saying that the tournament ran smoothly and efficiently and that the Florida folks did a good job during the tournament. I will agree, however, that the quality of the questions was lacking in a few respects. Bonus difficulty was up and down all day and there were many questions with rather easy lead-ins, which wasn't a huge problem in Div II, but I can imagine it being rather frustrating in Div I. Also, I happened to take a look at a packet after we were done playing and was dismayed to see several questions with words that were still "hyperlinked" on the printed page. If I had only gotten seven rounds, I would imagine being upset at that as well. While the lack of 20 bonuses in packets didn't end up mattering in any of my rounds, that is a rather peculiar thing to do.

Overall, though, I had a good time at the tournament and look forward to coming to UF tournaments in the future.
This is something I just don't get. You made the playoffs and got two extra rounds?! It boggles my mind how a team at a tournament can be denied the opportunity to play in the playoff rounds by virtue of "not making the playoffs." This has never been the case at any tournament that I have ever been to: sure, there is a rebracketting after the standard round robin, but everyone still gets to play on the playoff rounds. Which, I am assuming from your post, were two rounds on top of seven, for a total of nine? I can't quite tell whether that only happened in D2 or in both divisions, but seven rounds is absurd. If I traveled to a tournament and only got to play seven rounds, I would demand my money back.

Also, fewer than 20 bonuses in a packet? Hyperlinks still present (indicating, in all probability, questions copied straight from Wikipedia)? How does anyone think that this is acceptable?
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

barnacles
Lulu
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:08 pm

Post by barnacles »

I agree with you, the mistakes UF made were pretty egregious. I was just saying that, in my own limited personal experience, the tournament went pretty well. I can see, however, that many other people had complaints with it, and rightfully so, but the things they are up in arms about didn't really affect me.

Div I played a double round robin with 10 rounds and Div II was split into two brackets and each played a round robin with 7 rounds. The top two in each bracket went on to the playoffs (semifinals, then championship and consolation match), which left the majority of teams leaving after 7 rounds, which I agree would have made me mad were I one of those teams. I had to sit through the tenth round while the Div I matches were still going on and would have liked to play on that packet, but I didn't think that was a huge deal.

I'm just giving UF the benefit of the doubt since it seems their TD went AWOL on them and it seems he was responsible for most of the problem.

Also, while it was a Florida team member who complained about tournament length at a UTC tournament this fall, I think they probably learned a lesson about how to run tournaments in the future, and while we did get out early, I felt like having a longer tournament would have been more enjoyable.

Also, the tournament was made up of primarily CC teams (especially in DII). Perhaps they were more used to this sort of tournament.

canaanbananarama
Wakka
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 10:39 pm
Location: Everywhere, SAKARTVELO

Post by canaanbananarama »

Jerry writes:
This is something I just don't get. You made the playoffs and got two extra rounds?! It boggles my mind how a team at a tournament can be denied the opportunity to play in the playoff rounds by virtue of "not making the playoffs." This has never been the case at any tournament that I have ever been to: sure, there is a rebracketting after the standard round robin, but everyone still gets to play on the playoff rounds. Which, I am assuming from your post, were two rounds on top of seven, for a total of nine? I can't quite tell whether that only happened in D2 or in both divisions, but seven rounds is absurd. If I traveled to a tournament and only got to play seven rounds, I would demand my money back.
You've clearly never attended a CBI tournament, at which making the four team playoffs can earn teams up to five rounds of extra play. That aside, I'm sure you've attended tournaments where teams have played two extra rounds heard by no other teams solely on the basis of being "finalists." I don't see how this is that much different from having a small, exclusive playoff, which in this case, involved half of the teams, rather than two out of twenty. Obviously, the more egregious offense is the lack of regular rounds-nobody should go about making an exclusive final or playoffs with less than ten rounds played by every team.

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

Post by NotBhan »

canaanbananarama wrote:
... nobody should go about making an exclusive final or playoffs with less than ten rounds played by every team.
As noted previously, this is one of several things which will be fixed for next year's tournament. (Also as noted previously, the other D2 teams were given the option of playing those rounds in the other match rooms, but maybe there was some kind of communication problem.) As for the hyperlinked question, I only remember seeing one such question, though I only moderated the first 9 rounds -- I don't know what the story was with that question.
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05

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

Post by grapesmoker »

canaanbananarama wrote: You've clearly never attended a CBI tournament
This is certainly true.
That aside, I'm sure you've attended tournaments where teams have played two extra rounds heard by no other teams solely on the basis of being "finalists." I don't see how this is that much different from having a small, exclusive playoff, which in this case, involved half of the teams, rather than two out of twenty.
I strongly disagree. ACF rules stipulate that a final should take place when a team is not two games clear of the field. The final matches are engendered by the need to have a clear winner for the tournament, when it is already clear what the ranking of the other teams will be based on the playoff rounds. In this case, those who did not make the top bracket appear to have been denied the opportunity to participate at all, and hence the chance to be ranked accordingly.

Plus, although it doesn't matter too much, a typical ACF final is a spectator event for everyone not involved, a chance to see two great teams fight it out for the championship. Nothing of the sort appears to have taken place here.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Post by Susan »

Regardless of how one feels about playoffs that don't include all teams, I think it's silly to act like they never happen. Jerry, you attended a tournament this very weekend where only the top eight teams participated in playoffs*. Penn Bowl, in its larger incarnations, had playoffs for only the top quarter or something of the field (though perhaps drawing upon Penn Bowl puts me on shaky ground). I know I've attended other tournaments over the years that have used such a format. It may not be a great one, but it's certainly not unheard of.

That said, having only seven rounds for prelims is crap.

*The tournament directors or someone who was paying better attention than I was can probably clarify this, but I believe that the lower 14 teams were invited to play if they wanted to, though I don't remember hearing rankings announced for those teams to dictate any sort of playoff schedule. Anyway, given the jump in difficulty between prelim and playoff rounds at NAQT, it was a sound decision to let lower-bracket teams opt out of those games.

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

Post by grapesmoker »

Right, that was voluntary. I think the TDs were right in recongnizing that the playoffs would be too tough for half the field, but they invited them to participate nonetheless. The teams that left did so of their own volition; they weren't denied the opportunity to play in the playoffs.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

miamiqb
Lulu
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:38 pm
Location: Miami
Contact:

Post by miamiqb »

a little ot, but I submitted a packet to SSI in exchange for a set afterwards. Should I be contacting the TD for that packet or is someone else at UF in charge of that?

Thanks,
Jay
I like to eat peanut butter

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

Post by NotBhan »

Hi, Jay. Try the TD -- if you don't hear back within a couple of days, post here again (or update the previous post), and we'll have someone else get the set to you.

--Raj Dhuwalia
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05

Locked