Aside from the math calculation issue, I disagree with the premise.bt_green_warbler wrote:I think the argument that high school quizbowl needs to be solidly grounded in the high school curriculum is both logical and correct; however, I would characterize board consensus as this: "There are lots of skills in the high school curriculum that are not tested by quizbowl. Computational math is easier to convert into quizbowl or a quizbowl-like entity than, say, studio art or English composition. However, computation tossups are still likely to be bad quizbowl for the reasons outlined in all the other threads about this topic."
It's always seemed to me that a major point of quizbowl is to offer interested students a way to access material that is not taught in most curricula. Very few schools, for example, will offer classes on the history of art, music, or literature, yet those three subjects combined are 20% of the NAQT distribution and something like 35% of ACF-inspired distributions. Also, nearly everything in the first half of a tossup or the hard part of a bonus is extracurricular. Limiting ourselves to what even the best high school programs teach would produce a very, very narrow canon and very constricted game for most quizbowl teams, and I'd suggest that we not waste the time and expense necessary to actually play such tournaments and instead just compare report cards.
The fact that gym does not comprise an eighth of the distribution, the fact that we all agree driver's ed questions are bad, the fact that we ask about European history beyond "the French Revolution was a thing that happened true/false"--all of these are evidence that no high school quizbowl tournament in history has ever really believed that high school quizbowl should be tied to the high school curriculum.