NAQT's agreement with ACUI

[Important Bird Area]

R. writes re: the "nightmare scenario":

"If the resulting field is clearly leaving out a number of good teams and incorporating lots of weak teams (via autobids), then we'll expand the field (or come up with some other, creative measure to address it). We are personally and professionally invested in having the top teams at our ICT.

If we're seeing a half dozen ICT regulars playing their usual high-level of quiz bowl left out in the cold, then we will do something about it."

[nobthehobbit]

"By default, ACUI Regions that host events will not receive autobids.

If they receive substantial staffing support from a school's most experienced players, then they will receive one, but we'll need to be appraised of this situation in advance."

So, does this mean that if the Indiana University club commits in advance to providing "substantial staffing support" instead of having their top players play SCT, IU will receive an autobid? I could see this leading to problems between the IU club and the ACUI people over who gets to choose the players on the team sent to ICT on that bid.

Also, will ACUI be encouraged to have observers at SCTs being run by clubs experienced at running NAQT (or (other) circuit) tournaments (for instance, McMaster or Washington)? Will they be encouraged to have observers at tournaments like ACF Winter or Penn Bowl (and mirrors)?

[Important Bird Area]

So, does this mean that if the Indiana University club commits in advance to providing "substantial staffing support" instead of having their top players play SCT, IU will receive an autobid?

Yes.

[Captain Sinico]

If Bloomington is closer to your school than Chicago, then yes, it does matter. Still, if a lot of your players live in Chicago as Trygve says, then you might get an exemption for some teams at Chicago.

Please read and understand threads you're posting (a ton) in and/or sets of rules you're pontificating about. Chicago is over an hour closer to us than Bloomington is, which fact was posted in this very thread already and which means we're free to go there if we like. Keep up the stream of ultra-relevant questions, though! Flooring reads!

MaS

[Captain Sinico]

I also want to ask directly something that's been at the edges of this discussion. What has gone wrong with NAQT's process to set up ACUI hosts with active teams, which I've inferred to exist from NAQT's previous statement that that's what they're doing, such that Indiana's team hadn't even heard of the SCT being hosted at their school? Furthermore, what precisely is that process at this time and what's being done to fix it?
To my mind, the potential lack of mesh between now-relevant-again unions and pre-existing teams, exemplified by this issue, is the single thing with the biggest potential to screw this all up. Furthermore, that's a strike against the Indiana site in my evaluation, given that I've seen what our ACUI region has come up with for readers in the past, see no reason to expect the quality of readers to improve if ACUI retains the insular tournament direction process that so characterized CBI, and see no indication (at this point) that that process is being changed, at least at Indiana.

MaS

[Sun Devil Student]

So maybe I'm not entitled to an opinion just yet, but here's one possible idea...

Suppose the ICT field didn't have a set size. Instead, NAQT could make a new rule: Measure the S-value of all the teams that get an autobid (whether by winning a weak region or by hosting). Then, all schools with an S-value higher than that of the weakest autobid team should be admitted to the ICT, so that the (theoretically) "weakest" autobid team would still not be allowed to displace a stronger wild-card team. Of course, I'd still agree with schools rather than teams being awarded the bids, but that's not the point here.

Of course, this could result in weird field sizes, so NAQT could choose to then admit an additional number of teams (which have even lower S-values than the weakest autobid team) so that they get exactly 64 (or 72, or 96, etc) D1 teams in the field.

The same could be done in D2, with community colleges included in that field (so still fewer wildcards). D1 and D2 are essentially two separate tournaments going simultaneously, so different field sizes in D1 and D2 shouldn't be problematic.

This might conceivably result in ICT fields being as large as HSNCT (and in both divisions!) but I would suggest it is a fair way to ensure that no injustices are done (in either D1 or D2) to elite forces like Chicago, or even to second-tier squadrons that are still better than, say, Arizona State. Of course, the one caveat is that this system needs to have a good S-value formula (how's that coming, by the way?), and that in turn requires solving the "combined-field SCT" issue, because the D1 teams just aren't as evenly distributed geographically as the D2 teams right now and might not be for another several years. (Region 13 will definitely be short on D1 teams; some other regions might be too.)

Now, I don't know what NAQT's logistical capabilities are. Obviously, if NAQT can't handle more than X teams at a given tournament, then we're limited by that. And, of course, the number of rounds it would take to fairly rank 100+ teams might need more than one weekend. What if we had, say, "super-regional" tournaments of some kind, so that the 15 different SCT's fed into, say, 4-5 second-level tournaments, which would in turn feed into one final championship? Just a thought.

[Important Bird Area]

So, does this mean that if the Indiana University club commits in advance to providing "substantial staffing support" instead of having their top players play SCT, IU will receive an autobid? I could see this leading to problems between the IU club and the ACUI people over who gets to choose the players on the team sent to ICT on that bid.

The bid goes directly to the circuit team; ACUI would not be choosing the players (and we've seen no indication that they are interested in doing that).

Also, will ACUI be encouraged to have observers at SCTs being run by clubs experienced at running NAQT (or (other) circuit) tournaments (for instance, McMaster or Washington)? Will they be encouraged to have observers at tournaments like ACF Winter or Penn Bowl (and mirrors)?

R. writes:

(NAQT SCTs): "Yes, at the discretion of individual ACUI Regions and leaders."

(non-NAQT circuit events): "We will not be specifically encouraging ACUI to attend non-NAQT tournaments; the people running those tournaments are encouraged to reach out to their ACUI Regions and invite them to observe (or help out at) their events. We can help put them in touch with the proper people."

[Important Bird Area]

Suppose the ICT field didn't have a set size.

...

This might conceivably result in ICT fields being as large as HSNCT

Referred this to R. for comment, but in the meantime I'll shoot from the hip:

-"Super-regionals" are not likely to ever happen; we don't think the demand is sufficient to impose another layer of qualification on everyone, or to produce a third collegiate championship question set.

-The large-field ICT is an interesting idea, but obviously one that lies in the distant future. At some point, probably well below the present HSNCT field size, NAQT would reach its limits on logistics. (The limiting factor here would certainly be trained moderators: consider that the HSNCT uses its comparatively high base fee to fly in selected experienced staff from all over the country. Now consider that a large proportion of those staffers would be playing a hypothetical 100+ team ICT.)

[Susan]

You would also think there would be some difficulties in securing rooms for the ICT in April if you had no conceivable way of knowing how large it would be before February (as would be the case with the system Kenneth proposed).

[Important Bird Area]

You would also think there would be some difficulties in securing rooms for the ICT in April if you had no conceivable way of knowing how large it would be before February (as would be the case with the system Kenneth proposed).

This is fixable (eg, by planning to host at an HSNCT-suitable venue); staffing it is the bigger problem. (I'll assume for the moment that we would be talking about a 150-250 team event, which would theoretically be functional if you somehow rounded up enough staff and turned the HSNCT planning apparatus loose on it. A much larger event (500-1000 teams?) is clearly in the realm of fantasy.)

[Sun Devil Student]

The limiting factor here would certainly be trained moderators

If this is the case (e.g. you can get enough rooms and equipment), would D1 teams (especially the elite ones) be averse to playing 12-minute halves, or even untimed 26/26 per round? I know I wouldn't mind, but the top-bracket teams are probably a more important audience than I am.

Suppose you have an untrained moderator who is a native English speaker and reasonably literate. How long does it take such a person to read a D1 packet?

If that doesn't work, tell me if this solution is too much:

Have the D1 and D2 competitions take place on separate days. On Friday, have 13 rounds of D2-ICT, with the D1 players helping to staff for the D2-ICT. Finish the last 3 rounds + finals of D2 on Saturday morning. Start the D1-ICT on Saturday afternoon, with the D2 players helping to staff for D1. 8 rounds of D1-ICT on Saturday, then finish up the D1-ICT on Sunday.

At 1.5 rounds per hour, 13 rounds takes 8.667 hours, add 1 hour each for lunch and dinner, and you get a 9am to 8pm schedule on Friday and Saturday.

If you get just half the D1 players to staff D2, that's twice as many staff as you need - they'd be able to take turns through the day. Offer registration discounts as an incentive.

There's my half-baked idea. Fire away.

[Gautam]

The limiting factor here would certainly be trained moderators

Have the D1 and D2 competitions take place on separate days. On Friday, have 13 rounds of D2-ICT, with the D1 players helping to staff for the D2-ICT. Finish the last 3 rounds + finals of D2 on Saturday morning. Start the D1-ICT on Saturday afternoon, with the D2 players helping to staff for D1. 8 rounds of D1-ICT on Saturday, then finish up the D1-ICT on Sunday.

There's decent amount of overlap in the answer and clue-space of DI and DII to make this unfeasible. Also, I don't want to read a million rounds before playing an equivalent number of rounds; there's only so much quizbowl I can handle in a given weekend.

--Gautam

[Mechanical Beasts]

I take classes. Much like other weekdays, those classes meet on Friday. Also, group meeting is Friday for lab. Weekends should be weekends.

[nobthehobbit]

I take classes. Much like other weekdays, those classes meet on Friday. Also, group meeting is Friday for lab. Weekends should be weekends.

At UBC, ICT falls during exams, so this would give one more day that I could have an exam conflicting with ICT.

[Sun Devil Student]

There's decent amount of overlap in the answer and clue-space of DI and DII to make this unfeasible.

Dang it, totally forgot about the question overlap. Thanks for catching that. (I guess that also kills my other idea, which I liked less than this one, which was to have D2 run on one weekend and then D1 run a week later. I didn't like that in the first place because it wouldn't allow schools with a D1 and a D2 team to send both teams on the same transportation at the same time, but actually the question overlap issue does kill it entirely, unless NAQT starts making them completely different sets.)

Oh well, keep brainstorming I guess.

[Charbroil]

I take classes. Much like other weekdays, those classes meet on Friday. Also, group meeting is Friday for lab. Weekends should be weekends.

Speaking of which, is there any news as to whether ICT will partially take place on Friday again, or instead only be Saturday/Sunday? I'd venture to guess that the latter is preferable to most people.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Yeah, after last year it became abundantly clear that Friday games are an idiotic setup.

[Important Bird Area]

I don't think we've made a decision about that yet. I just wrote to R. asking for an update.

[Mechanical Beasts]

Yeah, while A CERTAIN LIKELY MIDWESTERN CITY ICT SITE is generally pretty easy to find flights to any time of the day--so it would be totally possible for me to both, like, attend classes AND get there in time for nationals--it's still not ideal.

[tiwonge]

Has there been any discussion about Friday matches for the SCT? Do hosts have any flexibility in this?

Even starting as last as 5 PM on Friday in Seattle, we'd have to leave by 8 AM (probably earlier, to allow some flexibility) to get there. Everybody playing in the tournament would miss all classes meeting that Friday (including one I'm currently scheduled to be teaching).

I've seen that other teams have also expressed a preference not to play Friday matches.

Edit: I see there has been some discussion about it, but it came up again, so I thought I'd ask.

[Important Bird Area]

Hosts are permitted, indeed encouraged, to run Saturday-only SCTs.

[Mike Bentley]

Has there been any discussion about Friday matches for the SCT? Do hosts have any flexibility in this?

Even starting as last as 5 PM on Friday in Seattle, we'd have to leave by 8 AM (probably earlier, to allow some flexibility) to get there. Everybody playing in the tournament would miss all classes meeting that Friday (including one I'm currently scheduled to be teaching).

I've seen that other teams have also expressed a preference not to play Friday matches.

Edit: I see there has been some discussion about it, but it came up again, so I thought I'd ask.

I haven't heard back from ACUI yet regarding moving all the matches to Saturday. I would greatly prefer to do this and I think we'll get some traction because teams seem to also prefer this.

Also, if we did start on Friday, it wouldn't be until at least 8 PM.

[Sun Devil Student]

Any idea when the NAQT registration/payment site goes up? A possible first-ever CU-Boulder quizbowl team asked us recently about how to register for the Region 13 SCT.

[Important Bird Area]

Any idea when the NAQT registration/payment site goes up? A possible first-ever CU-Boulder quizbowl team asked us recently about how to register for the Region 13 SCT.

Soon, R. has been at work on this and we're testing it for bugs. I'll post here when it goes live.

[jonpin]

Have you made an announcement yet on the Region 1 (US) SCT, or any progress on finding a Region 2 host?

[Important Bird Area]

Have you made an announcement yet on the Region 1 (US) SCT, or any progress on finding a Region 2 host?

We haven't announced the New England host yet (we're waiting on confirmation of room reservations, which hasn't happened over the holiday break).

I've not heard anything about a possible region 2 host.

[Kwang the Ninja]

Have you made an announcement yet on the Region 1 (US) SCT, or any progress on finding a Region 2 host?

SCT 2010 New England (Region 1)
Host- MIT
Contact- Andrew Martin Watkins

Source.
I guess they figured everything out.

[Important Bird Area]

Any idea when the NAQT registration/payment site goes up?

I'll post here when it goes live.

OK, this is now live here. (We're still working out issues with a couple of the hosts, but expect that all of the SCTs should be available to register in the very near future.)

[Broad-tailed Grassbird]

Why are some sites offering highly varying discounts from other sites? I noticed that the UIC site isn't even offering a staff discount, while some are offering up to $30 for staff. Same thing with distance discounts. Seems strange.

[Important Bird Area]

Hosts are free to set their own discounts. The distance-discount, in particular, is very dependent on each region's geography and of expected number of teams (there are parts of the country where few or no teams will be eligible to take one). The staff discount at UIC would almost certainly be a good idea; I'll inquire with the host.

[jonpin]

Whatever happened with the S-value situation? In the absence of any announcement, is the previous S-value calculation still being used and kept private?

[Important Bird Area]

We're close to having an announcement; I sent a draft system to R. yesterday and I expect we'll post a preliminary S-value for discussion next week.

[Maxwell Sniffingwell]

Any idea when the NAQT registration/payment site goes up?

I'll post here when it goes live.

OK, this is now live here. (We're still working out issues with a couple of the hosts, but expect that all of the SCTs should be available to register in the very near future.)

On the registration site, I'm being asked to choose whether I'm registering a team for Lawrence University or for Lawrence University. Any tips?

[Important Bird Area]

I have no idea why that's happening. Which screen are you seeing that on? I can only find one copy of Lawrence on our admin site.

[Maxwell Sniffingwell]

I have no idea why that's happening. Which screen are you seeing that on? I can only find one copy of Lawrence on our admin site.

Think I fixed it - was seeing it on the registration team, but now I think it's OK.

[Important Bird Area]

Whatever happened with the S-value situation? In the absence of any announcement, is the previous S-value calculation still being used and kept private?

Bump to note that the revised S-value draft is now available for public comment on naqt.com.

[Captain Sinico]

Be advised that, per an e-mail from Jeff, a rule apparently exists whereby teams aren't allowed to send teams to two different SCT's even if they're eligible to attend both. I don't see such a rule anywhere in this thread or on NAQT's site...

MaS

[Important Bird Area]

I've asked R. to post the above-mentioned restriction to naqt.com as soon as possible. My apologies for not informing everyone of this long before now.

What the website says now:

"Teams will always be able to attend their "home" Sectional; they will also always have the choice of attending the closest Sectional, even if it is in another region. Should they want to attend a Sectional that is neither of these, a request for an exception will be considered by a committee established by NAQT and ACUI."

What this did not make at all clear the first time around is this:

A school's teams may choose to attend *one* SCT site (*either* of the permitted sites, not sending teams to both). Sending teams to multiple SCT sites always requires writing to us for an exception. (Generally, we will be happy to accommodate travel concerns, such as last year's multiple Boise State teams, but we will almost certainly not permit requests of the form "our team is trying to get more autobids.")

[Papa's in the House]

Be advised that, per an e-mail from Jeff, a rule apparently exists whereby teams aren't allowed to send teams to two different SCT's even if they're eligible to attend both. I don't see such a rule anywhere in this thread or on NAQT's site...

MaS

... and as such they should fix their website so that teams can be shifted from one SCT to another when they inform teams of this rule (after the fact)...

[Susan]

This perhaps isn't directly relevant to NAQT's agreement with ACUI, but the fact that some of the ACUI-run SCTs look like they may run into some issues makes me think of it--what would have to happen for an SCT host to lose its autobid? There have certainly been some problematic SCTs over the years, but I don't recall anyone ever being denied an autobid (though I may be wrong).

[Important Bird Area]

Just to clarify:

R. writes:

"By default, ACUI Regions that host events will not receive autobids.

If they receive substantial staffing support from a school's most experienced players, then they will receive one, but we'll need to be appraised of this situation in advance."

[Susan]

Just to clarify:

R. writes:

"By default, ACUI Regions that host events will not receive autobids.

If they receive substantial staffing support from a school's most experienced players, then they will receive one, but we'll need to be appraised of this situation in advance."

Which of this year's SCTs won't be receiving autobids?

[theMoMA]

The divergent experiences at Indiana and UIC point to a situation I've noticed when new programs host tournaments. Often, the hosts are reluctant to consult or even distrustful of the experienced players who have moderated and directed many tournaments. In cases where this is not so, the results are typically better than expected. Where hosts act as if the players are somehow working against them despite their wealth of tournament directing knowledge, problems arise. The various experiences with ACUI people seem to indicate that NAQT should have done a much better job communicating to newer hosts various potential hosting problems, as well as the fact that the solutions are often found by consulting the players themselves. College Bowl fostered an atmosphere of distrusting players and treating them as inferior subjects to the extreme, so it's no surprise that those attitudes linger. I'm disappointed that NAQT didn't anticipate this.

That said, I've worked with ACUI and student union people more than most, and I believe they can be an asset to NAQT and the quizbowl circuit in general. Most importantly, they have very good contacts, resources, and ability to promote and organize events. They also want to support quizbowl as an intercollegiate activity just as much as any of us, though they can be misguided in the approaches they take. I talked to Gail Ferlazzo (ACUI's quizbowl czar) this weekend, and she was really disappointed that they weren't able to get more new teams out to the SCT. She was also confident that a lot of the problems were the result of the transition to the new program and the shorter time period to promote SCT that the in-year announcement fostered.

Basically, I think we should give the ACUI/NAQT SCTs more time before we say they're not working. Problems need to be addressed in reasonable ways on both sides, but let's give things a chance to move in the right direction.

[Important Bird Area]

NAQT should have done a much better job communicating to newer hosts various potential hosting problems

Agreed.

[cvdwightw]

Policy is that combined fields play the set appropriate for the majority of the field. Much more discussion about this in one of the S-value threads.

I didn't want to sidetrack the inanity of the AHAN Jr. thread, so I moved real discussion into the thread I thought was the most relevant.

I think NAQT needs to seriously reconsider this policy. For instance, in Region 15, only the late addition of UCSD prevented a two-team Division I field. Luckily, the UCLA site was run by a club/TD with significant tournament running experience, and Avram was on the same wavelength as us regarding the appropriateness of the D2 questions for a combined field. If the tournament had been instead run by ACUI staff with no knowledge of anything other than this NAQT policy, the following would have happened:

1. Both Stanford D1 and UCI D1 would have spent the vast majority of the tournament clubbing baby seals on D2 packets and had possibly two meaningful matches on the NAQT equivalent of ACF Fall.
2. Both Ray Anderson and I would have played on questions that we wrote (granted, neither one of us were major contributors, but a few questions by each of us made it into the D2 set).

The first one is merely an unfortunate side product of a D1 field being significantly stronger than a D2 field, but the second one is downright inappropriate and I don't see any way around it other than either mandating that all combined fields play D1 or holding back difficulty-appropriate questions written by D1 players for IS sets/HSNCT/D2 ICT.

[Important Bird Area]

holding back difficulty-appropriate questions written by D1 players for IS sets/HSNCT/D2 ICT.

Really, I think this is the right solution to the problem. (Because the reverse case can easily happen if you make everyone play the DI set.)

[at your pleasure]

On the subject of ACUI-quizbowl coordination, would it be possible for NAQT to pair ACUIs with consultants who are experienced TDs or with teams that have strong collective tournament-directing experience?

[Important Bird Area]

We're considering a number of proposals similar to that.

[alexdz]

I'm going to revive this thread...sorry.

I was brought onto the ACUI Region 11 leadership team as their academic challenge coordinator (in other words, SCT guy). As such, I bid for the Region 11 site as "ACUI Region 11," and we will be hosting at Missouri State. Are there any other ACUI-bid-winning sites that have established quizbowlers as their TDs?

Interested parties should certainly get into contact with their ACUI regional directors. If your institution is an ACUI member, then typically any student is eligible to serve an ACUI functional position. If your region doesn't have a quizbowl coordinator, ask if you can do it, and feel free to bring me up as precedent. If there is one, talk with them to see if they would like your help.

[Important Bird Area]

I just moved recent posts about this year's SCT into the 2011 SCT thread.