~Distribution. Everyone talks about NAQT distro, and it continues to be the most egregious aspect of NAQT sets. To be very clear, I don't mind trash in the least bit; my distribution at Auburn FS had 1/1 in every match. The issue is that trash is taking overwhelming precedence over academic topics (if I got $10 for every RMP, social science, or vis arts question, I probably wouldn't have enough money to buy another IS set to complain about). I don't have the set (they didn't pass it out), but judging strictly from impressions, there was more trash than any subcategory besides the lits and probably geography and current events, maybe biology. Furthermore, distro within the trash was stupid, as questions on the same subcategory of subcategories of trash came up in the same packet.
~Distribution II. I can remember probably one physics tossup in the entire set of 8 packets. Lit questions we extremely unbalanced (too much focus on a single type of answer), and there wasn't enough world or European history. This was just a mess, since NAQT screwed up its own screwy distro.
~Question quality. There was so much category mixing (miscegenation, as I call it), bad clues (including at least one leadin that was an outrageous hose), etc. This is probably a little hard to gauge because of the issues surrounding the questions themselves that defied any serious judgment of their quality.
~Difficulty and pertinence.I just couldn't believe how many idiotic answers there were for real categories, and there were several questions (especially bonus parts) that were just too hard. Never in my quiz bowl life have I asked myself "why the hell would someone write a question on that?" more times in a tournament. The answer set gives the impression that NAQT writers often select answers based on the "hm, that would be a fun question to ask!" heuristic. And damn you to the deepst pits of
if you write cross-category math computation.~Errors in the set. At least one answer was repeated twice, another three times. Not only that, answers were repeated within the same context at least once. Repetition as the day wears on happens, but it should happen minimally in clues and absolutely never in answers. There were also issues with prompts in some places. When stuff like this happens you end up punishing deep knowledge. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?
If NAQT is to justify its existence and maintain any iota of credibility as an academic organization, as it spuriously labels itself, then issues like the ones above need to be resolved or justified right away. Since people are paying good money to see these questions, any question of justification goes out the window. NAQT is truly a lion in a sheep's skin; it presents itself as an alternative to bad quiz bowl, but it carries over many of the very worst aspects of what it professed to replace. This was honestly a worse experience than IHSA state last year. I really don't know what more I can say.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tournament itself was a beast in its own right. It was organized well and it fulfilled it stated goal all they way: more teams played more scholastic bowl. But there's the issue; this was still scholastic bowl. In mixing in things like afternoon rebracketing with things like the blurt rule, Winnebago created a strange amalgamation of good and bad practices that simply drove me crazy. Quasi-mACF bonuses where painful; one part at a time, but no conferring during the reading of the bonus at all. I guess this isn't a gigantic issue, but it points to a trend in the backwards direction. Morning rounds allowed conferring during the reading of bonus parts, but apparently some teams complained about it (because it was new), and the TDs erred on their side. I understand that you want your teams to be comfortable playing in your tournament, but I think you're only doing them a favor when you introduce a new aspect of the game in a rather docile setting (the middle of the field was pretty even), since that aspect is a symptom of progression. If opponents of mACF cite teamwork as a reason for sticking with old bonuses, then they should have seen Auburn play its playoff matches; we looked bored and stupid at times, and it was a direct result of destroying the essence of mACF bonuses. If teams function better if they can actively confer during a bonus, why not leave the option open?
Another issue was with protests. Official tournament rules stipulated that text on the paper was final, and that there was no room for protests. The packet said something to the effect of "a bad question will be equally bad in all ten rooms". The reason why this is so serious is that no question set can ever guarantee perfection, and you find instances people being robbed of points they earned with real knowledge. Protesting always needs to be an option, and you realize this when you see the agony of a player who gave a right answer that simply did happen to be listed as promptable or acceptable as an alternative.
Winnebago runs an extremely important tournament, since it serves teams that are relatively inexperienced with good quiz bowl. They have the right idea, using a (supposedly) good question source, a (relatively) good format, and employing a (generally) good staff. I can't blame Winnebago for how the questions turned out, and as far as most of the field is concerned, they questions were fine. However, future tournaments would do well to use a set of rules that better facilitate progress in Illinois quiz bowl. When you enforce the blurt rule and have moderators who actively mock the good aspects of the format, you create an environment for more of the stagnation that has plagued Illinois for far too long. I saw some good things from some pretty obscure teams today, and it's this (very) raw talent that needs to be harvested in order to make this state better. The Auburns, the St. Igs, and the Loyolas can get as good as they want, but true progress will come once the more anonymous teams catch up to speed. This tournament and this state as a whole have massive potential, and it's the waste of this potential that bothers me most.
/end huge pontification
EDIT: Formatting
