Page 1 of 1

ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:29 pm
by Thaumatibis gigantea
Swarthmore College Quizbowl is pleased to announce that we will host the Mid-Atlantic site of this year's ACF Regionals on Saturday, January 26, 2019.

REGISTRATION:
To register, you must: AND
  • E-mail us at swarthmorequizbowl [AT] gmail [DOT] com with your number of teams, buzzers and staffers.
FEES:
Base fee: $135
Buzzer: -$5/functional system
Staffers: -$10/staffer
Shorthanded fee (teams of 1 or 2 players): $60
New to quizbowl discount: -$100

"New to quizbowl" discount is intended for schools that did not send a team to any regular collegiate academic tournament (exclusively Novice tournaments do not count) since September 2017, and have no one on the team(s) claiming this discount who played those tournaments for another school.

PACKET SUBMISSION: Any team with at least one person on it who played a regular, collegiate, academic quizbowl tournament* (either as a college student or as a high school student) prior to September 1, 2017 is required to submit a half-packet. Teams composed of people who have not played regular, collegiate, academic quizbowl tournaments prior to September 1, 2017, are not required to submit a half-packet, but may choose to do so by the no penalty deadline for a -$50 discount. For further details, please see the global tournament announcement.

LOCATION/LOGISTICS:
We will be conducting this tournament in Kohlberg Hall. Swarthmore's campus is accessible via the Swarthmore stop of the SEPTA Media/Elwyn regional rail line which connects to bus and Amtrak stops in Philadelphia. Free guest parking is also available in the Whittier and Ben West lots for the day.

Registration will open at 8:00 AM on the tournament day with a goal of starting rounds by 9:00. Further information will be distributed to registered teams closer to tournament day.


FIELD (teams/buzzers/staffers):
Rutgers (4/0/0)
Johns Hopkins (2/3/1)
UVA (1/0/0)
Princeton (1/1/0)
Penn (4/2/0)
UMD (2/1/2)
Delaware (1/2/0)
Georgetown (2/1/1)
Columbia (4/3/1)
George Washington University (1/1/1)

Field: 20 teams
Any further questions can be directed to me via PM or e-mail.

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:55 am
by a named reaction
Could we get an update on the wait-list (preferably including in what order teams on it will be added)?

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 1:55 pm
by Thaumatibis gigantea
My apologies for not updating the field list recently. Due to the overwhelming interest, I think unfortunately it would be best to implement a retroactive waitlist for schools intending to bring more than two teams until I can definitely secure more staff so that every school has the opportunity to participate in a quality tournament. Updating the field cap to 18, the field now stands as follows:

Teams will be admitted from the waitlist at the end of December in order of date of request for additional teams received (or if it was in your original registration, that date). Thanks for your understanding!

EDIT 12/30: see the first post for updated field listing

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2018 2:01 pm
by vinteuil
Has ACF contacted Swarthmore about connecting the club with external staff? I know that there are a huge number of quizbowl alums in the DC/College Park/Philly areas that would presumably be happy to staff if asked.

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:45 pm
by Thaumatibis gigantea
I am happy to announce that we will be able to admit all waitlist teams for an updated field of 24 teams which is now a cap pending staff. We would always still welcome any extra local staffers to help the tournament run even more efficiently (affiliated or not)– we can pay for your transportation and lunch. Please reach out to me on the boards or the Swarthmore Quizbowl gmail if you're interested.

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2019 11:17 am
by Thaumatibis gigantea
To clarify, the field is up to date as I understand it. All staffers and teams should have received logistics e-mails this week– contact me immediately if you have any questions!

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2019 10:50 pm
by Thaumatibis gigantea
Congratulations to University of Virginia for winning an advantaged final over Columbia A (350-245). Penn A came in third after losing to a play-in match for the final to Columbia. Congratulations also DII (and undergraduate) champions Maryland B and 2nd place Princeton.

Stats are up. Edits can be addressed to me or the e-mail listed in the top post.

Thank you to Alex Sankaran, Alex Dzurick, Chris Chiego, Connor Mayers, Frederic Bush, Steven Silverman, and all team staffers for giving up their day to make this long day run smoothly.Thanks also to Cody Voight for the scheduling help.

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:39 pm
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Swarthmore is a really good place to run tournaments, so I'm delighted that the team and the local staff pool has stepped up to the plate. Rebecca was a very helpful/communicative TD who made sure I didn't misfire with buying too early of a bus on the way back. I had a great day and I think the rest of Columbia did as well - now if only we could get SEPTA to run more than once an hour in the evening!

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:44 pm
by alexdz
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:39 pm ...if only we could get SEPTA to run more than once an hour in the evening!
Hear, hear!

I want to echo what Charlie said from the staffing side. Rebecca is a fantastic TD and extremely good at communicating. I always knew exactly where I should be and when, and always had quick answers to any questions I had. I hope that Swarthmore continues to host often in the future!

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2019 1:04 pm
by Votre Kickstarter Est Nul
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:39 pm Swarthmore is a really good place to run tournaments, so I'm delighted that the team and the local staff pool has stepped up to the plate. Rebecca was a very helpful/communicative TD who made sure I didn't misfire with buying too early of a bus on the way back. I had a great day and I think the rest of Columbia did as well - now if only we could get SEPTA to run more than once an hour in the evening!
To continue the echoing: this tournament was wonderfully hosted and we had a ton of fun. Thanks for hosting!

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:54 pm
by Votre Kickstarter Est Nul
Since this may be relevant for A values, I believe the current stat sheet doesn't reflect the actual final standings.

Rutgers A and Columbia B both went 3-2 in the playoff bracket (including games carried over from prelims as specified by the schedule). Because we lost to Columbia C in the morning (who didn't make second bracket), we have a worse overall record on the day, and are therefore currently listed below Columbia B. However, our playoff records were both 3-2 and Rutgers had 251 PPG against the other teams in our playoff brackets while Col. B had 202 PPG. If I understand these things correctly, that should place us in 8th and Columbia B in 9th. I'm not sure if this occurred elsewhere but since A values are affected by order of finish I believe the statistics should reflect this fact (assuming I understand how final standings work).

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:03 pm
by tabstop
The Billiards Fool wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:54 pm Since this may be relevant for A values, I believe the current stat sheet doesn't reflect the actual final standings.

Rutgers A and Columbia B both went 3-2 in the playoff bracket (including games carried over from prelims as specified by the schedule). Because we lost to Columbia C in the morning (who didn't make second bracket), we have a worse overall record on the day, and are therefore currently listed below Columbia B. However, our playoff records were both 3-2 and Rutgers had 251 PPG against the other teams in our playoff brackets while Col. B had 202 PPG. If I understand these things correctly, that should place us in 8th and Columbia B in 9th. I'm not sure if this occurred elsewhere but since A values are affected by order of finish I believe the statistics should reflect this fact (assuming I understand how final standings work).
Several rounds of games in the Swarthmore stats are listed as 0 TUH, which will affect pts/TUH. I haven't gotten the calculator out yet to see if that was accounted for already. (EDIT: I meant to quote the post from the other thread about stats and A-values instead, but did not do so.)

Re: ACF Regionals @ Swarthmore (1/26)

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:34 pm
by Thaumatibis gigantea
tabstop wrote: Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:03 pm
The Billiards Fool wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:54 pm Since this may be relevant for A values, I believe the current stat sheet doesn't reflect the actual final standings.

Rutgers A and Columbia B both went 3-2 in the playoff bracket (including games carried over from prelims as specified by the schedule). Because we lost to Columbia C in the morning (who didn't make second bracket), we have a worse overall record on the day, and are therefore currently listed below Columbia B. However, our playoff records were both 3-2 and Rutgers had 251 PPG against the other teams in our playoff brackets while Col. B had 202 PPG. If I understand these things correctly, that should place us in 8th and Columbia B in 9th. I'm not sure if this occurred elsewhere but since A values are affected by order of finish I believe the statistics should reflect this fact (assuming I understand how final standings work).
Several rounds of games in the Swarthmore stats are listed as 0 TUH, which will affect pts/TUH. I haven't gotten the calculator out yet to see if that was accounted for already. (EDIT: I meant to quote the post from the other thread about stats and A-values instead, but did not do so.)
Thanks for pointing this out– combined stats have been updated to fix this issue. As far as I can tell, it looks to me like Ryan's spreadsheet had already fixed it.