Issues raised in GA thread: Timed events, scheduling

[Matt Weiner]

To avoid further derailing the discussion of the NAQT Georgia event, this is for discussing timed vs untimed quizbowl in general and the influence of round/question length on tournament timeliness. To start: I find the idea that another tossup or two in an untimed round is the factor responsible for tournaments running late to be questionable; time yourself reading 2 tossups and bonuses, multiply it by 10 or so rounds, and you'll find that it can't possibly add more than half an hour or so all told. Slow readers or bad scheduling (scheduling a team on one corner of a large building in round 2 and then on the other corner three floors up in round 3, for example) will be just as big of a problem even if tossups are shaved off.

The above also goes for longer questions. The extra time just doesn't add up to very much. Sure, there are other reasons that people don't like long tossups, but making tournaments run late shouldn't be one of them.

[STPickrell]

My personal experience:

A slow reader can "clog" the whole tournament up. I had this at the tournament I ran back in 1997, where one reader was 1/2 through Match #2 and another reader was nearly done through Match #3.

Matches between two low-end teams, especially on a format such as the VHSL (where you get 10 seconds per question), can take quite a while -- *especially* if you're running NAQT or NAQTish with a high percentage of house-written pyramids (where low-end teams will doze off through the question.)

Timed rounds require 2-3 officials per room (there are perhaps 0-3 people per HS program who could run a timed room by themselves, especially if individual stats are kept), whereas an untimed round requires 1-2 officials per room.

Frankly, I'm not sure it's such a big deal that the GA NAQT tournament will be 18 TU/bonuses and 20 TU/bonuses ... if teams don't like it, they won't show up. If they don't mind it, they'll show up and it's not as if the format were sprung on them out of the blue.

[UGAQuizdogs]

Case in point...

We (being Cedar Shoals HS) went to the James Island tournament, where they read 17 TU/bonuses of "NAQT style" TUs (not officially written by NAQT, but in the same style- read: shorter). We started at 9am, played five rounds and ended at 1145am (2h 45m)

At the Bulldog Brawl, we played 20TUs/bonuses, Started around 930 and ended the prelims (same number of games) at 1pm (115 for some, 130 for others- hence the "slow reader" comment). (3h - 4h)*

Yes, slow readers and long rounds are inevitable at times, but no self respecting TD would EVER schedule a hike for a team between rooms. Besides, a below decent reader for NAQT can knock out 18 TUs in the same (timed) period. I figured it's a timed round without the clock. If it blows up in our face, we may just go back to 20.

Well that's my two cents. You must forgive Will, he can be passionate at times (not like he's the only one). As TR once said, "I can control the country or control Alice. I cannot do both." :)

*Please note the Brawl will always be 20TUs/bonuses. We're just trying something different for NAQT Georgia. Like the gentlemen said before me: if they dont like the format (given over a month ahead of time), they wont come, and I, for one, will not lose sleep over it.

[Matt Weiner]

But you're saying that the extra 75 minutes was entirely accounted for by an additional 15 tossups and 15 bonuses. If that were true, it would have taken someone the same hour and fifteen minutes to read 15 tossups and bonuses in one of the regular rounds, which I'm assuming was not the case. The fault has to lie elsewhere.

[Stained Diviner]

Tournaments often run late because some teams take their time getting from one match to another, and, once they reach their destination, getting a match started. Also, some teams take a long time to get back from lunch and some TDs take a long time to get things restarted after lunch or getting things started in the first place.

The main problem is not what happens during a match unless the TD overschedules too many matches. The main problem, in my humble opinion, is between matches.

[First Chairman]

Could someone define for me "NAQT-style" questions? I'm interested because there now seems to be implicit with that an expectation that NAQT questions are "too long."

I boil this down to two conflicting interests: the need to determine in a fair manner the winner of a game (and consequently the tournament) of an academic competition, and the need to run the competition in a timely manner.

I certainly sympathize with the crux of this decision. You don't want teams to stay until 8pm, but you want to make sure each team is tested fairly. I have no problem with changing the number of questions in a game, but your decision cannot be completely arbitrary ("I'm going to have 15 NAQT tossups and bonus questions because that will take the same amount of time as an entire Chip round").

It would be like cutting down a curriculum to not include astronomy or earth science. Where in a "standard" 20-question packet would you compromise your distribution?

But in my opinion, I don't ever try to make decisions where my staff's competence or incompetence overrides the fairness and integrity of the tournament. I had a reader take 45 minutes per "It's Academic" round (which usually takes me 10 minutes to be done!). But I didn't chop down games to accommodate.

Maybe it's a question of making sure that our readers know specifically the expectations for being part of this competition. We truly value your volunteering to help us, but we expect you to be considerate of our players and the coaches in making sure this tournament runs on time. I realize I went through this phase as a reader too, but it's not about the readers.

Besides, it's not a question of having outsiders tell me what to do, but I pay attention to them anyway. No tournament is perfect, despite how much one's ego may say it is >>>

P.S. Does NAQT sanction your changing the rules in this manner? I don't know how the statistics for an abbreviated format in this case will affect seeding or qualification. Fortunately I suspect it won't, but I associate a certain standard of question quality and game format when I see "NAQT" as I would see "Questions Unlimited." If your decision to dilute such a product comes for an "NAQT state championship", this is NOT a good precedent for the sake of keeping NAQT's quality brand. Of course, this is only my opinion. For all I know, you can run this as a "Questions Unlimited Georgia state championship" using NAQT questions.

Hey, that's an idea... :) :) :) :) :)

[pblessman]

The main reason my NAQT tournaments have always been timed is because this is the NAQT rule. I started my quiz bowl coaching career out being a fan untimed rounds but have now been converted to timed rounds. First, some background:

In my experience, readers get through anywhere from 16 to 24 questions in an 18 minute NAQT game. Adding five minutes for game mechanics (buzzer tests, intro, time-outs, protests, technical problems, half time) means that teams should be able to be in their next room about 25 minutes after starting their previous match. Going to a 20 question match would add about 4.5 minutes to matches with the slowest readers and subtract about 3 minutes from the fastest readers' matches. My tournaments have always had each scheduled round take 30 minutes (or slightly less), meaning that I am always able to finish on time, or very close to it (if there is a technical problem).

Based on my experience, my reasons to support timed matches are four-fold:

1. Timeliness: one of my biggest pet peeves about quiz bowl tournaments is the lack of professionalism displayed by some hosts. Anything that can be done to macke sure things run on time should be encouraged. As a tournament host I can only do so much to assure all teams arrive on time in ther morning, return in a timely fashion from lunch, but I can control match length. Adding 4.5 minutes per game might not seem like a lot, but if things get out of sync this can be a HUGE ANNOYANCE. If my team has three games with a quick reader and then has to wait 15 minutes in a hall way...

2. Orderliness: Teams milling about in hallways is a distraction to playing teams. Ans the worst time for this is the last five minutes (~five questions) of a match. Untimed rounds bring teams into the hallways at just this point, adding to the stress of trying to get through the end of a tight match.

3. Flow of game: Quiz bowl should be about the players getting to answer questions. Untimed matches invites players, coaches and moderators to expound on questions, reminisce and generally become more chatty. We all love this stuff so it is natural to want to comment on an interesting toss-up, etc. Some of this can be controlled by training moderators well, but it will still happen in some rooms. This not only breaks the flow of the game but also adds to the "on time" problem. Timed matches create a sense of urgency not only in the players, but also in the coaches and moderators.

4. More questions: In timed matches players will ALWAYS get to hear more questions, as moderators will have a greater sense of urgency. Getting students to hear more questions is, of course, what this is all about. It creates more opportunities to learn and more opportunities to distinguish between the different levels of teams.

This is just a quick overview of what I think about this topic. In my experience, running a timed tournament is more complicated than running an un-timed tournament as you need timers and have to train your moderators better (to avoid HUGE differences in the number sof questions read from room to room). Still, timed tournaments run more smoothly, give the game a greater sense of urgency and provide students with more opportunities to hear questions, clinching the argument for me.

[mrblinux]

I'm a fan of timed rounds myself, especially when swiss pairing is involved. When the lowest seeded teams play each other, games with a set number of pyramidal questions tend to go on for longer periods of time. With timed games, more questions can be read if the game goes faster and teams aren't delayed by slower readers.

Timed games are good. The NAQT clocks are funny looking.

[dtaylor4]

sometimes it's not just slower readers, it's readers mispronouncing words like ayatollah khomeni that can take up valuable time. i know that when i moderate for middle school, before i start a match, i read through the questions for typographical or accuracy errors as well as questions that have tough words to pronounce

[Tegan]

I am with Phil on this one......I used to think the concept of a timed match would take away some of the fun.....make it more like football or basketball instead of baseball. Now that I have played some timed matches, I see that it takes nothing away, but keeps the tournament going.

However.

I think for this to work properly, you need quality moderators.

In one match, time was running down as a team was charging back...inside of a minute, the moderator lost his place, and took his sweet time finding his place...we did not get through another toss up, and the captain of hte other team looked like he was getting rady to go over the table at the poor guy.

In Illinois, it is quite common for coaches to split moderating their own matches (not in the state series). I think I know one too many coaches that would take advantage of a timer...reading too slow, or lightning quick to take advantage.

There are already too many slow moderators who take forever. The ycan hold something up a long time...on the other hand, someone who is Colby Burnetesqe can finish a 20 question NAQT round in 16 minutes (poor guy needed oxygen at the end....and that is not an exaggeration)

If I could design the perfect round for a long tournament, it would be somewhere between 20-24 questions, or two ten minute halves, whichever comes first.

[STPickrell]

Tom, NAQT-style would be good pyramidal questions ... they are by definition, longer than quick-recall "Who wrote Paradise Lost?" type of questions. I meant nothing untowards by my use of the phrase, I was just describing independent writers who use a significant number of 2-3 sentence pyramids in their questions.

I think NAQT allows you to make the matches untimed, though.

[zwtipp]

...on the other hand, someone who is Colby Burnetesqe can finish a 20 question NAQT round in 16 minutes (poor guy needed oxygen at the end....and that is not an exaggeration)

I've seen a guy (Stan from Depauw) finish a full 24 question round of NAQT in 14 minutes. It was amazing plus we often had time left over.

I like timed rounds, BUT only when you have moderate to fast paced readers. I would rather a tournament run long than only hear 15 questions out of a possible 24 per round.

[jrbarry]

In my opinion, timed matches lead to poor reading. By that I mean readers in a hurry as if it were a spewing contest in in policy debate. (Every year I think, why do I have my team at NAQT nationals exposing them to this type of play/reading? of course, most NAQT Nationals readers are just fine though everyone of them wold be even better if they read more slowly. And I like most NAQT folks I know.) It is too nerve-racking for us slow Southerners who talk slowly! :-) Just read in a normal tone of voice and at a normal speed. And every match will have the same amount of questions which seems the most fair to me.

[Captain Sinico]

And then, somehow, every single tournament in the South has issues about not finishing on time...
Anyway, it's actually quite routine, at least in college, for a reader to finish all the questions in a timed match. Even mediocre readers can do it fairly easily with a good team in the room (or two very, very bad ones such that tossups go dead.) Good readers generally never fail to get to 20 (and have no problem making themselves understood.)
It seems downright Janusian to demand readers at a tournament to read more slowly than normal (normal for quizbowl readers, that is,) yet simultaneously demand that the tournament not take longer than normal. While I can undertand how a team might think it advantageous to play with a slower reader, it doesn't seem reasonable to impose that on other teams by whatever means. Moreover, readers at other tournaments (specifically the national tournament for which the tournament in question is a qualifier) aren't likely to read at the desired pace, and certainly will not take rounds off the clock.
Further, I'd like to cateogrically refute the premise that reading timed rounds necessarily creates the situation in which a moderator cannot be understood. I offer as proof the hundreds of readers who read timed rounds yet never receive complaints about understandability.

MaS

[STPickrell]

And then, somehow, every single tournament in the South has issues about not finishing on time...

Statements like that make me want to get a gun rack and drape myself in the Confederate flag.

Anyway, it's actually quite routine, at least in college, for a reader to finish all the questions in a timed match. Even mediocre readers can do it fairly easily with a good team in the room (or two very, very bad ones such that tossups go dead.) Good readers generally never fail to get to 20 (and have no problem making themselves understood.)

Well I made it through 20+ during my days as a reader in timed tournaments. But if teams have difficulty understanding a particular reader that is a matter of compatibility between the reader and those two teams. Why does it mean a particular lack of competence on the part of the teams or reader?

... or, "I don't have an accent, y'all do!" (I've been accused of teams from the NE and Midwest of having an accent, a charge that proves especially true when I get excited or otherwise need to hurry along.)

It seems downright Janusian to demand readers at a tournament to read more slowly than normal (normal for quizbowl readers, that is,) yet simultaneously demand that the tournament not take longer than normal.

There is what we'd call reasonable delays, and unreasonable delays. A 20-q round taking 25 minutes to account for joking, commentary, etc., from myself and players, to me, seems way more fun than a round with a relentless taskmaster sitting in front of me urging me to proceed ever-forward at a relentless pace.

While I can undertand how a team might think it advantageous to play with a slower reader, it doesn't seem reasonable to impose that on other teams by whatever means. Moreover, readers at other tournaments (specifically the national tournament for which the tournament in question is a qualifier) aren't likely to read at the desired pace, and certainly will not take rounds off the clock.

Fair enough. GA teams who qualify for NAQT nationals might be at a disadvantage when forced to face that relentless taskmaster for the first time. However, it should be up to teams in the state of Georgia to determine whether they want that first experience to be against other Georgia teams or at NAQT nationals. (Also, we'd presume that the quality of readers at NAQT nationals would be uniformly high, with readers such as myself being among the lower-tier.)

Further, I'd like to cateogrically refute the premise that reading timed rounds necessarily creates the situation in which a moderator cannot be understood. I offer as proof the hundreds of readers who read timed rounds yet never receive complaints about understandability.

MaS

Those funny Northern accents are hard to understand at times.

[pakman044]

As a preface, I have never read at a timed format (I've been a judge before, but that's different). Now, with that out of the way....

The problem with a timed format is finding quality readers. It's hard enough for many people who have never read before to read packets, and throwing them in a timed format makes it quite difficult for them. In addition, it often requires more people staffing per room. I admire people who can somehow run the entire room at a timed format, but I can't see how I would be able to handle the whole room (I would need at least someone to score for me). In situations where the host is short on staff, what is there to do?

I'm also a little surprised that no one has brought up what to do when a protest occurs in a timed format. The typical rule I have seen when I do untimed is to flag the question and handle it in case it makes a difference. But in the timed format, this is much more complex. It requires adding time to the clock and taking time off the clock, which means that if you find out at the end of the match that a question makes a difference, you have to not only handle the protest, but determine how the clock has to be adjusted. Depending how your format handles end of game situations (the NAQT rules say that when both teams can see the clock that the game ends when time expires, even if the tossup is not completed [I believe there are of course enumerous exceptions]), this can be quite interesting. The alternative is to handle each protest when it comes up, which can be quite time consuming. Perhaps people who have run the timed format can explain to me how this works, but I'm sort of baffled unless you assign an average time value per question.

All of this being said, I think that both formats have value. I think it is possible to expect untimed formats to take a certain amount of time, and it is obviously the duty of the moderator to make sure that they stay on pace. Timed formats usually guarantee matches to run in a certain amount of time (although not a fixed amount of questions), but also can run off schedule with protests and other little problems. The problem of running tournaments on schedule is not necessarily remedied by the usage of a timed format, even though they can help.

Patrick King

[jrbarry]

I do not want readers to read s-l-o-w-l-y! I want readers to read in their normal pacing enunciating each syllable as public speakers are taught to do.

NAQT Nationals readers read faster than they talk in normal conversation as I have conversed with many of them in several occasions.

I do not care about accents. My Southern accent is an afront to clear speaking people everywhere.

In high school quiz bowl, timed matches are unusual in most places. It takes many excellent readers to pull using timed matches off well. Hundreds of reader/vounteers who can do that well simply are not available in most places.

And Southern tournaments run on time at least as well as tournaments elsewhere. Especially HIGH SCHOOL RUN tournaments in the South. (Some of you KNEW I would throw that in!)

[Byko]

The problem with a timed format is finding quality readers. It's hard enough for many people who have never read before to read packets, and throwing them in a timed format makes it quite difficult for them. In addition, it often requires more people staffing per room. I admire people who can somehow run the entire room at a timed format, but I can't see how I would be able to handle the whole room (I would need at least someone to score for me). In situations where the host is short on staff, what is there to do?

This is the reason that, for the last few years, I haven't run timed tournaments when using NAQT sets. With untrained moderators, it can be simply a nightmare--even with experienced moderators, it takes a GREAT deal of ability to do it properly. I know that when I have to read a timed format, I don't do as well because I have to read faster than is my normal pace so as to get more questions in. Can I get 20 in at a normal pace? Sure. But that's not good enough in a timed format.

So Rick, consider me a man in your corner here!

[pblessman]

20 is plenty in a timed format match. In my experience 18-20 is average. Below 18 is slow and above 20 is fast. Last year at Nationals my team averaged 22 questions, but that's at Nationals... If you get through 20 at an Invitational, nobody has good reason to criticize you.