On Middle Schoolers Playing on High School Teams

[Sima Guang Hater]

Tl;dr - big fan, but it should be consistent.

There have been a few instances of middle schoolers playing on high school teams, and some ensuing kerfuffle (Krish Nathan at Hoover is the one I'm thinking of, but there have been others like Taylor Chen at Cookeville/Avery Trace). I think giving talented students the opportunity to play up is wonderful, which is why when I ran Penn Bowl I celebrated high school teams that would take the plunge (and continue to believe that high school teams should play college tournaments if they feel ready).

However, it seems fundamentally unfair to me that if you go to a K-12 school (which are often private, like USN), you're allowed to play up, but if you go to a public school district that has a split middle and high school, then you cannot. It doesn't make sense to me to be inconsistent with the rules based on the structure of your school district - high school quizbowl should either be restricted to grades 9-12 (or those taking classes at a high school, like the rule is for high schoolers taking college classes), or some rule for younger students in the same district should be put in place.

[ChrisFromGCity]

Yeah, our team's had some problems with this- Latika Prasadh played with us for her 7th and 8th grade years and the first year we're marked as "ineligible" at most tournaments where she played with us. Middle schoolers should totally be allowed to play for their direct high school though, wholeheartedly agree.

[Good Goblin Housekeeping]

So is this saying people should be consistent at a circuit level because this seems more a local thing?
My understanding is (based on the publically available page in the high school eligibility rules for naqt) that players can request exceptions which appear to have been granted to players for the appropriately zoned school and that NSC allows it if the middle schooler is explicitly enrolled at the hs?

[quizbowlcaptain]

Yeah, our team's had some problems with this- Latika Prasadh played with us for her 7th and 8th grade years and the first year we're marked as "ineligible" at most tournaments where she played with us. Middle schoolers should totally be allowed to play for their direct high school though, wholeheartedly agree.

Agreed. Especially because I'm an 8th grader and played with my HS last year and this year. I do think it is kinda stupid to be marked "ineligible" for having a Middle Schooler on your team, especially when that middle schooler is really good (i.e. Latika, Russ)

[alexdz]

For better or worse, there are some states where middle schoolers playing with/against high schoolers is verboten. Missouri is among them, so we aren't able to grant such exemptions at a local level, let alone in a national context.

[Cody]

The basic eligibility requirement for any interscholastic competition is enrollment. You must be enrolled at the school you play for. This automatically eliminates "playing up" to high school for the majority of the United States, but there are plenty of public schools that are not strictly grades 9-12 (including my high school and several small public schools in Virginia that are 8-12). To me, eligibility by enrollment is consistent even if it might seem unfair that private schools are more likely to have the kind of structure that lets younger players "play up".

The Virginia High School League has some instructive rules on this topic, though their remit is all high school sports and nonathletic events - and I'm sure some rules are driven by insurance. In general, you must be enrolled in the last four years of high school to play and have eight semesters of eligibility. However, eighth graders may play one year of nonathletic events at the varsity level without affecting future eligibility (so, 5 years of eligibility for quizbowl at the varsity level). As far as I know, this is limited by enrollment, so middle school students can't play up to a 9-12 high school they're zoned for.

The question we have to answer is who "high school" quizbowl events are for. PACE and NAQT have considered this and have an answer - PACE's ruleset requires students to be age 12 / grade 6, and I couldn't find a similar restriction in NAQT's ruleset. If your/the answer is that it's grades 9-12 (or 8-12), then that necessarily eliminates middle schools from competing at all. Even with the exponential increase in middle school tournaments, I assume that would be quite impactful so it takes a bit of consideration.

[Somewhere in the Stratosphere]

As an Arkansas player, I was always intrigued by this. The AGQBA limits are 7th-9th for junior high quiz bowl, and 9th-12th for high school (although a freshman cannot play any more junior high events after competing in any HS invitational event or AGQBA-sanctioned tournament.) But, I have always wondered why, say, an extremely talented 8th grader can't play a varsity/HS tournament, forsake their JH eligibility, and play 5 years of HS quiz bowl. I mean, you cannot tell me that 8th grade Siddharth Sridharan wasn't ready for the HS game, he was the best JH player in the state that year despite being a year younger than most of the best players at that level. I feel that some top-heavy teams could also benefit from a high-scoring JH player in, say, their third/fourth seat, instead of someone there who answers precisely nothing in a ten-game tournament. (I'm not talking about role players on elite teams, I mean players who attended practices and are fun to be around, but don't really do any independent study and thus don't know any of the QB canon, thus not helping in bonuses either.) Can you imagine how formidable some players would be if they made the adjustment to varsity quizbowl a year earlier, thus making them acclimated to the format a year earlier and possibly being an elite four-year player?

Just my thoughts from my experience.

[Vainglorious yet Victorious]

Yeah, our team's had some problems with this- Latika Prasadh played with us for her 7th and 8th grade years and the first year we're marked as "ineligible" at most tournaments where she played with us. Middle schoolers should totally be allowed to play for their direct high school though, wholeheartedly agree.

As someone who played in the Minnesota HS circuit as an 8th Grader and the powers that be were totally supportive of it, I really respect that your team held the line on that matter. My stance is: "If you have the competency to compete at a higher level, then you should be enabled to do so." It's totally O.K. for a talented youth athlete to 'play up,' so why should we have a stigma for the mental equivalent of a talented quiz bowl player to play with older players?

[Somewhere in the Stratosphere]

Yeah, our team's had some problems with this- Latika Prasadh played with us for her 7th and 8th grade years and the first year we're marked as "ineligible" at most tournaments where she played with us. Middle schoolers should totally be allowed to play for their direct high school though, wholeheartedly agree.

As someone who played in the Minnesota HS circuit as an 8th Grader and the powers that be were totally supportive of it, I really respect that your team held the line on that matter. My stance is: "If you have the competency to compete at a higher level, then you should be enabled to do so." It's totally O.K. for a talented youth athlete to 'play up,' so why should we have a stigma for the mental equivalent of a talented quiz bowl player to play with older players?

Amory loves his sports analogies lol

[ChrisFromGCity]

As someone who played in the Minnesota HS circuit as an 8th Grader and the powers that be were totally supportive of it, I really respect that your team held the line on that matter. My stance is: "If you have the competency to compete at a higher level, then you should be enabled to do so." It's totally O.K. for a talented youth athlete to 'play up,' so why should we have a stigma for the mental equivalent of a talented quiz bowl player to play with older players?
[/quote]

Especially considering that Latika also played for our school's varsity tennis team last year and possibly the year before.

[DragonSM]

The question we have to answer is who "high school" quizbowl events are for. PACE and NAQT have considered this and have an answer - PACE's ruleset requires students to be age 12 / grade 6, and I couldn't find a similar restriction in NAQT's ruleset. If your/the answer is that it's grades 9-12 (or 8-12), then that necessarily eliminates middle schools from competing at all. Even with the exponential increase in middle school tournaments, I assume that would be quite impactful so it takes a bit of consideration.

NAQT's Ruleset explicitly states it's any grade below 12 that allows for eligibility at high school tournaments.

Schools that include at least one grade between kindergarten and 12th grade (inclusive) are eligible to compete at high school tournaments.

And figured I'd also mention it, a 4th grader has played HSNCT.

[Metacarpal]

The basic eligibility requirement for any interscholastic competition is enrollment. You must be enrolled at the school you play for. This automatically eliminates "playing up" to high school for the majority of the United States, but there are plenty of public schools that are not strictly grades 9-12 (including my high school and several small public schools in Virginia that are 8-12). To me, eligibility by enrollment is consistent even if it might seem unfair that private schools are more likely to have the kind of structure that lets younger players "play up".

The Virginia High School League has some instructive rules on this topic, though their remit is all high school sports and nonathletic events - and I'm sure some rules are driven by insurance. In general, you must be enrolled in the last four years of high school to play and have eight semesters of eligibility. However, eighth graders may play one year of nonathletic events at the varsity level without affecting future eligibility (so, 5 years of eligibility for quizbowl at the varsity level). As far as I know, this is limited by enrollment, so middle school students can't play up to a 9-12 high school they're zoned for.

The question we have to answer is who "high school" quizbowl events are for. PACE and NAQT have considered this and have an answer - PACE's ruleset requires students to be age 12 / grade 6, and I couldn't find a similar restriction in NAQT's ruleset. If your/the answer is that it's grades 9-12 (or 8-12), then that necessarily eliminates middle schools from competing at all. Even with the exponential increase in middle school tournaments, I assume that would be quite impactful so it takes a bit of consideration.

NAQT's official rules I believe is that anyone can play a high school tournament, including middle school teams, but middle schoolers wanting to PLAY UP have to get an exception or be enrolled at the school they are playing up for

[Vainglorious yet Victorious]

And figured I'd also mention it, a 4th grader has played HSNCT.
[/quote]

And got 2 tossups!!

[Somewhere in the Stratosphere]

And figured I'd also mention it, a 4th grader has played HSNCT.

And got 2 tossups!!
[/quote]

some guy, at the time he was 11 years old, had played more pyramidal HS tournaments than I have

[Vainglorious yet Victorious]

And figured I'd also mention it, a 4th grader has played HSNCT.

And got 2 tossups!!

some guy, at the time he was 11 years old, had played more pyramidal HS tournaments than I have
[/quote]

And, funnily enough, never played quizbowl again as far as I can see.

[Halinaxus]

And, funnily enough, never played quizbowl again as far as I can see.

He actually started up again at a different school a few years ago, though under a duplicate NAQT profile.

[quizbowllee]

This is one issue that I have strong feelings about and which affects our team(s) greatly. West Point Middle and High School are basically on the same campus. One is right across the street from the other. I coach both. The MS kids come to my classroom in the high school for practice. We all practice together. Several years ago, we adopted a "One Big Team" motto for the team. We practice together. The players help each other study. It really is just one big team. In Alabama, we allow kids to "play up" without restriction. My son, Brodie, played in JV and Varsity tournaments - with high school teammates - from the time he was in 6th grade.

I have a strict "no seniority" ideology. I put forth the best possible combination of players I can. I don't care if a kid is a senior or a 5th grader. If they are the best fit for our "A" team, then they play on the A-Team. Abram Motte - a current 8th grader - has started several tournaments this year on our Varsity A-Team, alongside seniors and juniors. He earned that spot by working hard and beating out some older players with more years of experience.

I find it silly that a tournament would restrict a player for being "too young" for a tournament. I totally understand not letting a HS player compete in a JV or Middle School tournament. But, not allowing a younger player, who is enrolled in the feeder pattern, practices with the HS team, and has earned the spot, is ridiculous. This craziness is made even more absurd when the rules say that the same player COULD participate if the school was 6-12 instead of 9-12.

For the past several years, we have been granted exceptions by NAQT for our MS players to play on the HS teams when needed. But, I still think it's an unnecessary loop to have to jump through each year.

And - for the record - I was really outraged on behalf of my good friends at Hoover a couple of years ago when they they were disqualified at PACE NSC for letting Krish play. I was dumbfounded by that ruling.

In the end, each organization and tournament director can make their own rules on eligibility. And, as long as those rules are clearly stated and easily understood, that's their perogative. But, my personal opinion is that preventing talented, hard working young players from "playing up" just doesn't make any real sense. And, in some cases (such as Hoover's two years ago), can actually prevent a school from putting forth their strongest possible team.

[quizbowlchamp1]

This is one issue that I have strong feelings about and which affects our team(s) greatly. West Point Middle and High School are basically on the same campus. One is right across the street from the other. I coach both. The MS kids come to my classroom in the high school for practice. We all practice together. Several years ago, we adopted a "One Big Team" motto for the team. We practice together. The players help each other study. It really is just one big team. In Alabama, we allow kids to "play up" without restriction. My son, Brodie, played in JV and Varsity tournaments - with high school teammates - from the time he was in 6th grade.

I have a strict "no seniority" ideology. I put forth the best possible combination of players I can. I don't care if a kid is a senior or a 5th grader. If they are the best fit for our "A" team, then they play on the A-Team. Abram Motte - a current 8th grader - has started several tournaments this year on our Varsity A-Team, alongside seniors and juniors. He earned that spot by working hard and beating out some older players with more years of experience.

I find it silly that a tournament would restrict a player for being "too young" for a tournament. I totally understand not letting a HS player compete in a JV or Middle School tournament. But, not allowing a younger player, who is enrolled in the feeder pattern, practices with the HS team, and has earned the spot, is ridiculous. This craziness is made even more absurd when the rules say that the same player COULD participate if the school was 6-12 instead of 9-12.

For the past several years, we have been granted exceptions by NAQT for our MS players to play on the HS teams when needed. But, I still think it's an unnecessary loop to have to jump through each year.

And - for the record - I was really outraged on behalf of my good friends at Hoover a couple of years ago when they they were disqualified at PACE NSC for letting Krish play. I was dumbfounded by that ruling.

In the end, each organization and tournament director can make their own rules on eligibility. And, as long as those rules are clearly stated and easily understood, that's their perogative. But, my personal opinion is that preventing talented, hard working young players from "playing up" just doesn't make any real sense. And, in some cases (such as Hoover's two years ago), can actually prevent a school from putting forth their strongest possible team.

I 100% agree. I've played with my HS team on multiple occasions this year (and i'm about to play at a HS tournament hosted by West Point for my HS team). Here's another point to consider. MS teams are allowed to play at HS tournaments. Why not let MS players play with their affiliated HS team at an HS tournament. Similar to Hoover's issue, Gadsden City High School was DQ'd from many tournaments a few years against because middle schooler Latika Prasadh played with them.

[Halinaxus]

So, I think there are two arguments to consider here:

1. Whether middle school players and teams should be allowed to play high school tournaments.

2. Whether middle school players should be allowed to play for in-district high schools they are not enrolled at.

While (1) has been brought up repeatedly in this thread as a desire for (2), I don't think anyone has actually been advocating against (1). What's more, (1) appears to be the norm at the vast majority of tournaments already (with a few exceptions, such as PACE NSC and Indiana's IASP State Championship). I also support (1), but I don't think it's really relevant to the current discussion about (2).

As for (2), while I am very sympathetic to the many personal experiences people have had with middle schools "playing up" in their programs, the fact remains that these players are, factually, not students at the schools they are "playing up" for. I understand that in many (or even most) cases, these middle schoolers are attending a feeder middle school in the same district; however, if I were NAQT or another organization, I would not want to establish a blanket precedent in favor of this system only for someone to come along and exploit it by (for example) pulling together a superteam of middle schoolers based on falsely claiming they plan on attending a particular high school.

I'm not saying that such a scenario is likely, merely that it is theoretically possible and probably wouldn't be a fun mess to unpack. So, I think NAQT's current position of "we'll allow this on a case-by-case basis if you apply for an exemption" is a very reasonable position. Has anyone actually ever been denied this exemption?

So far the only harm that appears to have been caused by this policy is teams being retroactively disqualified for fielding ineligible players without requesting exemptions. I'm sure that stinks for the teams involved, but at the end of the day I feel like the onus is on teams to ensure they're in compliance with the eligibility rules, and that includes a responsibility to read said rules before trying something nonstandard like pulling up a middle schooler.

I agree with Eric that it seems suboptimal for players at multilevel schools to be able to skip this process, but I'll again refer to my earlier point: have any middle schoolers ever been blocked from playing up after going through the approval process? Knowledge of the process and the need for it certainly seems reasonably widespread: five of the six middle schoolers who played up at HSNCT last year (from five different states) had approved exemptions.

[Important Bird Area]

So, I think NAQT's current position of "we'll allow this on a case-by-case basis if you apply for an exemption" is a very reasonable position. Has anyone actually ever been denied this exemption?

Not specifying the details, but our eligibility committee has in fact sometimes denied exception requests of this general type.

five of the six middle schoolers who played up at HSNCT last year (from five different states) had approved exemptions.

The sixth player on this list was taking high school classes at the high school (and thus does not appear on the exception list for that reason). (Players in this situation still need to follow all of our rules about affiliation with multiple schools; see rule E.5. here.)

[1.82]

Cody, as usual, is correct. It's useful to remember the fundamental principle of interscholastic quizbowl, as laid out many years ago:

The fundamental principle of interscholastic quizbowl is that teams are made up of students who all play for the same school

I don't think I need to explain why quizbowl works like this and why teams represent schools. Enrollment status is the basis by which interscholastic quizbowl is organized. What I say next will sound obvious, but what distinguishes students at a high school from students at a nearby middle school is that the latter are not enrolled at the high school. Lee might find it outrageous and dumbfounding that Hoover High was not allowed to use a student not enrolled at Hoover High when that would have resulted in the strongest possible team, but in reality every school at NSC would be able to field a stronger team if it weren't restricted to students enrolled at the school; the only difference is that Hoover, unlike other schools, actually attempted to do so.

It is unclear to me, in any case, what would determine a non-student's eligibility to play for a high school team. This thread shows that some state athletic associations have guidelines for non-student participation (I first became aware of this about twenty years ago when I saw a high school football game with Tim Tebow on ESPN2 and was informed by the announcer that he did not actually attend the school he played for) and others disallow this completely. I'm not sure how a national organization like PACE, even if it wanted to set guidelines to allow non-students to participate, could do so in a consistent manner. Not all school districts zone students to a single high school, so it is impossible to say with any certainty what high school a seventh-grade student "would" attend, and even if they all did, it would be unreasonable to expect that PACE could possibly check players' residency status. The PACE rules make things simple:

A student may only play for a team representing a school that they are currently enrolled in.

It seems very easy to me to understand the plain meaning of these words.

[mrpotatokid]

Cody, as usual, is correct. It's useful to remember the fundamental principle of interscholastic quizbowl, as laid out many years ago:

The fundamental principle of interscholastic quizbowl is that teams are made up of students who all play for the same school

I don't think I need to explain why quizbowl works like this and why teams represent schools. Enrollment status is the basis by which interscholastic quizbowl is organized. What I say next will sound obvious, but what distinguishes students at a high school from students at a nearby middle school is that the latter are not enrolled at the high school. Lee might find it outrageous and dumbfounding that Hoover High was not allowed to use a student not enrolled at Hoover High when that would have resulted in the strongest possible team, but in reality every school at NSC would be able to field a stronger team if it weren't restricted to students enrolled at the school; the only difference is that Hoover, unlike other schools, actually attempted to do so.

It is unclear to me, in any case, what would determine a non-student's eligibility to play for a high school team. This thread shows that some state athletic associations have guidelines for non-student participation (I first became aware of this about twenty years ago when I saw a high school football game with Tim Tebow on ESPN2 and was informed by the announcer that he did not actually attend the school he played for) and others disallow this completely. I'm not sure how a national organization like PACE, even if it wanted to set guidelines to allow non-students to participate, could do so in a consistent manner. Not all school districts zone students to a single high school, so it is impossible to say with any certainty what high school a seventh-grade student "would" attend, and even if they all did, it would be unreasonable to expect that PACE could possibly check players' residency status. The PACE rules make things simple:

A student may only play for a team representing a school that they are currently enrolled in.

It seems very easy to me to understand the plain meaning of these words.

I think that the issue with the rules as they are currently set up at PACE is that they put those teams which represent public schools at an inherent disadvantage. A 7th grader who attends a private school that is K-12 or whatever is technically enrolled at the exact same institution as the 12th graders from that same private school system. However, virtually none of the public high schools in the country are set up in a K-12 format (or anything other than a 9 or 10-12 format, for that matter). Thus, under the current rules a middle schooler who is zoned for and/or will be at some point in the future attending the high school they wish to play for is not able to play the NSC with their high school team, but their peers who attend a private school would be able to. This is not sensible in any way.

Additionally, I find it even more infuriating that these rules are set up in a way that is advantageous for private schools because private schools already have so many advantages over most teams and students in the public school system. Private schools get to pick and choose the students they desire to attend their institutions in many cases. Public schools (with the exceptions of magnets, for self explanatory reasons) don't. Private schools also typically pull from a higher income base than public schools and thus in many cases (though obviously not always) funding for regional and national tournaments is much easier for quizbowl teams representing private schools to obtain as compared to teams from public schools. These private schools don't need any more special privileges than they already possess.

To be clear, I am in no way attacking the concept or existence of private schools. I think it's wonderful that we find ourselves in an environment where such institutions exist. Moreover, I am not intending to attack the creators of the PACE eligibility rules, as I'm sure they have their reasons for the current wording. However, I think that the way the rule is presently constructed creates an unequal playing field and exacerbates already significant challenges/limitations for public schools.

[1.82]

I think that the issue with the rules as they are currently set up at PACE is that they put those teams which represent public schools at an inherent disadvantage. A 7th grader who attends a private school that is K-12 or whatever is technically enrolled at the exact same institution as the 12th graders from that same private school system. However, virtually none of the public high schools in the country are set up in a K-12 format (or anything other than a 9 or 10-12 format, for that matter). Thus, under the current rules a middle schooler who is zoned for and/or will be at some point in the future attending the high school they wish to play for is not able to play the NSC with their high school team, but their peers who attend a private school would be able to. This is not sensible in any way.

Additionally, I find it even more infuriating that these rules are set up in a way that is advantageous for private schools because private schools already have so many advantages over most teams and students in the public school system. Private schools get to pick and choose the students they desire to attend their institutions in many cases. Public schools (with the exceptions of magnets, for self explanatory reasons) don't. Private schools also typically pull from a higher income base than public schools and thus in many cases (though obviously not always) funding for regional and national tournaments is much easier for quizbowl teams representing private schools to obtain as compared to teams from public schools. These private schools don't need any more special privileges than they already possess.

To be clear, I am in no way attacking the concept or existence of private schools. I think it's wonderful that we find ourselves in an environment where such institutions exist. Moreover, I am not intending to attack the creators of the PACE eligibility rules, as I'm sure they have their reasons for the current wording. However, I think that the way the rule is presently constructed creates an unequal playing field and exacerbates already significant challenges/limitations for public schools.

This is a fair point, and I understand the unfairness that you refer to. In theory I would not be opposed to restricting eligibility to students in ninth grade and up (as Eric suggests in his original post), but I'm not sure that this is a real problem that requires a solution. I don't have NSC rosters in front of me, but my guess would be that the number of students below ninth grade who play the tournament in any given year is very small. The current rule set has the advantage of extreme simplicity, which is a good argument for it, and I haven't seen any indication that private schools that enroll students below ninth grade are gaining an advantage from this in practice.

[Subotai the Valiant, Final Dog of War]

I did play PACE NSC as a middle schooler enrolled in a 7-12 public school, and did so twice. The second time, I was the third scorer on the A team, so in theory, we would have fielded a worse team without me. So I guess I'm the target audience of these rules.

If PACE (or HSNCT) adopted a blanket policy of preventing players under 9th grade from playing, I would have been sad but understood. But being from NYC, with its infamously complex public school system and very populous districts, I'm not really sure of the fairness of allowing middle schoolers to have a blanket exemption to "play up" to a school they're not in.

In New York, we have neighborhood public schools, district public schools, borough public schools, specialized schools, and one-off public schools of many other forms. Say I had gone to a public middle school that was restricted to my district, but that wasn't zoned for any specific part of the district (and presumably required some level of application). It's still a district school; should I be allowed to "play up" to the equivalent all-district high school? My neighborhood high school? Neither? What if I went to a borough school? Furthermore, the zoning lines for neighborhood high schools and middle schools in a district are different from each other due to MS's and HS's being in different buildings/there being a different number of each of them. So does that mean nobody in certain districts is allowed to "play up," if there's not necessarily a single school that 100% of the population of a middle school directly feeds into, but everybody in other districts is allowed to?

Ultimately, perhaps with some level of personal bias, I do think that students in an interscholastic competition should... be restricted to playing for a school they actually attend, with opportunity for case-by-case appeals for edge cases. Cases like the one described above with West Point where two schools have the same name, are in the same place, and have the same feeder region are cases where the schools are effectively one school except for administrative details; that's what the current appeals system is set up to resolve, and I obviously have no issue with students at both schools playing together. But I see these as bureaucracy-induced exceptions more than a rule that should be made widely applicable.

[Somewhere in the Stratosphere]

And figured I'd also mention it, a 4th grader has played HSNCT.

And got 2 tossups!!

some guy, at the time he was 11 years old, had played more pyramidal HS tournaments than I have

And, funnily enough, never played quizbowl again as far as I can see.
[/quote]

got 'em

[geoff]

I have thoughts on this from a personal point of view. Indiana's middle school circuit is basically non-existent and being able to play at all the high school tournaments was very good for us. It allowed us to learn the 'canon' for the higher levels and the harder questions especially helped at the MSNCT playoffs level. So for this, I think middle schools playing high school tournaments is good, but only when there's no MS circuit to support them.
I also think that middle schoolers playing up is a good thing, middle schoolers these days are good folks, and sometimes they can really help out an HS team. I see no issue with it really other than that some hsers might be mad about having to play with an mser but they can cope. MS and HS quizbowl are becoming more intertwined with HS players coaching MS teams and MS teams playing HSNCT, and it makes sense for the community to lean into that as a whole

[Somewhere in the Stratosphere]

I have thoughts on this from a personal point of view. Indiana's middle school circuit is basically non-existent and being able to play at all the high school tournaments was very good for us. It allowed us to learn the 'canon' for the higher levels and the harder questions especially helped at the MSNCT playoffs level. So for this, I think middle schools playing high school tournaments is good, but only when there's no MS circuit to support them.
I also think that middle schoolers playing up is a good thing, middle schoolers these days are good folks, and sometimes they can really help out an HS team. I see no issue with it really other than that some hsers might be mad about having to play with an mser but they can cope. MS and HS quizbowl are becoming more intertwined with HS players coaching MS teams and MS teams playing HSNCT, and it makes sense for the community to lean into that as a whole

Never played MS quizbowl per se (the wacky Arkansas format is detailed earlier in the thread if you're interested) but this general premise is one I agree with. No one is telling me with a straight face that this dude isn't already an elite HS player. Or this one. So on, so forth. So many of these middle school players are already elite scalers and could be immediate top scorers at the high school level; the unfortunate thing is that many of the best middle school players are at independent schools that are NOT their district's high school, and that makes them ineligible. So, I propose that those teams simply play HSNCT. They're clearly good enough to qualify for it. Meyzeek did it, I'm sure Churchill and Smith and Middlesex and all these other great MS teams could too if they're interested. Of course, this point is moot if they don't feel like playing against us old people yet

[quizbowlchamp1]

I'll go back on a point that may have been already mentioned here. If a K-12 or a 6-12 school can take 6th, 7th, and 8th graders and let them play on a "high school" team, then why can't middle schoolers play up on the high school team of the high school they are zoned to?

Thankfully, NAQT has a beautiful workaround to this where you can apply for a middle school to play up. I did this in 7th and 8th grade. I don't exactly know how to do this but my coach did it.

[Auks Ran Ova]

If a K-12 or a 6-12 school can take 6th, 7th, and 8th graders and let them play on a "high school" team,

These students are playing on a team representing the school in which they are enrolled.

then why can't middle schoolers play up on the high school team of the high school they are zoned to?

These students are not.

Unfair? Possibly, but much easier as a method for determining eligibility than having to be aware of what schools are zoned where.

[a Joe]

Unfair? Possibly, but much easier as a method for determining eligibility than having to be aware of what schools are zoned where.

Respectfully, Rob, this is a simple Google search in all but the largest school districts. Nick Pruitt, for one, could figure this out in about 20 seconds, and I can in about a minute.

If people want to play up, let them play up. They obviously can't play down, but I really see little downside to the former, especially since, as was said, this gives a very distinct advantage to combined schools versus your run-of-the-mill suburban public school. If a Middle Schooler wants to challenge themselves by playing at the High School level, at a school they are normally zoned for, so be it.

[Cody]

Unfair? Possibly, but much easier as a method for determining eligibility than having to be aware of what schools are zoned where.

Respectfully, Rob, this is a simple Google search in all but the largest school districts. Nick Pruitt, for one, could figure this out in about 20 seconds, and I can in about a minute.

If people want to play up, let them play up. They obviously can't play down, but I really see little downside to the former, especially since, as was said, this gives a very distinct advantage to combined schools versus your run-of-the-mill suburban public school. If a Middle Schooler wants to challenge themselves by playing at the High School level, at a school they are normally zoned for, so be it.

Rob's statement is simple fact because it is much easier. Googling is the least of the issues - there's a whole apparatus to support "exemption" requests. Certainly, it is also at times MUCH harder to determine zoning because that's not exactly how many school districts work in the modern era. Zoning is only a part of determining what school you attend in my current county of residence.

But what does zoning have to do with this argument, anyway? My home county had an 8-12 high school and sent one upcoming 9th grader every year to Maggie Walker Governor's School (9-12), which is a public school. This person was no longer eligible to play sports at my high school because they were no longer enrolled there, but at Maggie Walker. By the zoning logic, what is the difference between this person and a middle schooler? Such situations are quite common in many places due to the rise of public school alternatives, specialty centers, and local/regional practices.

Interscholastic competition is premised on enrollment at a specific school, so I don't understand the logic in letting students play for schools where they aren't enrolled. Is there a state athletics association where this is common? Some states do it for home schools, but home schooled children by definition are not enrolled anywhere. Is there a specific precedent for those enrolled in K-8 to play for a high school they aren't enrolled at? And what is it?

[alexdz]

Interscholastic competition is premised on enrollment at a specific school

This is a key point. If "ability to play at a given level" were the defining characteristic, then we'd simply organize an activity that offered a build-your-own-team aspect. It may seem blunt, but I'm of the mindset that if one wishes to represent a school in the community, one should attend that school. We may wish that a standout middle schooler from Beepboop Junior High who is likely to head to Beepboop High School could just hop up and join the team, but the simple fact is that that student does not in fact attend BHS. However, there's nothing preventing them (in many states) from competing as BJHS at a high school event. Is it "fair" that if Beepboop Private Academy offers grades 7-12 that BPA could compete as one team? I'd argue yes -- every member on the team attends BPA and therefore is entitled to represent them in competition. And in states where playing up isn't allowed by eligibility rule, such as Missouri, then the point is moot anyway.

Furthermore, allowing students to play up is also complicated when you consider nonpublic schools where there is not likely to be a defined feeder system -- students who leave my school after sixth grade just this year are headed to five different schools for seventh grade! I therefore would recommend the same remedy to us: if we truly felt able to compete at a higher level, we'd simply enter our school's elementary team into a middle school (or even high school) tournament that we were otherwise eligible for. We might "miss out" on a standout RWS player getting to play alongside a standout player at, say, John Burroughs School, but I'd rather that than sacrifice interscholastic unity.

[quizbowlchamp1]

If people want to play up, let them play up. They obviously can't play down, but I really see little downside to the former, especially since, as was said, this gives a very distinct advantage to combined schools versus your run-of-the-mill suburban public school. If a Middle Schooler wants to challenge themselves by playing at the High School level, at a school they are normally zoned for, so be it.

100% agreed Joe. I believe that one of the best ways for middle school teams to improve for MSNCT is to play high school tournaments. Whether that be on their own team or up on a high school team, middle schoolers benefit from exposure to the HS circuit. Competition drives excellence.

[Subotai the Valiant, Final Dog of War]

If people want to play up, let them play up. They obviously can't play down, but I really see little downside to the former, especially since, as was said, this gives a very distinct advantage to combined schools versus your run-of-the-mill suburban public school. If a Middle Schooler wants to challenge themselves by playing at the High School level, at a school they are normally zoned for, so be it.

100% agreed Joe. I believe that one of the best ways for middle school teams to improve for MSNCT is to play high school tournaments. Whether that be on their own team or up on a high school team, middle schoolers benefit from exposure to the HS circuit. Competition drives excellence.

Well you could just do this as a middle school. Although Hunter is 7-12, Hunter's national champion MS team in 2019 played at least one HS tournament using a team solely composed of middle schoolers, which they easily could have done as an independent middle school.

EDIT: Reading Joe's post, I also see no reason why interscholastic quiz bowl's eligibility guidelines should be systematically changed using "suburban public schools" as a standard, when both large portions of the country and large portions of the quiz bowl community do not attend such schools. The existing system of case-by-case appeals seems to clearly address the cases where two schools are so close in their jurisdictions to be a single school. And as cumbersome as it may be, surely getting someone onto a team for a school they literally don't attend should require case-by-case decisions, since it's the sort of thing that could easily get into muddy waters even with all parties acting in best faith. I don't actually have any personal issue with people playing up in cases where it's very, very obvious two schools are identical, and an appeal for a case like the one that Coach Henry mentioned above is one that I'd accept if I were in a position to do so. But the bar should be very, very high.

[quizbowlchamp1]

Reading Joe's post, I also see no reason why interscholastic quiz bowl's eligibility guidelines should be systematically changed using "suburban public schools" as a standard, when both large portions of the country and large portions of the quiz bowl community do not attend such schools. The existing system of case-by-case appeals seems to clearly address the cases where two schools are so close in their jurisdictions to be a single school. And as cumbersome as it may be, surely getting someone onto a team for a school they literally don't attend should require case-by-case decisions, since it's the sort of thing that could easily get into muddy waters even with all parties acting in best faith. I don't actually have any personal issue with people playing up in cases where it's very, very obvious two schools are identical, and an appeal for a case like the one that Coach Henry mentioned above is one that I'd accept if I were in a position to do so. But the bar should be very, very high.

I don't see the advantage in "playing up" for a school that you obviously are not currently zoned to. The only scenario in which this makes sense is if you are planning to move to a different school in the future. But what really is the advantage in lying to officials to play up on a better school which you are not zoned to?

Also, as mentioned, the zoning laws are easily fact checkable.

[Subotai the Valiant, Final Dog of War]

Reading Joe's post, I also see no reason why interscholastic quiz bowl's eligibility guidelines should be systematically changed using "suburban public schools" as a standard, when both large portions of the country and large portions of the quiz bowl community do not attend such schools. The existing system of case-by-case appeals seems to clearly address the cases where two schools are so close in their jurisdictions to be a single school. And as cumbersome as it may be, surely getting someone onto a team for a school they literally don't attend should require case-by-case decisions, since it's the sort of thing that could easily get into muddy waters even with all parties acting in best faith. I don't actually have any personal issue with people playing up in cases where it's very, very obvious two schools are identical, and an appeal for a case like the one that Coach Henry mentioned above is one that I'd accept if I were in a position to do so. But the bar should be very, very high.

I don't see the advantage in "playing up" for a school that you obviously are not currently zoned to. The only scenario in which this makes sense is if you are planning to move to a different school in the future. But what really is the advantage in lying to officials to play up on a better school which you are not zoned to?

Also, as mentioned, the zoning laws are easily fact checkable.

The fact that zoning laws are checkable means that officials can make informed decisions on accepting or rejecting appeals. But the appeal should still have to be made; the burden of proof should not be on the national organization.

As for why people would potentially bend the rules, it's the same reason this discussion is being had in the first place: Some MS players are excellent and can contribute to HS teams, to the benefit of those teams, and those MS players are also likely to want to contribute to winning HS teams.

As an aside, allowing people to preemptively play for a different school they will attend in the future, even if they definitely will attend it, absolutely should not be allowed without some significantly higher level of justification. If that were possible, any admissions-based school would be able to get access to all accepted students an entire nationals season in advance (acceptances at any school are presumably before the end of May). I hope it is not a controversial take to say that this would be very bad.

This is in fact exactly why I'm in favor of very high bars to clear for people playing up at schools they don't yet attend: The logic of "they will certainly attend this school in the future," no matter how certain, is not valid by itself because it destroys any notion of people gaining (or losing) eligibility for specific seasons by being enrolled at specific times.

[quizbowlchamp1]

As an aside, allowing people to preemptively play for a different school they will attend in the future, even if they definitely will attend it, absolutely should not be allowed without some significantly higher level of justification. If that were possible, any admissions-based school would be able to get access to all accepted students an entire nationals season in advance (acceptances at any school are presumably before the end of May). I hope it is not a controversial take to say that this would be very bad.

But the admissions-based school would not be allowed to get access to these students bc those students are not zoned to that admission-based school.

[Subotai the Valiant, Final Dog of War]

As an aside, allowing people to preemptively play for a different school they will attend in the future, even if they definitely will attend it, absolutely should not be allowed without some significantly higher level of justification. If that were possible, any admissions-based school would be able to get access to all accepted students an entire nationals season in advance (acceptances at any school are presumably before the end of May). I hope it is not a controversial take to say that this would be very bad.

But the admissions-based school would not be allowed to get access to these students bc those students are not zoned to that admission-based school.

I agree. What I'm trying to demonstrate is the logic as to why I think that "this student will attend the school in the future" is an invalid line of argument by itself when determining eligibility; factually, they... don't attend that school, and people can only be eligible for schools they currently attend. If two schools are on the same campus and have cross-listed classes and/or teachers etc. and are separated for purely bureaucratic reasons, I'm supportive of letting people play up on appeal. But that's a much higher standard than the one people seem to be proposing (and is actually somewhat separate from questions based on zoning alone).

As an example of how this is a separate question from zoning, the K-12 public school I attended was a special public school program open to all of NYC, so not zoned. It has its high school across the street from the elementary/middle school, with teachers and facilities both shared with the MS, and all parts of the school have the same name. If for whatever reason the HS decided to split off from the rest of the school to make it easier to manage, I'd be in support of letting the HS and MS students continue to play together were they to have a quiz bowl team, even though technically this falls outside of the zoning question. This is what I imagine the situation is in some school districts, where a school that is basically one school is split in two for technical reasons; those split schools should be allowed to play together upon appeal. This is a much narrower eligibility than allowing all schools with overlapping zoning to play together.

In any case, I'm not in charge of eligibility requirements. But it doesn't seem like an unreasonable step to require organizations that do handle eligibility requirements to require approval, and it makes sense that those organizations would err on the side of caution for anything that might call into question the fundamental idea that quiz bowl is played between specific schools, not school districts or neighborhoods.

[quizbowlchamp1]

As an aside, allowing people to preemptively play for a different school they will attend in the future, even if they definitely will attend it, absolutely should not be allowed without some significantly higher level of justification. If that were possible, any admissions-based school would be able to get access to all accepted students an entire nationals season in advance (acceptances at any school are presumably before the end of May). I hope it is not a controversial take to say that this would be very bad.

But the admissions-based school would not be allowed to get access to these students bc those students are not zoned to that admission-based school.

I agree. What I'm trying to demonstrate is the logic as to why I think that "this student will attend the school in the future" is an invalid line of argument by itself when determining eligibility; factually, they... don't attend that school, and people can only be eligible for schools they currently attend. If two schools are on the same campus and have cross-listed classes and/or teachers etc. and are separated for purely bureaucratic reasons, I'm supportive of letting people play up on appeal. But that's a much higher standard than the one people seem to be proposing (and is actually somewhat separate from questions based on zoning alone).

As an example of how this is a separate question from zoning, the K-12 public school I attended was a special public school program open to all of NYC, so not zoned. It has its high school across the street from the elementary/middle school, with teachers and facilities both shared with the MS, and all parts of the school have the same name. If for whatever reason the HS decided to split off from the rest of the school to make it easier to manage, I'd be in support of letting the HS and MS students continue to play together were they to have a quiz bowl team, even though technically this falls outside of the zoning question. This is what I imagine the situation is in some school districts, where a school that is basically one school is split in two for technical reasons; those split schools should be allowed to play together upon appeal. This is a much narrower eligibility than allowing all schools with overlapping zoning to play together.

In any case, I'm not in charge of eligibility requirements. But it doesn't seem like an unreasonable step to require organizations that do handle eligibility requirements to require approval, and it makes sense that those organizations would err on the side of caution for anything that might call into question the fundamental idea that quiz bowl is played between specific schools, not school districts or neighborhoods.

This is a valid argument you make, Daniel. My issue with it is that I don't find it fair that 6-12 or K-12 schools are allowed to pull younger kids for a high school freely but 9-12 aren't. I think that high schoolers should use the resources available to them, especially if that means pulling younger but better kids. I very nearly went to HSNCT this year bc I happen to be one of the top players on my high school team. It's not cheating, it's being resourceful.