2007 HSNCT Field is Full

Strongside · Post by **Strongside** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:51 pm

Robert Hentzel posted this on the yahoo forums but I figured I should cross post it here for people who don't read those forums.

Coaches and Players --

Counting the spots reserved for the winners of state championships (as per:

http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/reserved-berths.html

), the 128-team field for the 2007 NAQT High School National
Championship is now full and we are taking additional registrations
only for the waitlist. Since most eventual state champions will
already have qualified and since some teams will drop, we would
anticipate (but cannot, of course, guarantee) that the next 14-18
teams that register will get into the field.

If you are interested in coming, please don't delay in securing your
funding and submitting a registration. If you need to qualify via a
wildcard bid, please apply for one as quickly as possible.

We are also still accepting teams for the standby list (which is not
the same as the waitlist).

If you have questions about anything related to the HSNCT, including
qualifying, preparing, and making travel plans, please don't hesitate
to contact us at hsnct-at-naqt.com.

-- R. Robert Hentzel
President and Chief Technical Officer,
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC

jhn31 · Post by **jhn31** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:56 am

I dont like this at all. I already told all the teams attending the Mississippi Championship that the top 15% would qualify for nationals (just like the website says), and now I'm supposed to go back and say, "oh wait no, only the winner qualifies..." ??

First Chairman · Post by **First Chairman** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:18 am

Bring the rest to PACE.

MahoningQuizBowler · Post by **MahoningQuizBowler** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 11:35 am

There is a technicality in this, I think. The top 15% of participants will still qualify...only the champion can register to the field of 128 straightaway. The rest can register, but to the wait list only.

The Ohio championship is going to run into the same predicament.

mhanna · Post by **mhanna** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:12 pm

SC may have the same problem. Someone is going to get left out. There are still NAQT qualifiers being played.

How can some schools qualify as many as three teams based upon a top 15% finish and tournament champion be left behind?

jrbarry · Post by **jrbarry** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:32 pm

My B team won first place in a tournament played with NAQT questions (South Georgia College back in October, 2006). I told my kids if our B tweam won a tournament then I would take them to Nationals.

I suggested last summer that NAQT should limit its field to no more than two teams from any one school. That suggestion is a compromise between the one-team-per-school idea and unlimited if qualified.

AKKOLADE · Post by **AKKOLADE** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:46 pm

Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where any team has qualified more than two teams.

Also, just wanted to comment that the NAQT page is terribly designed.

Matthew D · Post by **Matthew D** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:56 pm

I also didn't see where there were more than 2 teams from any one school either but I am a bit lost on the design comment...

Mitu · Post by **Mitu** » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:57 pm

Wayzata qualified three teams, but our coach seems to have been a bit late in sending in the registration for the third one. Looks like we're out of luck now.

mhanna · Post by **mhanna** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:27 pm

I have no problem with teams qualifying multiple teams. Some of us are just a bit late in qualifying and now we will pay the price.

jhn31 · Post by **jhn31** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:40 pm

[quote="mhanna"]I have no problem with teams qualifying multiple teams. Some of us are just a bit late in qualifying and now we will pay the price.[/quote]

In Mississippi anyway, the state championship is the first NAQT tournament to be held in the state. There is no other way for teams to qualify, unless they go out of state, which most teams don't have the money to do.

Matt Weiner · Post by **Matt Weiner** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 2:44 pm

I think NAQT handled this as well as can reasonably be expected. Ultimately there's not much you can ask for when interest exceeds the (already extremely large) field size. Setting aside spots for state champions will ensure that no regions are entirely blacked out, and being that the tournament hit the field cap at least a couple of times before, everyone should have known that they needed to qualify and register as early in the season as possible in order to be ensured of a spot.

Perhaps in the future some sort of radical measure will be taken to expand the field without having a lot of byes or degrading staff quality (like playing 90 teams on Saturday and another 90 on Sunday and taking the top X from each day to Monday playoffs) but if NAQT were to stick with the 128-team two-day tournament, I don't think anyone would have any real grounds to complain. 128 is more than enough to ensure that all possible contenders have a chance to be there.

jagluski · Post by **jagluski** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:55 pm

jhn31 wrote:
mhanna wrote:I have no problem with teams qualifying multiple teams. Some of us are just a bit late in qualifying and now we will pay the price.
In Mississippi anyway, the state championship is the first NAQT tournament to be held in the state. There is no other way for teams to qualify, unless they go out of state, which most teams don't have the money to do.

However(and I speak for myself here), they could have requested a wild-card bid at any time. In fact, they can still request a wild card bid; however, if accepted, they would still be placed on the wait list in order of registration.

Strongside · Post by **Strongside** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:09 pm

I think this is a good problem to have. Although some qualified teams that want to go won't be able to go, it is good that NAQT provides such a large (128 team), quality tournament. I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that Robert Hentzel had to beg coaches to send teams to the first HSNCT in 1999.

Quiz Bowl had benefited from the prominence of NAQT and I expect this year's HSNCT to be a great tournament.

Maxwell Sniffingwell · Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:04 pm

Wait, wildcards are determined by order of registration and not by quality of team? Which one gets in, the 20-40 team that registered in January or the 50-5 team that tries to register tomorrow?

BuzzerZen · Post by **BuzzerZen** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:11 pm

I believe wildcard teams are selected or not selected as they register. If your wildcard team is accepted at this point, you'll go on the waiting list. It appears they determine whether each team is worthy of a wildcard independently of other teams seeking bids.

jagluski · Post by **jagluski** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:30 am

cornfused wrote:Wait, wildcards are determined by order of registration and not by quality of team? Which one gets in, the 20-40 team that registered in January or the 50-5 team that tries to register tomorrow?

This assumes that a 20-40 team could qualify, which I would argue isn't likely. That being said, any registration from the time the field was filled on, go on the waitlist in the order of registration. When/If there is a spot open, it will be offered first to the highest team on the waitlist.

A wildcard bid is for teams that haven't qualified at an official NAQT tournament. If a team requests a wildcard bid and that request is accepted, then they have to register and join the same waitlist as all other teams.

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:30 am

I wish NAQT wouldn't claim the field is "full," when in fact their list just includes teams that have qualified, and you can't expect every qualifier to register.

Also, no offense to anyone at all, but how the heck does the TOMCAT tournament count as an NAQT qualifier? Speed Check questions are good for fun practices early in the year and maybe quizbowl drinking games, but a tournament using them shouldn't be considered an NAQT qualifier; they're nothing like normal questions.

I wonder if winners of subdivisions of state tournaments (ie, small school or JV etc.) will be gauranteed a nationals spot like the overall winners.

jagluski · Post by **jagluski** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:42 am

Matt Morrison wrote:I wish NAQT wouldn't claim the field is "full," when in fact their list just includes teams that have qualified, and you can't expect every qualifier to register.

This is not true. Every team on the following website http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2007/field.html has registered for the tournament. There are more qualifiers on the waitlist and even more qualifers on neither list.

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:22 pm

I know it will never happen, but I wish NAQT would give some preference to teams that have beaten other teams on the list head on in NAQT competitions. My reasoning is that it would promote a stronger field that way.

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:48 pm

jagluski wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:I wish NAQT wouldn't claim the field is "full," when in fact their list just includes teams that have qualified, and you can't expect every qualifier to register.

This is not true. Every team on the following website http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2007/field.html has registered for the tournament. There are more qualifiers on the waitlist and even more qualifers on neither list.

Really? My bad then. I assumed this wasn't the case since I saw TJ and MLW B come up on that list almost immediately (like within 2 days) after I sent in the results of the Col. Ebirt tournament, and I know at least MLW B hadn't previously qualified, so that wasn't a coincidence.

Perhaps in future years NAQT will have to run two satellite tournaments a week or two beforehand, then take 96 or 128 from those results.

Matt Weiner · Post by **Matt Weiner** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:31 pm

cornfused wrote:Wait, wildcards are determined by order of registration and not by quality of team? Which one gets in, the 20-40 team that registered in January or the 50-5 team that tries to register tomorrow?

It's kind of provincial to value "record" anyway. Who, exactly, have these hypothetical teams beaten? Good teams will seek out better competition and probably rack up 10+ losses over the course of a year; local teams who play "leagues" and such might escape undefeated but aren't necessarily that great.

Strongside · Post by **Strongside** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:01 pm

For anyone who hasn't see the announcement on the yahoo forums or on naqt.com, NAQT expanded the HSNCT to 144 teams.

http://www.naqt.com/
http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2007/field.html

Mike Bentley · Post by **Mike Bentley** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:15 pm

Wow, that's going to be a ridiculously big tournament.

The Time Keeper · Post by **The Time Keeper** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:21 pm

I'm wondering now NAQT is going to deal with having so many teams and a limited amount of time and packets. I'd hate to see a tournament with so many good teams turn into a crapshoot where the teams who don't finish in the top few spots are all lumped together in a final "tied for (whatever) place" standing.

First Chairman · Post by **First Chairman** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:25 pm

Insert Rick's comments about running a 200-team high school tournament here.

Lapego1 · Post by **Lapego1** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:55 pm

I'm also hoping that, with more packets to write for playoffs (unless they somehow limit playoffs), the quality doesn't decline as it has with some IS sets this year.

Stained Diviner · Post by **Stained Diviner** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:23 pm

They've always mentioned the possibility of having teams only play 8 matches the first day. If they did that and required teams to win 5, then they would have a similar number of matches and rounds as in the past.

I'd rather play ten matches the first day, but I'm not in charge.

quizbowllee · Post by **quizbowllee** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:46 pm

ReinsteinD wrote:They've always mentioned the possibility of having teams only play 8 matches the first day. If they did that and required teams to win 5, then they would have a similar number of matches and rounds as in the past.

I'd rather play ten matches the first day, but I'm not in charge.

Uggh. That will seriously suck for us to drive 13+ hours and only get to play 8 rounds...

Irreligion in Bangladesh · Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:22 pm

Where do you think Friday night rounds ranks on NAQT's list of "things we will never implement in a million years because these kids have school on Friday night?" Seeing as how registration is on Friday night, I think there would be quite a lot of uproar over fatigue and general infeasibility, but I think teams would realize the extra 4 games or so would be amazing. (This is assuming NAQT can pump out an extra 4 packets, which should really go towards better playoff differentiation among non top 10 teams.)

Sir Thopas · Post by **Sir Thopas** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 8:31 pm

quizbowllee wrote:Uggh. That will seriously suck for us to drive 13+ hours and only get to play 8 rounds...

"The precise format will be determined by the final size of the field. Teams are guaranteed ten preliminary matches on Saturday. The playoffs will take place on Sunday. The format will likely be similar to last year's in which 128 teams played 10 preliminary games (over the course of 12 rounds) on Saturday and every team with a winning record advanced to double-elimination (10 rounds) on Sunday."

I don't think you have anything to worry about on this front.

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:08 pm

Dolemite wrote:I'm wondering now NAQT is going to deal with having so many teams and a limited amount of time and packets. I'd hate to see a tournament with so many good teams turn into a crapshoot where the teams who don't finish in the top few spots are all lumped together in a final "tied for (whatever) place" standing.

The NAQT rule-of-thumb since going to double elimination playoffs for good has always been that 6-4 teams make the playoffs, which usually comes out to 3/8's of the field give or take 4 or so (last year it was exaclty 3/8's, the year before it was 3/8's plus one). I don't see them changing the 6-4 rule without causing a mass riot. Also, the small school playoffs last year involved all 4-6 or better small schools, including all main playoff teams (since they drop down to play for the small school championship after losing out of the main playoffs), so that's another 6 or so teams. With 144 teams, probably 60 or so will play on Sunday, and really NAQT only has to write 1 more round to accomodate the extra 6 or so playoff teams that'll get in versus last year (3/8's x 144 = 54). If NAQT doesn't feel like writing another round and allows 10 playoff teams like some people are speculating, then people should start getting suspicious (

). Whether the extra 16 teams in the prelims requires more than 12 prelim rounds to guarantee 10 games I can't say, as the whole card system is quite baffling to me (ask a math person like Palmer).

quizbowllee · Post by **quizbowllee** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:12 am

metsfan001 wrote:
quizbowllee wrote:Uggh. That will seriously suck for us to drive 13+ hours and only get to play 8 rounds...
"The precise format will be determined by the final size of the field. Teams are guaranteed ten preliminary matches on Saturday. The playoffs will take place on Sunday. The format will likely be similar to last year's in which 128 teams played 10 preliminary games (over the course of 12 rounds) on Saturday and every team with a winning record advanced to double-elimination (10 rounds) on Sunday."

I don't think you have anything to worry about on this front.

That's good.

I would like to know in advance what to expect, particularly in the Small Schools Playoffs. Two years ago they just took the top X number of small school. Last year they took the ones who went at least 4-6. It's nice to know what they are going to do before the fact. I hope the keep the 4-6 rule.

jrbarry · Post by **jrbarry** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:55 pm

200 teams is even beyond what I have ever done at Brookwood. We did 160-168-164 teams in 1998-1999-2000. Post-9/11, we do 120-132 now.

I wish NAQT would play about 4 matches on Friday night.

Byko · Post by **Byko** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:30 am

jrbarry wrote:I wish NAQT would play about 4 matches on Friday night.

Rick, I'm right there with you. Jessie and I have to take Friday off of work to be able to fly into Chicago so that we can read practice rounds Friday night--why not just play real games then since all the staff have to be there by that day anyways?

Considering they've moved it to Memorial Day weekend this year (a very good choice now with ASCN gone, I think), I think they should do something to take advantage of how many of us wouldn't be working on Monday and either run the tournament Saturday to Monday or even Friday to Monday.

First Chairman · Post by **First Chairman** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 4:49 pm

I am sure that as it usually stands, all schedules are subject to change.

MLWMathStar · Post by **MLWMathStar** » Sun Mar 25, 2007 9:08 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:Whether the extra 16 teams in the prelims requires more than 12 prelim rounds to guarantee 10 games I can't say, as the whole card system is quite baffling to me (ask a math person like Palmer).

The card system is not something I understand incredibly well - I was tremendously impressed by it though realizing it didn't exclude the possibility of playing the same team twice took some of that away - but 16 teams (more accurately, field increase of 12.5%) would definitely not require another round. 11 rounds would probably only be needed when the field approaches 192 teams.

Stained Diviner · Post by **Stained Diviner** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:04 am

The algorithm does not determine how many rounds are necessary. Using pretty much any algorithm, you can have everybody play 10 matches using only 10 rounds.

The limiting factor is the number of rooms NAQT can use. (I am pretty sure they can get enough buzzer systems, but physical rooms or moderators/assistants are limiting factors.) If they use the same number of rooms as last year, the extra number of teams will require them to go up to 13 or 14 rounds (meaning teams will get 3 or 4 byes as opposed to the 2 last year). If NAQT can somehow get more rooms, then the extra byes will not be necessary.

Having more teams should make repeat matches less likely, though there will still be a small number of such matches. Repeats can be avoided by losing the cards and going to Swiss pairs or something similar, but that slows down the tournament significantly.

Having a number of teams that is not a power of 2 will significantly increase the number of matches between teams with unequal records. That is, there will be a significant number of matches pitting a 6-0 team vs a 5-1 team, or a 2-3 team vs a 1-4 team, especially by the time you get to the last round or two. These matches happened before, but they were rare.

Maxwell Sniffingwell · Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:57 pm

Wayzata High School (x3)
A C-team is now in.

swwFCqb · Post by **swwFCqb** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:47 pm

cornfused wrote:Wayzata High School (x3)
A C-team is now in.

This is wrong. There should not be one school with 3 teams in when there are a lot of other schools waiting to get just 1 in.

vcuEvan · Post by **vcuEvan** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:27 pm

swwFCqb wrote:
cornfused wrote:Wayzata High School (x3)
A C-team is now in.
This is wrong. There should not be one school with 3 teams in when there are a lot of other schools waiting to get just 1 in.

I disagree. If Wayzata C is good enough to compete with schools on a national level, then let them come. Last year Maggie Walker C went 5-5. If they were better than half the teams at the tournament, than they certainly deserved to go.

Post by **DumbJaques** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:43 pm

Yeah, I mean, there are certainly dozens of teams that registered ahead of Wayzata C that are much worse than Wayzata C, and there are probably a lot of unregistered teams that are much better. It's not really fair to be pissed at Wayzata. I think it's more a problem of the way registration is set up. A lot of schools don't know their financial situations in December, so it's difficult to make that kind of commitment. I don't know what the solution is, perhaps it lies in a more rigours selection process, but I'd ask everyone not to come down on whatever school ended up getting that mystical team number 3. Besides, there are like, 200 teams in the tournament, and you're upset about this particular one taking "your" ("somebody else's") spot? Come on.

Lapego1 · Post by **Lapego1** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:48 pm

swwFCqb wrote:
cornfused wrote:Wayzata High School (x3)
A C-team is now in.
This is wrong. There should not be one school with 3 teams in when there are a lot of other schools waiting to get just 1 in.

No. There are a handful of schools that have 2 teams in. Why not just say that every school can only send one team? It's for the very reason that, if a second team is good enough to qualify for a national tournament, then that team can probably beat a lot of other good teams. Look at TJ in '05. Their A-team was so dominant that the leftover talent on the B-team was still very solid, placing in the top 10 at NAQT. If your school has strong A, B, and C-teams, with the standard measurement of strength being the ability to qualify for nationals, then there's really no reason why you can't send three teams. Nationals is about playing against strong competition, and if a school can qualify three teams at the same tournament (which, I believe, is part of NAQT's qualification rules), then those teams are probably pretty good. On top of that, there's really no way of knowing how a C-team will do until the actual nationals just like there's no way of knowing how any other team will do until they are actually pitted against other qualifiers. They might destroy the whole field for all you know. Until then, NAQT needs to just stick to the standards of accepting qualifiers as they qualify.

jdd2007 · Post by **jdd2007** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:48 pm

There is no reason a C team can't be formidable. It's just beside the point in a National Championship Tournament. If we look at last year's records, like iambusyeating does, then we see that Ocean Lakes, Moravian, Arcadia, TJ B, Walnut Hills, GPN, Malvern, and Walt Whitman all won more games in Chicago than Wayzata's only team there. Those teams are currently on the waitlist, praying to get in.

Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) · Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 pm

Not to mention other teams who are just praying that a state organization votes to let them go to nationals, the results of the vote not being announced until May.

Mitu · Post by **Mitu** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:55 pm

We were also missing our top scorer at Nationals last year, among a host of other issues. If you look at last years' attendees, you would also notice that Eden Prairie was not present at all. But, does that mean that (considering their current performances in our state) that they don't deserve to bring multiple teams to compete at Nationals this year?

Lapego1 · Post by **Lapego1** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:00 pm

The point about last year's Maggie Walker C shows that just because it says "C" by a team's name doesn't mean that they can't beat other "A"-teams. There's really no use in using last year's results to determine anything this year. All we know is that any C-team in the field or on the waiting list qualified on the same standards as every other team in the tournament. Is it also beside the point to keep any B-teams from coming just because we know they'll finish below their A-teams? I don't think so. Winning is only part of the reason for a national tournament; it's mainly the spirit of a high level of competition that should draw teams. I know that sounds sappy, but it's true.

ecks · Post by **ecks** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:39 pm

Lapego1 wrote: it's mainly the spirit of a high level of competition that should draw teams

Or, in the case of Maggie Walker, college-level competition. /me points to VCU open

Matt Weiner · Post by **Matt Weiner** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:11 pm

It's ridiculous to expect NAQT or any other organization to bar B and C teams, and the mechanisms which people have implied would be necessary to do so are wholly unworkable. Waiting until every last A team gets their funding in order would be a logistical nightmare and probably result in a tournament one fifth the size of the current one. If your team isn't good enough to claim the prestigious "134th team in" spot then it's because you need to get better, not because C teams are stealing spots that you feel entitled to for some bizarre reason.

If NAQT doesn't want to say this, then I will: if you want to attend their nationals, you need to get a team that is good enough to qualify before January, do what it takes to get to an NAQT event before that time, and find the money to register immediately upon qualifying. There, now we all know the big "secret" to avoiding getting shown up by a C team.

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 7:26 pm

Did Wayzata qualify its teams through a normal NAQT event, or something else like TOMCAT? That's the only issue I would have. A national tournament should allow teams in based on performance on the format used at that national tournament (at least roughly speaking). Okay so with PACE this is basically impossible but PACE has never reached the 48 team field cap I think.