The Quizbowl Resource Center

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote: my anti-(insert whatever branch of catholicism i was accused of hating here) bias means that i hate cistercian, bethlehem central, every school named after a saint, and nitro high school of wv, as students attend that one may live in cross lanes

The funny part is that we aren't a Catholic school. It's just the name of the town.

Matt Saracen wrote: Actually, and I might have read this wrong, but I think Wilmington Charter A is ranked higher than Bethlehem as of now.

Oh yeah, you're right, though to be fair if I recall correctly Charter was doing something weird with their teams where their best people weren't on the A Team. Or maybe Morlan is just biased against upstate New York.

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

Crazyflight wrote:I find it a bit mind-boggling that Bethlehem is placed as low as it is.

it's really bad for them that these binding rankings are final for the rest of the season

k

If you want a real answer not based on my tongue being in cheek: it's very early in the season, I have tons of teams that I fully expect to be great that haven't even played a tournament yet, and a bunch of stat lines on sets that I don't have new adjustments numbers for that I truly feel confident with. This is a very early look at things and an attempt to recognize teams that have already played and done well.

Do these new rankings include the Walton Academic Challenge results from this past Saturday? They used SQBS for the first time this year.

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:If you want a real answer not based on my tongue being in cheek: it's very early in the season, I have tons of teams that I fully expect to be great that haven't even played a tournament yet, and a bunch of stat lines on sets that I don't have new adjustments numbers for that I truly feel confident with. This is a very early look at things and an attempt to recognize teams that have already played and done well.

Thanks.

ndikkala wrote:Do these new rankings include the Walton Academic Challenge results from this past Saturday? They used SQBS for the first time this year.

Naren, one of the main points of my criticism was that the bouncebacks were not separated, so the WAC results are unusable for Fred's rankings.

They combined bounceback bonus points with normal bonus points, making PPB worse than useless for the purpose of the rankings. I'll likely be able to use the power rate stats, but the very earliest I could even possibly do this is December since I'd have to have a good number of complete stat lines for the same set.

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:

Crazyflight wrote:I find it a bit mind-boggling that Bethlehem is placed as low as it is.

MORLAN QUIT IT WITH YOUR GRUDGE AGAINST BETHLEHEM AND SCHWEERS

It seems as though I have stumbled upon a long-simmering issue!

Yes, my sabbatical year in London studying History of Art (Art History, in USA)
was fantastic, and now am doing Honors English/World Lit. in grade 12 and
Art History in our Middle School -- PLUS, I'm the outreach person for Cistercian Prep
and the Arts Community of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex.

But, most important, I'm back in the driver's seat in Academic Quiz Bowl, and slowly
enjoying the process of re-building our program with the able help of a former student
and QB player of mine who joined our monastery!

So, no sad or dyspeptic words from me today -- I am a happy (urban) camper who is
enjoying the start of QB season!

And thanks to any/all of my defenders; turning 60 makes me an old fart on these boards
but that, too, is part of the game!

Jonathan Franzen wrote:

Matt Saracen wrote: Actually, and I might have read this wrong, but I think Wilmington Charter A is ranked higher than Bethlehem as of now.

Oh yeah, you're right, though to be fair if I recall correctly Charter was doing something weird with their teams where their best people weren't on the A Team.

Yes, we did play Varun on a lower team for several reasons that I have stated in the NY/NJ discussion page. But in the coming tournaments we'll play our full line-ups which should provide enough statistics for a proper ranking (I, for one, think we're quite over-ranked.).

New rankings: http://hsqbrank.com/2014/11/06/top-50-h ... teams-116/

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:New rankings: http://hsqbrank.com/2014/11/06/top-50-h ... teams-116/

I'm going to guess that this is the first time 12 different states/provinces are represented in the top 15. Pretty cool.

Newer rankings: http://hsqbrank.com/2014/11/11/top-100- ... ms-111114/

Tanay wrote:

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:New rankings: http://hsqbrank.com/2014/11/06/top-50-h ... teams-116/

I'm going to guess that this is the first time 12 different states/provinces are represented in the top 15. Pretty cool.

There's no repeats in the top 10 this time, and still 12 uniques out of the top 15.

I've started calculating difficulty adjustments where I can. I lack information for some sets, but I did come up with these as of now:

ACF Fall +2.22
Maryland Spring: +2.21
HSAPQ -1.04

New rrrrrrankings: http://hsqbrank.com/2014/11/19/new-high ... ings-1119/

What do the asterisks mean (like the one next to western albemarle)

Since I seem to have forgotten my Wordpress login info, is the University A that dropped out of the rankings this time around the one from Normal, IL or the one from Urbana, IL?

Shangdevin wrote:What do the asterisks mean (like the one next to western albemarle)

Preseason projections I'm still using because teams haven't played anything to give me stats yet.

the charm wrote:Since I seem to have forgotten my Wordpress login info, is the University A that dropped out of the rankings this time around the one from Normal, IL or the one from Urbana, IL?

The one that put up 18.78 PPB with 3 powers per game on BISB at UIUC Early Bird.

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

the charm wrote:Since I seem to have forgotten my Wordpress login info, is the University A that dropped out of the rankings this time around the one from Normal, IL or the one from Urbana, IL?

The one that put up 18.78 PPB with 3 powers per game on BISB at UIUC Early Bird.

That's the Urbana one.

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

Shangdevin wrote:What do the asterisks mean (like the one next to western albemarle)

Preseason projections I'm still using because teams haven't played anything to give me stats yet.

Didn't Western Albemarle play at Cav Classic (albeit without Eric Xu)?

Hidehiro Anto wrote:

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

Shangdevin wrote:What do the asterisks mean (like the one next to western albemarle)

Preseason projections I'm still using because teams haven't played anything to give me stats yet.

Didn't Western Albemarle play at Cav Classic (albeit without Eric Xu)?

That's a pretty freaking big albeit.

Hidehiro Anto wrote:

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

Shangdevin wrote:What do the asterisks mean (like the one next to western albemarle)

Preseason projections I'm still using because teams haven't played anything to give me stats yet.

Didn't Western Albemarle play at Cav Classic (albeit without Eric Xu)?

They did. And although they managed a pretty respectable finish, their PPB was actually more than 10 points less than Fred's projected preseason PPB. Though it was a good opportunity for his teammates to prove themselves capable in their own right, which they certainly did, it might not be the best idea to count that as a "legit" statline.

Hidehiro Anto wrote:

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

Shangdevin wrote:What do the asterisks mean (like the one next to western albemarle)

Preseason projections I'm still using because teams haven't played anything to give me stats yet.

Didn't Western Albemarle play at Cav Classic (albeit without Eric Xu)?

Yeah, but as far as judging how good WA is this year, that means absolutely nothing.

New rankings! http://hsqbrank.com/2014/12/14/top-200- ... gs-121414/

What's the HFT stat adjustment?

That's like, the fourth (?) request I've got for this info, so I'll dump it all here (thanks to everyone today being polite!).

Hardest to easiest

Penn Bowl: +9.96
ACF Fall: +3.01
Maryland Spring: +2.94
Harvard Fall: +2.22
BISB: +0.72
SSNCT: +0.37
IS set: +0.00 (of course)
GSAC: -0.72
HSAPQ: -0.73
BELLOCO: -2.14
NAQT A-sets: -3.97

So as of now, there is not enough data to create an accurate adjustment for the HERMES set, right?

What about the SCOP Novice set?

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote: ACF Fall: +3.01
Maryland Spring: +2.94

I noticed that earlier ACF Fall was +2.22 and Maryland Spring was +2.21. Is there any reason for the increase in adjustment value? Oh, and thanks for posting the adjustments.

More data points, both on the IS end and the Maryland Spring/ACF Fall side.

Sorry if this info is posted elsewhere, but do the Western Albemarle results that are listed reflect their lineup with or without Eric Xu?

Great Bustard wrote:Sorry if this info is posted elsewhere, but do the Western Albemarle results that are listed reflect their lineup with or without Eric Xu?

With, the one WAHS A statline without Eric has 15.46 ppb on an IS set.
http://www.hsquizbowl.org/db/tournament ... detail/#t3

I finally updated the rankings. http://hsqbrank.com/2015/02/11/top-200- ... s-2112015/

You're missing team no. 180.

I, for one, think charter is brutally underranked

Ndg wrote:You're missing team no. 180.

what if that's their pseudonym

what then

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

Ndg wrote:You're missing team no. 180.

what if that's their pseudonym

what then

Deep Green A (#71) is a pseudonym used by [a school that appears elsewhere on the list --Mgmt.]

#178 Scarsdale A is in NY.

#200 Lehigh Valley Academy is indeed in PA.

Thanks for the rankings.

Please don't reveal the real identities of pseudonymous teams on the forums. --Mgmt.

Lehigh Valley Academy continues to impress. A one-man team (and a freshman no less) competing at a very high level.

As a general note, we're okay with our pseudonym being publicly identifiable with our name. It's not that our school doesn't want us going to tournaments, they just don't want us registering under the school name for liability reasons.

Shangdevin wrote:I, for one, think charter is brutally underranked

We're not as good at bonus conversion as other top teams. I'd say we're over-ranked though. We haven't had an opportunity to play as many top teams or competitive fields yet compared to several other regions in the country.

MoeMoney wrote:

Shangdevin wrote:I, for one, think charter is brutally underranked

We're not as good at bonus conversion as other top teams. I'd say we're over-ranked though. We haven't had an opportunity to play as many top teams or competitive fields yet compared to several other regions in the country.

Yes I agree i think that beating High Tech says absolutely nothing about how useless bonus conversion is in judging a team's tossup conversion

gettysburg11 wrote:

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:

Ndg wrote:You're missing team no. 180.

what if that's their pseudonym

what then

Dr. Loki Skylizard, Thoracic Surgeon wrote:I finally updated the rankings. http://hsqbrank.com/2015/02/11/top-200- ... s-2112015/

I've reupdated the rankings to correct states and move a couple things around.

Cool it with the memes, y'all.

Shangdevin wrote:I, for one, think charter is brutally underranked

Okay, let's look at power rates.

HSAPQ Set 53 - Charter had the 2nd best PPB and 15PG on this set of anyone that's played it

Harvard Fall - Charter had the 3rd best 15PG on this set with 5.8 per game. Arcadia A (7.8) and Auburn A (7.36) were the only ones ahead.

Charter ranks 9th in PPB. A few teams ahead of them are fairly significantly behind them in terms of powers.

A closer look at this:

IS138 - Charter has the 8th best 15PG on this set. Charter has the 12th best PPB on it. The only teams ahead of them in PPB that I consider particularly out of place in 15PG are Blair A and Singapore American.

Closer look:

IS140 - Charter has the 3rd best 15PG on this set, with the 11th best PPB.

Closer look:

So, it's possible Charter is underrated a bit by just looking at aPPB, but I don't believe it's overly significant.

Well at Princeton (IS-138) Varun played on a lower team and he is one of our top scorers and powerers on NAQT sets which may have led to lower stats. I agree with Mr. Morlan that I don't believe removing this data point (which might slightly change adjustments) would actually make too much of a difference as it was just one tournament compared to the several tournaments we have played after it from which stats can be found.

MoeMoney wrote:Well at Princeton (IS-138) Varun played on a lower team and he is one of our top scorers and powerers on NAQT sets which may have led to lower stats. I agree with Mr. Morlan that I don't believe removing this data point (which might slightly change adjustments) would actually make too much of a difference as it was just one tournament compared to the several tournaments we have played after it from which stats can be found.

I use each team's best NAQT performance for determining set adjustments, so I've already ignored your IS-138 performance.

If your A team's makeup is anything similar to the teams I saw play at nationals last year, I think the best thing you all can do is calm down some.

Hey, first of all I just wanted to thank you for updating these rankings and keeping this project going, it's really fun to see stats and QB coming together like this.

I have a couple of questions on the PPG's you're using for La Jolla A- and before I start I should note that the inaccuracies are more our fault than yours. Besides last week's novice tournament (which only had one main A team member on each team at the most, and is probably too recent to even be in here), the last tournament we played was at WAT III @ Westview on an IS set on 1/17, where we got 21.80 PPG without a key member of our A Team. Before, we got 19.80 PPG with another split A team on HFT at SMITH, which, going off this years' conversion, should equate to 22.02 PPG.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding the nature of how the stats are displayed or if I'm really messing up the conversions, but shouldn't entries with less than the full team playing still be counted as long as they are in the top/most recent three scores the team has gotten?

Thanks again.