Page 1 of 1
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2004 9:38 pm
Recent and not-so-recent events have piqued my curiosity regarding what sort of Division 2 requirements most people prefer. I'd be interested to hear what people have to say.
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:59 am
I'd go with undergrad, first two years of intercollegiate competition, but that if you've never touched a buzzer before and are a grad student, you get one chance. Hell, I think the best option here might just be YOU HAVE ONE YEAR, PERIOD. But then I wouldn't have a chance, as WU couldn't gather the necessary vehicular might to attend SCT this year. Plus there would be the matter of what counts: does CBI count? does trash/TRASH count?
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 1:45 am
Well, since it asks me to specify the "other" I voted for ... I'm OK with the current system. I think the CC eligibility should be 2 years instead of the perplexing 3, but that's kind of a separate topic. Otherwise I'm fine with the current D2 eligibility rules.
--Raj Dhuwalia, UF
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 2:24 am
As a not so experienced Community College player, I like the current format the way it is, although I would not be opposed to cutting CC eligibility to 2 years. I think that there should also be a three year max for any of the people who play in Community College. As it is, Amy and Jim from Valencia are both eligible to play Division 2 next year, which would their fourth year(at least I know it is for Amy--I'm not sure if this year would count against Jim or not), assuming they move on to a four year school. Jim from Valencia was eligible for the Community College Division this year, but did not play(it's good to see that some people who are obviously better than most other D-2 competitors choose NOT to exploit a loophole in the rules).
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 3:13 am
There is currently a 3-year eligibility limit for CC players. And as for the last sentence, don't get bullied into an opinion on the D2 thing by two particularly vociferous posters -- you've got the situation wrong.
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 9:31 am
What I meant by the three year maximum was this: If you play two years of Community College, you should be able to stay in D-II the next year no matter where you play, but if you play three years of Community College, you should have to move up to D-I the next year. As it stands, and of course, I could be very wrong on this one, I could play three years at Bevill, and then go somewhere like Athens State and still be D-II eligible. At least that's how I understood it when it was explained to me. As far as the UCLA situation goes, and once again, I could be wrong--I was under the impression that they were just sitting out the last ICT to get an extra year on the other D-II teams. I don't think there was anything necessarily shady about it, however, I just don't agree with holding back your talent in an attempt to claim victory over weaker competition. It's a practice that you see more often than you'd like in the part of Alabama that I'm from with parents holding back their children so they'll be a more productive athlete against younger kids. Perhaps I should've thought a little longer and worded that last post a little differently...
Completely weird idea that would never work
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 11:01 am
Div 2 consists of two populations of players.
1) Novice = 0-1 years of college qb experience
2) JV = 0-2 years of college qb experience, including CC
Those with 2+ years move up to varsity.
Novice or JV players that demonstrate proficiency in playing college qb (similar to the Carleton CUT system, say tossup PPG > 30 at SCT or ICT) move up to Varsity the following year and out of D2. My only problem with this suggestion is it weighs so much on tossup points rather than contribution in a team... but it's probably the only fair criteria I can impart.
Also, in my opinion, if you count CBI, TRASH, or ACF into potential D2 eligibility criteria, you should count high school competition experience too.
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:14 pm
My thoughts are as follows:
I would not count CBI and TRASH as experience since they operate outside of the established circuit for the most part. Also you shouldn't count high school, since high school experience can range vastly depending on where one went to high school. For example, the D2 team I played on at ICT 2002 had a former Ohio player, a former Illinois player (the former two having unique-to-state formats), a Georgia player with regular NAQT HS experience, and myself, a Texas player who had played Chip for 4 years. The only reasonable thing to do is give every new college player a clean slate.
Now, for standard JB tournaments (i.e. no affiliation with anything except the host school); I think the status quo of two years maximum experience works fine. Of course, to actually prepare players for open competition, JB tournaments need to be packet submissions of a difficulty level reasonably close to standard invitationals (not Regionals level necessarily, but ACF Fall level would be a good start). I can't see how playing NAQT high school sets is going to make anyone more prepared for college questions and competition.
For officially sanctioned tournaments (ACF/NAQT) my ideal would be a simple rule that only players in their first year can do D2, with the elligibility clock starting as of the first college level tournament one plays in (JB's included). This would give novices room to improve, but also force them to prepare for open competition early so they don't get dependent on easy competition and questions, as well as prevent people from hiding in D2.
If that's too strict for some people, I think a good solution would to allow elligbility to last either: 2 years (playing just the spring semester counts as a full year), participation in a national tournament, or participation in X (let's say 5-10 or so) college circuit tournaments, whichever comes first. This would be more flexible for novices, but effectively block shameless people from getting 10-20 tournaments worth of experience then trying to pass themselves off as D2.
Kind of lame that this is such a problem; you'd think people would have enough dignity/honor not to do this, but I guess a shiny piece of plastic means that much to some people.
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 12:57 pm
i'm fine with the d2 system in place now.
although i am a sophomore in class standing, this was my first year of college quiz bowl. if i continue to play next year, which is up in the air at this point because i am changing schools (furman to ut-knoxville), i'll probably exclusively play d1. i mean, playing against tougher competition is the best way to improve as a player, right?
Posted: Tue Apr 06, 2004 7:17 pm
einstein must die wrote: i mean, playing against tougher competition is the best way to improve as a player, right?
It helps. I'm glad to see that some of the underclassmen out there, such as yourself, are looking to get something meaningful out of the game instead of just racking up meaningless trophies.
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:39 am
I think that the current D2 eligibility rules are fine as they are now; although, I would decrease the number of D2 years for Community College players. However, I think there needs to be some changes in the ICT bid process. My suggestion would be to decrease the number of D1 bids to 24 and increase the number of non-CC D2 bids to 32; the same number of teams get to attend, so NAQT does not have to worry that much about volunteers and logistics. I think that this would benefit the circuit, with regards to NAQT specifically, in the following ways:
1. By increasing the number of non-CC D2 bids, the number of D1 teams the following year would increase, because more players would lose their D2 status. This would also help the D1 Undergrad pool by allocating more quality teams to the D1 arena in a more expedient time frame. Instead of having quality D2 players stuck in an eligibility limbo, they would have to participate in D1, and thus get more experience sooner in their development against better quality teams, or else stop playing.
2. Having noticed the amount of declines to the ICT between D1 and D2, it seems as though decreasing D1 bids would not hurt the quality of D1 that much. When dominant teams like Princeton, Delaware, MIT, Rochester, and South Carolina reject bids (either because of finances or their disdain for the excessive, at times, amounts of Trash/GK/Geography questions or whatever other reason), and teams like Missouri-Columbia (who hadn't played in a non-CBI tournament all year until ICT) compete, the overall level of competition takes a dive. Also, it would possibly be more exciting to see more of the D2 teams play, seeing as though the parity between the teams in D2 is not as grave as those in D1.
3. Lastly, it just seems like ICT is a better gauge of talent amongst D2 teams than D1. Many D2 teams seem to get more into NAQT, while many D1 teams seem to hold ACF with more esteem. And with some of the best players in the country (Matt Weiner, for example) either boycotting NAQT or simply dismissing it as less than perfect, it wouldn't hurt NAQT's finances to draw in more of the softcore Academic Bowl players.
Of course, that is my take on the issue. I could be totally wrong. I just wanted to look at the issue from next year's perspective. I mean, D2 in the Southwest next year will be quite intense, with Wichita State, UTD, Rolla, Oklahoma State, LSU, and us (Tulsa) all returning as D2 teams, and new teams like Baylor and Harding (I think that Jason Loy is going there) being added into the mix. But that is just my two cents.
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 5:57 pm
Just to address Angelo's comment #3, I'd have to disagree with at least the first part -- as this year's D1 results suggest, I think the NAQT sets were a good gauge of the relative strength of the teams. Berkeley was clearly the strongest, followed by Michigan, Florida, Yale, Maryland, and Illinois, pretty much in that order. Only Michigan and Florida were reversed in terms of overall strength (in my estimation), and there wasn't a big gap between the two. An ACF tournament would yield fairly similar results. Most teams landed in about the right spot in D1, with few exceptions. The same applies for last year's ICT -- Chicago, Berkeley, and Michigan were the strongest 3, followed by Yale/Florida -- the end standings were a bit screwy, perhaps, but that was a format thing and not a question thing.
I disagree with the concept of reducing D1 for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that both SCT winners and SCT Undergrad champs get automatic bids in D1 already ... more to be said, but my pizza is about done cooking.
--Raj Dhuwalia, UF
Posted: Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:02 pm
I have to respectfully disagree with your proposal Angelo. I think that instead of increasing the number of Division I players, your suggestion would simply drive alot of people out once they used up their Division II eligibility. Especially when they were staring down the prospect of probably not going to nationals their first year in Div I because of the reduced field.
Also, I don't think that Division I was weak- the teams in the top bracket were quite good, and in our initial bracket Stanford and Indiana were both very good teams but didn't make the top seeding. Any given year is going to see good teams decline bids for whatever reason- it may not be questions but just that the players have busy schedules during that particular time. Finally I'd have to reject the player boycott argument. Some people prefer NAQT, others ACF or if you're like me and some others CBI (I know I'm going to get flamed for that)- whatever format floats your boat. Just because Matt Weiner doesnt deign to present himself at a tournament doesnt make it less relevant to those who enjoy the format.
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:02 am
First, in response to Raj, I was not saying that NAQT is not a good gauge of the best teams on the circuit; rather, I am merely stating that the parity between the top tier teams and the bottom tier teams is greater for D1 than for D2. With the exception of the top 6 or so teams in D2, the field as a whole was more even; while in D1, those in the bottom tiers were not in the same league as the top teams.
And in response to UFeng (sorry that I don't know your name), what is wrong with forcing people to either move up to D1 or quit? The circuit will not survive if it is plagued by people who only want to play D2 and then quit when it gets to hard. Yes, maybe the amount of teams from year to year would decrease, but the talent levels and levels of competition certainly would not. How would having one and done players benefit the circuit in the long run? It is similar to what is happening in college basketball. Do we want to foster the kind of players who will just use the circuit until they can't compete in D2 anymore and not contribute to the longevity of the circuit? Or, do we want to foster the kind of player who will stay in the game for more than one or two years and help keep the game fresh and invigorating? I think that to the true lover of the game, he/she will not care as much about winning at Nationals every year, as they do about simply playing the game. At least, that is what I hope the majority of players think. In order to keep the game lively, we need committed people who will not shy away from a challenge, even if it means losing in the beginning.
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:03 am
jazzerpoet wrote:And in response to UFeng (sorry that I don't know your name), what is wrong with forcing people to either move up to D1 or quit? The circuit will not survive if it is plagued by people who only want to play D2 and then quit when it gets to hard. Yes, maybe the amount of teams from year to year would decrease, but the talent levels and levels of competition certainly would not. How would having one and done players benefit the circuit in the long run? It is similar to what is happening in college basketball. Do we want to foster the kind of players who will just use the circuit until they can't compete in D2 anymore and not contribute to the longevity of the circuit? Or, do we want to foster the kind of player who will stay in the game for more than one or two years and help keep the game fresh and invigorating? I think that to the true lover of the game, he/she will not care as much about winning at Nationals every year, as they do about simply playing the game. At least, that is what I hope the majority of players think. In order to keep the game lively, we need committed people who will not shy away from a challenge, even if it means losing in the beginning.
I don't equate your response with your initial proposal. While it may be true that the bottom level of the DI ICT field is never going to win ICT, you're understating the value of competing against national competition, even for lesser glory such as an undergrad title or even just winning the playoff bracket one's team ended up in. Reducing the field to 24 teams is not going to cut out the eventual national champion, but where is it written that only the best six teams should get a chance to play against competition they don't see every year?
This is my last year of NAQT anyway, as I don't plan on grad school, but I don't like the idea of reducing the field because with no chance for even the experience of a national tournament, some players will be driven away. Some people play simply because they love quiz bowl, yes, but if you really love quiz bowl you'd like to play more of it, and how are we fostering circuit growth by refusing willing and able teams a chance to play in another tournament? Since you invoked college basketball, I would say this is the equivalent of cutting the NCAA tournament field to 48 teams, and telling an entire region's worth of teams that since they clearly have no chance to win the national title, they don't even deserve to be invited, but would they please keep trying. Windows aren't large enough for you to shoot down a quarter of the field like that and expect them to work work work at getting better; many people only play four years, and if you've played two before losing your D2 eligibility, there's not much time to get into a reduced D1 field.