Texas '08-'09

[New York Undercover]

Has TQBA considered using HSAPQ questions for next year? Or are NAQT sets going to continue to be used? I ask because, from what I read, NAQT IS Sets generally suffer from a lack of quality, where as HSAPQ sets are pretty much universally lauded. Not sure if cost is an issue, though it does appear that NAQT sets are more expensive than HSAPQ sets; on the other hand, it is true that using NAQT sets would mean qualification to HSNCT whereas using HSAPQ sets would not.

Finally returning to the original issue: If you've really played enough NAQT sets to develop a general opinion about their quality, that's fine, though I don't know where Mr. Robinson has taken you that has used NAQT questions. The point is, we're still talking about getting schools like Klein away from tournaments with non-pyramidal questions to TQBA tournaments with pyramidal questions.

Texas is not at the stage where NAQT vs. HSAPQ is the pressing issue, honestly. It's getting away from Chip format.

If your experience with NAQT and HSAPQ questions is limited to criticisms you read on this board, then please, come try NAQT questions out. They are superior to the main alternative you find in this state.

I don't think this is completely fair. I will state that I do agree with you, I would rather go to a NAQT tournament than a QU tournament. But isn't this a sort of false dichotomy? I think if you can get a team away from Chip for NAQT, it's not a huge stretch to assume you can get that team to come to a HSAPQ tournament with the same field.
Again, I have played (a few years old) NAQT questions in practice with my team, and I have read NAQT packets. Simply by pyramidality, they are superior to Chip. But as you ask me to try NAQT, I ask you, in the same vein, to consider HSAPQ. I would assert, with similar confidence, that their questions are superior to most NAQT IS sets (from the questions i have seen and the comments I have read from others).
As to Chip, I think it is fair to say that at least in this part of Texas (El Paso notwithstanding), Chip is indeed dying out. Let's look at the field at the SHSU "championship" in April (which I believe you and I would agree runs QU and is pretty much the vestige of bad quizbowl left in this area, seeing as there are pretty much no other Chip tournaments):
Temple, St. John's, Mayde Creek, Taylor, YES Prep, and Klein Collins attended at least one TQBA tournament last year. Klein has obviously expressed interest to primarily attend TQBA tournaments next year. That leaves three teams who have not visibly responded to TQBA and did attend SHSU. I think this is pretty good evidence that Texas has made some progress away from QU questions. Why not, then, make the same progress away from NAQT questions if these questions are generally poorly-respected (and there are visible instances of complaints about the poor quality of IS packets on the forum, I can bring up some examples if you would like)?

I don't exactly understand why there can't be a bunch of NAQT tournaments that qualify for the HSNCT, and then a bunch of non-NAQT tournaments by HSAPQ to supplement them. The HSAPQ sets will still get teams bids to PACE Nationals, which, given the response from top teams this year, may be an even loftier tournament to win than the HSNCT, so that part of the argument I'm not sure holds up. Pretty much every other competitive circuit besides California seems to have a good number of NAQT sets so that people can get their nationals bids, and a good number of other sets as well. Also, the criticisms I've heard (and personally have) about IS sets from the last couple years are much more problematic than the criticisms I've heard about HSAPQ sets quality wise, so that part of the argument Pulak may have a point on. But, again, holding plenty of both would alleviate this problem. Pulak, would you ever consider having Klein host an HSAPQ tournament to add to the TQBA schedule? Getting that product out there might be a good step if you want to play more non-NAQT sets.

A main problem is that this last year, four TQBA competitions were held before the state championship. Therefore the concept of having a "bunch of" tournaments of any time is overzealous. Though I above did try to indicate that attendance to QU tournaments is lessening here, it does seem that response to TQBA tournaments is similarly (though not as) tepid. Then again, the state championship did have 12 schools (and 16 teams) sign up, which is a reasonably large number. From the limited conversation I have had with my coach on the matter, and my own opinion, Klein would definitely be interested in hosting an HSAPQ tournament, added to the TQBA schedule. Perhaps this is the best solution.

For what it is worth, I do think that we should continue to play NAQT sets in Texas for a couple of reasons:
1. They (especially A-packets) can help bring in teams from Chip (think St. Mark's this year). For the sake of good tournaments, however, I would limit such use of A-packets to maybe the first few tournaments of the year.
2. No matter the wildcard process, Mr. Fontenot is right to say that the best way to qualify for HSNCT is to play and do well on actual NAQT questions.

I do, however, feel that Texas would benefit at both nationals from the more academic focus brought by playing on HSAPQ questions, since this would allow teams to see their weaknesses and address them rather than have their egos propped up by easy questions only to be shot down by nationals level competition.

OK I agree that playing NAQT sets for at least a few TQBA events is probably worthwhile/necessary. But again, "first few tournaments" would work if the number of tournaments in Texas was comparable to those in other circuits (I acknowledge that I have minimal right to complain here considering that my school's lack of attendance did not help). Additionally, any argument that is being made here about NAQT questions being superior to QU is almost nullified if we consider "A" packets, which are extremely short and nothing compared to what I would call "real" pyramidal questions. Perhaps a good selection of question providers would be like so: one NAQT IS-A set, one NAQT IS set, and the rest HSAPQ sets, before the state championship, which would also be an NAQT IS set?

[Diocletian]

I think that TQBA's concern is that tournaments with difficult questions (dominated by a few teams that are used to the difficult questions) tend to chase off the majority of newcomer teams.

I have no doubt that this is a reasonable fear, and I agree with the idea that one major thing that must be done in Texas is to grow the field since having more teams will mean more competition and more potential for teams trying to distinguish themselves. My fear is that we become stuck in the mode of trying to grow the field and never provide the questions that will help teams grow into playoff contenders. It's a matter of balance- we have to grow our field while providing for the development of the existing field. I have a couple of suggestions to this end:

1. Use 3 of the scheduled fall events as NAQT qualifiers with the first two run on A-packets and the third one on an IS set. I absolutely agree that there should be a "gateway drug" and there is no reason that A-packets can't serve as that drug. Being 3-4 lines in length they manage to be mostly pyramidal while still short enough for teams that are used to Chip. I know the tournament that got St. Mark's involved in good quiz bowl was the Central Texas Open which used A-packets.

2. As would make sense from the past years, run the State Championship on IS. This gives 4 NAQT events for teams to qualify at.

3. Use HSAPQ ACF format sets for Holiday Hoedown and the first spring event. Glancing through these sets, they don't seem that much if at all harder than IS sets- only more academic in focus which would be beneficial to the Texas field.

4. Nationals prep could be done like last year with a mix of SCT and HSAPQ

I would reiterate my support of other schools hosting tournaments (which should, of course, not conflict with TQBA dates) since the field cannot lose by having more tournaments to choose from.

[etchdulac]

Again, I don't understand why there needs to be a TQBA standard format in a way that the organization either solely focuses on NAQT or solely focuses on HSAPQ. There is no Virginia standard, no Southeast standard, etc. There is plenty of room in the year to run most of the NAQT sets, and there is also plenty of time in the year to run most of the HSAPQ sets in harmony.

I don't disagree, and I do think that broader exposure to HSAPQ material in Texas is likely. But the volume of opportunities may not be what you think.

TQBA only runs 5-7 events per year; there's simply not the manpower, nor does there seem to be a huge amount of interest for expanding our slate, judging by our normal field sizes. Those events account for the vast majority of pyramidal tournaments in the state, to my knowledge. I wish we had more interest, more elite teams to test each other all year long to the benefit of everyone, but... that's just not where quiz bowl in Texas is, not since I was about half my current age, in the prehistoric Texaco sponsorship era.

I think the strongest argument being made for sticking 100% to NAQT material is that we are trying to prepare teams specifically for HSNCT. That may not be the most modern outlook, and it indeed may be evolving.

[Diocletian]

I of course agree with Pulak about having as much HSAPQ as possible. My previous post is an attempt to reach a compromise.

[etchdulac]

I'm really failing to keep up here, so I'm going to try to catch a bunch of things at once here before signing off. Thanks to everyone for the input.

I was one of many who was disgusted with IS-85 (way before HSNCT) and that was far from the first thread devoted to problems in NAQT sets. The second sentence is a true statement, but that is not the point: there is another, better option that is no more expensive out there. You can follow Charlie's advice of representing both writing sources, but it doesn't make sense to use what is likely the inferior product exclusively.

It's certainly possible that NAQT's quality issues run deeper than I know. This coming year, my impression of TQBA's tentative plan is this: we are going to have NAQT sets and HSAPQ sets at our disposal, though I would guess we will probably purchase more NAQT sets. I will bring up with Chris the idea (which I'm sure he's aware of already) that on top of our other tournament-running concerns we should try to judge them against each other and see if we come to the same conclusion. This year, I expect, will be a trial period for HSAPQ and a review period for NAQT, and perhaps we will move forward with only one. I can in no way speak to the likelihood of that.

I don't think this is completely fair. I will state that I do agree with you, I would rather go to a NAQT tournament than a QU tournament. But isn't this a sort of false dichotomy? I think if you can get a team away from Chip for NAQT, it's not a huge stretch to assume you can get that team to come to a HSAPQ tournament with the same field.

I agree with you to an extent: While I wouldn't say "false" dichotomy, it is the comparison between the dichotomy we would like to have (NAQT vs. HSAPQ )and the dichotomy we deal with in truth (pyramidal vs. non). Furthermore, any guess at how our current teams would respond to HSAPQ questions is only that, a guess. Are we too focused on converting from QU to pyramidal? It's possible.

But as you ask me to try NAQT, I ask you, in the same vein, to consider HSAPQ. I would assert, with similar confidence, that their questions are superior to most NAQT IS sets (from the questions i have seen and the comments I have read from others).

I think what you're saying there is entirely fair. While again, I can't say that TQBA has yet come to the conclusion that HSAPQ is superior to NAQT, I believe that this coming year will provide the opportunity for TQBA people to develop an opinion on exactly that.

A main problem is that this last year, four TQBA competitions were held before the state championship. Therefore the concept of having a "bunch of" tournaments of any time is overzealous. Though I above did try to indicate that attendance to QU tournaments is lessening here, it does seem that response to TQBA tournaments is similarly (though not as) tepid. Then again, the state championship did have 12 schools (and 16 teams) sign up, which is a reasonably large number. From the limited conversation I have had with my coach on the matter, and my own opinion, Klein would definitely be interested in hosting an HSAPQ tournament, added to the TQBA schedule. Perhaps this is the best solution.

I alluded to this in an earlier post; it is indeed the main challenge we work with: drumming up interest in quiz bowl. Tepid is a good word for what we work with, and TQBA is perhaps reasonably fearful of lessening that interest. Whether it is reasonable to fear HSAPQ for this reason is... subjective. Are teams really going to leave if the trash distribution is gone? Do we want those teams here anyway? Are there really any teams we don't want?

No matter the wildcard process, Mr. Fontenot is right to say that the best way to qualify for HSNCT is to play and do well on actual NAQT questions. I do, however, feel that Texas would benefit at both nationals from the more academic focus brought by playing on HSAPQ questions.

It is possible that this HSNCT-centric tactic may be over-prioritized.

My fear is that we become stuck in the mode of trying to grow the field and never provide the questions that will help teams grow into playoff contenders. It's a matter of balance- we have to grow our field while providing for the development of the existing field. I have a couple of suggestions to this end:

I will make sure Chris takes a look at the notes that follow, because I think there's a good argument there. The balance you speak of is indeed difficult to achieve, and yet it seems foolish not to stab at achieving it. And we can't really pretend that we know exactly what grows the field best; but if there's a real consensus that NAQT sets don't develop our teams well enough, that's something that should be addressed. That "consensus" is again hard to judge because of the dearth of feedback we get. I really don't know what will come of it, but I do know that TQBA needs feedback. That's kinda why I'm out here, in part at least. While I can't promise anything, I will talk with Chris about all of this stuff.

[New York Undercover]

Stephen, do keep in mind that Klein would be eager to host a HSAPQ set this year, hopefully affiliated with TQBA, if the association decides to only use NAQT sets in the scheduled tournaments (we would probably be eager to do so otherwise, even). I think that this argument was extremely salutary for next year's prospects, and hopefully as a state we will be able to set a stage for good improvement in the future for intrastate competition. I truly regret that next year is my last (and really, my first) in high school quizbowl.

[etchdulac]

One thing I missed:

As to Chip, I think it is fair to say that at least in this part of Texas (El Paso notwithstanding), Chip is indeed dying out. Let's look at the field at the SHSU "championship" in April (which I believe you and I would agree runs QU and is pretty much the vestige of bad quizbowl left in this area, seeing as there are pretty much no other Chip tournaments):

While I would like to be able to agree with that, there's another indicator you should take a look at:

TX teams at PACE NSC: 2 (Bellaire A/B)
TX teams at HSNCT: 8 (EP Chapin, EP High, EP Franklin A/B, LASA, St. John's, St. Mark's, Temple)
TX teams at NAC: 11 or 12 (Alvin, EP Chapin, John Cooper, Lamar (Tx?), Plano A/B/C, Plano West A/B, Shepton A/B, Vidor)
Plano ISD teams at NAC: 7 (Plano A/B/C, Plano West A/B, Shepton A/B)

[New York Undercover]

You are, indeed, correct. I should have checked NAC stats- just because I don't go doesn't mean others do, right? I guess Houston is actually (sadly) better off than some other, non-El Paso, parts of Texas.
Has some attempt been made to at least get these teams to consider a TQBA event?

[Whiter Hydra]

I think the strongest argument being made for sticking 100% to NAQT material is that we are trying to prepare teams specifically for HSNCT. That may not be the most modern outlook, and it indeed may be evolving.

Since when is HSNCT the only good national tournament around?

[Matt Weiner]

I'm a little confused as to the notion that mainstream pyramidal questions (NAQT, HSAPQ) either are or should be harder than Chip questions. Part of the issue with speed-rewarding, one-clue questions is that, since they don't use multiple levels of clues to distinguish teams (either in tossups or, because there are barely any in the game, bonuses), the only option available is to make a significant fraction of the game on arbitrarily hard/bizarre topics that they hope just one of the players in a game will know. If you look at the stats from the NAC, for example, teams consistently convert a lower percentage of available points than they do at HSNCT or NSC. The fact that, besides James Island, all the teams who still go to the NAC are bad at quizbowl may play a large role in this, but the phenomenon is also easily demonstrable at local events using QU's tournament questions as opposed to NAQT or HSAPQ. As Cameron alluded to, when you ask about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with what either good high school students or good high school quizbowl players care about, it is both more difficult to score points "out of the box" as a new team, and more difficult for a serious team to figure out what to focus on learning for the future. This problem is a big issue with QU, QG, and other bad question providers, since they have to ask overly hard questions by design and also have a well-deserved reputation for filling their sets with stupid things that amuse their writers rather than things that have anything to do with either "the curriculum" or what high school quizbowl normally asks about.

I don't think transitioning people to 20/20 pyramidal format has anything to do with getting them used to "harder" questions since these questions are not harder in any sense besides "harder to answer on the third word." It's about making a mental shift to playing a game that isn't Trivial Pursuit with buzzers, understanding that you might still know the question even if you can't buzz on the first clue and teaching people how to listen for a few more seconds as a result, and, most importantly, de-prioritizing the idea that there should be a "level playing field" or a game with "few teams out of the hunt" in favor of the current meritocracy where your chance of winning is actually dependent on how much you know. The role of less-than-scrupulous coaches in propping up a Chip system where favoritism or pure chance plays the dominant role in who wins any given game or tournament can't be discounted; some people REALLY don't like having to earn things through skill or work.

In general, the message about good v bad and academic v trivial is something to always keep clear and not confused with hard v easy, because the fact that good questions allow you to write, for example, a pyramidal 6-line tossup on "Jane Austen" that contains deep material at the beginning but allows everyone to answer at the end, is one of the best reasons to use them.

[Auroni]

I've seen Chip tossups on William Rufus and other answers that we'd consider too challenging to write on for regular season high school stuff (and even for championship level stuff). This, coupled with all of the inaccessible nonsense that he usually writes on, should be proof enough that Chip questions aren't any easier to get by the end than NAQT or pyramidal high school questions.

[Rococo A Go Go]

I'm a little confused as to the notion that mainstream pyramidal questions (NAQT, HSAPQ) either are or should be harder than Chip questions. Part of the issue with speed-rewarding, one-clue questions is that, since they don't use multiple levels of clues to distinguish teams (either in tossups or, because there are barely any in the game, bonuses), the only option available is to make a significant fraction of the game on arbitrarily hard/bizarre topics that they hope just one of the players in a game will know. If you look at the stats from the NAC, for example, teams consistently convert a lower percentage of available points than they do at HSNCT or NSC. The fact that, besides James Island, all the teams who still go to the NAC are bad at quizbowl may play a large role in this, but the phenomenon is also easily demonstrable at local events using QU's tournament questions as opposed to NAQT or HSAPQ. As Cameron alluded to, when you ask about a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with what either good high school students or good high school quizbowl players care about, it is both more difficult to score points "out of the box" as a new team, and more difficult for a serious team to figure out what to focus on learning for the future. This problem is a big issue with QU, QG, and other bad question providers, since they have to ask overly hard questions by design and also have a well-deserved reputation for filling their sets with stupid things that amuse their writers rather than things that have anything to do with either "the curriculum" or what high school quizbowl normally asks about.

I don't think transitioning people to 20/20 pyramidal format has anything to do with getting them used to "harder" questions since these questions are not harder in any sense besides "harder to answer on the third word." It's about making a mental shift to playing a game that isn't Trivial Pursuit with buzzers, understanding that you might still know the question even if you can't buzz on the first clue and teaching people how to listen for a few more seconds as a result, and, most importantly, de-prioritizing the idea that there should be a "level playing field" or a game with "few teams out of the hunt" in favor of the current meritocracy where your chance of winning is actually dependent on how much you know. The role of less-than-scrupulous coaches in propping up a Chip system where favoritism or pure chance plays the dominant role in who wins any given game or tournament can't be discounted; some people REALLY don't like having to earn things through skill or work.

In general, the message about good v bad and academic v trivial is something to always keep clear and not confused with hard v easy, because the fact that good questions allow you to write, for example, a pyramidal 6-line tossup on "Jane Austen" that contains deep material at the beginning but allows everyone to answer at the end, is one of the best reasons to use them.

Exactly. In my experience, bad quizbowl isn't exactly easier than good quizbowl. In fact, two pretty good teams may only answer between 50 and 80% of the questions in a normal game, whereas that number can be much higher with more pyramidal questions. I've played bad quizbowl my whole life, and while I was good at it, I found the playing field to actually be fairer for me with pyramidal questions, simply because it's a test of what you know, not who is the fastest.

Really, I've never played an acutal game on HSAPQ questions, but I hear they're the best. If they are, I see no problem with using those questions in tournaments for the top teams. Maybe, just maybe, the TQBA should market NAQT style tournaments for teams who are still recovering from , and concurrently market HSAPQ tournaments for teams who want a greater challenge. If that number is somewhat small, do 1 or 2 HSAPQ tourneys a year, while aim the rest with NAQT for the masses. This would be a starting point, with the eventual goal of transitioning the entire state to HSAPQ questions. As far as HSNCT performance goes, Texas could still host 1 or 2 NAQT tourneys every year to warm up, maybe a "State Qualifier" a couple months before Nationals to get everyone ready.

[etchdulac]

I think the strongest argument being made for sticking 100% to NAQT material is that we are trying to prepare teams specifically for HSNCT. That may not be the most modern outlook, and it indeed may be evolving.

Since when is HSNCT the only good national tournament around?

You're right, it's not. I think awareness down here of NSC is also on the rise as questions about HSNCT continue to be raised. Since most of our schools can only go to one nationals, maybe we'll see more of them choosing NSC in the near future. Previously, I think it's been an issue of awareness; much like NAC was the only thing down here for ages, I think until the past few years, HSNCT was simply better known than NSC.

Maybe, just maybe, the TQBA should market NAQT style tournaments, and concurrently market HSAPQ tournaments for teams who want a greater challenge.

In a state with more repeat-participant teams and more events, this idea would work. Texas is just not there; I don't think splitting our already-small fields is the answer, nor in my opinion would it be well received to tell newcomer teams that they're being put in remedial class while the good teams are off doing something else.

[Diocletian]

Plano ISD teams at NAC: 7 (Plano A/B/C, Plano West A/B, Shepton A/B)

This is why we need more tournaments in Dallas like the one that St. Mark's hosted. We played one of the Plano schools at their tournament and they didn't seem to be too bad for a team that was experiencing pyramidal questions for the first time. While some of those Dallas teams seemed a bit traumatized by questions they couldn't get on the first line with little studying, I think there were some teams there that might be interested in playing more pyramidal quiz bowl if it was offered to them. Which brings me to my next point. Has there been any consideration of holding more tournaments away from the Houston area? I know last year there was one in Temple and the prenationals thing was at LASA, but I would suggest TQBA hold more of there events in Dallas and Austin. The main reason for this is that new teams would probably be more willing to try out the game if it were held close to them and didn't require a 3 hour drive. In Austin, for example, I know that a couple of us have talked to some people we know at St. Andrew's from back in our Certamen days (*shudder* two questions with the same answer in the same round *shudder*) who have expressed interest in trying out quiz bowl, and there is a possibility of getting more schools to try it out if we can offer them a local tournament. The same is true of Dallas. Though Cistercian has played good quiz bowl before (and apparently did quite well in '06), a lot of those teams probably haven't and I would think some will come back if it is offered to them.

I don't think transitioning people to 20/20 pyramidal format has anything to do with getting them used to "harder" questions since these questions are not harder in any sense besides "harder to answer on the third word."

I agree with this entirely.

It's about making a mental shift to playing a game that isn't Trivial Pursuit with buzzers, understanding that you might still know the question even if you can't buzz on the first clue and teaching people how to listen for a few more seconds as a result, and, most importantly, de-prioritizing the idea that there should be a "level playing field" or a game with "few teams out of the hunt" in favor of the current meritocracy where your chance of winning is actually dependent on how much you know.

The question then is how to make that mental shift. While I entirely agree that good quiz bowl should not be a game with "few teams out of the hunt", it seems that getting teams to switch away from Chip requires letting those teams have some success on pyramidal questions lest they have some sort of "NAQT/HSAPQ IS IMPOSSIBLE" reaction after getting destroyed over and over. Ideally this would be solved by balancing brackets in such a way as to allow them to play a number of mediocre teams so that they can gain some confidence and also one or two of the better teams so that they can see what actually being good looks like and have something to work towards.

[Auroni]

I think that using NAQT questions to gradually get "top players" who "want a challenge" to try HSAPQ questions sort of defeats the purpose of using HSAPQ questions. Those questions are written in the pyramidal format so prevalent in high school and college quizbowl, but are specifically written for the benefit of circuits recovering from Chip. These questions aren't appreciably more difficult than NAQT's regular season fare, and so exposure to them right away is the course of action I'd suggest.

[New York Undercover]

This is why we need more tournaments in Dallas like the one that St. Mark's hosted. We played one of the Plano schools at their tournament and they didn't seem to be too bad for a team that was experiencing pyramidal questions for the first time. While some of those Dallas teams seemed a bit traumatized by questions they couldn't get on the first line with little studying, I think there were some teams there that might be interested in playing more pyramidal quiz bowl if it was offered to them. Which brings me to my next point. Has there been any consideration of holding more tournaments away from the Houston area? I know last year there was one in Temple and the prenationals thing was at LASA, but I would suggest TQBA hold more of there events in Dallas and Austin. The main reason for this is that new teams would probably be more willing to try out the game if it were held close to them and didn't require a 3 hour drive. In Austin, for example, I know that a couple of us have talked to some people we know at St. Andrew's from back in our Certamen days (*shudder* two questions with the same answer in the same round *shudder*) who have expressed interest in trying out quiz bowl, and there is a possibility of getting more schools to try it out if we can offer them a local tournament. The same is true of Dallas. Though Cistercian has played good quiz bowl before (and apparently did quite well in '06), a lot of those teams probably haven't and I would think some will come back if it is offered to them.

Was the St Marks tournament this last year? I ask because I don't see it listed on TQBA. Anyway, I agree that teams new to TQBA would probably be more receptive to tournaments for which they didn't have to drive 3-4 hours (Klein obviously being an exception, I [and hopefully the rest of my team] would be very willing to take the time to drive to Dallas/Austin tournaments).

The question then is how to make that mental shift. While I entirely agree that good quiz bowl should not be a game with "few teams out of the hunt", it seems that getting teams to switch away from Chip requires letting those teams have some success on pyramidal questions lest they have some sort of "NAQT/HSAPQ IS IMPOSSIBLE" reaction after getting destroyed over and over. Ideally this would be solved by balancing brackets in such a way as to allow them to play a number of mediocre teams so that they can gain some confidence and also one or two of the better teams so that they can see what actually being good looks like and have something to work towards.

I don't think that this reaction would occur. Sure, they may get destroyed by the better teams like LASA, St Mark's, St John's, and Bellaire, but they would pretty much get similarly destroyed on Chip questions. In games against teams who are as inexperienced to pyramidality as them, tossups would probably more frequently be heard to the end, where these new teams would be able to buzz in and still score decently. I agree with your last statement, which is why I say that a shift to NAQT is equivalent to a shift to HSAPQ.

[etchdulac]

This is why we need more tournaments in Dallas like the one that St. Mark's hosted. We played one of the Plano schools at their tournament and they didn't seem to be too bad for a team that was experiencing pyramidal questions for the first time.

While I don't know why Plano schools go to NAC, I do know that it's not because they think they have no other options. Plano schools have gone to HSNCT in the past, but now they stick to NAC, where they have been much more successful. I have heard that they have a PISD tournament that uses four-quarter format. This is something Romero could clear up, I think.

Has there been any consideration of holding more tournaments away from the Houston area?

Another one to pitch at Chris. I know bigger percentages of our fields are from Houston, and he's based in Katy now, so those two things have a good bit to do with it.

Though Cistercian has played good quiz bowl before (and apparently did quite well in '06), a lot of those teams probably haven't and I would think some will come back if it is offered to them.

Cistercian is a great example of a team that demonstrated a pattern of choosing a national tournament based on the strength of its team. They finished in the top 10 at HSNCT in 2006, but have chosen NAC in other seasons when they weren't as good.

[Diocletian]

I think that using NAQT questions to gradually get "top players" who "want a challenge" to try HSAPQ questions sort of defeats the purpose of using HSAPQ questions. Those questions are written in the pyramidal format so prevalent in high school and college quizbowl, but are specifically written for the benefit of circuits recovering from Chip. These questions aren't appreciably more difficult than NAQT's regular season fare, and so exposure to them right away is the course of action I'd suggest.

From everything I've seen of HSAPQ questions they are not more difficult just lacking in large amounts of trash or pseudo-academic questions. Very few of the questions I have seen in their ACF style sets are things that aren't covered at least briefly by the end of sophomore year, and they all have very accessible giveaways like "For 10 points, identify this element with atomic number 5 and symbol B." HSAPQ even offers a four quarter format, and, from what I've played of it in practice, it is still superior to many NAQT offerings.

I don't think it is an accident that LASA, who had by far the best showing of any Texas team at a national championship this year, started off the year by losing A-packet tournaments and winning ACF fall (despite the fact that the competition there was not nearly as good as it could have been). Beyond the first two tournaments where I can see a case for using A-packets to help grow the field by bringing in Chip teams and the State Championship which must (I think) necessarily use NAQT questions, the best thing for the Texas field would be to play more questions that don't reward lateral thinking, the ability to multiply quickly, or watching a lot of ESPN.

Most teams in Texas could get most of those HSAPQ questions by the giveaway, but they would go far to showing teams their weaknesses and not give them an unrealistic picture of how good they are.

[Diocletian]

I know bigger percentages of our fields are from Houston, and he's based in Katy now, so those two things have a good bit to do with it.

I totally understand the point about Mr. Romero living in Houston. My point with the post was to suggest that perhaps one of the reasons that so much of our field comes from Houston is because we have all of our tournaments in Houston.

Was the St Marks tournament this last year?

Yes, but it wasn't a TQBA event.

While I don't know why Plano schools go to NAC, I do know that it's not because they think they have no other options. Plano schools have gone to HSNCT in the past, but now they stick to NAC, where they have been much more successful.

I am certainly not as versed in the history of quiz bowl in Texas as you, but (though I certainly could be wrong since I've not done too much research in this area) a quick check of stats suggests that they haven't had a pyramidal tournament any closer to them than Temple or Oklahoma in years other than the one St. Mark's hosted. I've not heard anything about those schools being avowed NAQT haters, so I have to assume that a large part of their sticking to NAC is the fact that, when they know they won't be nearly as successful at it, they have little incentive to drive 3 hours to play good quiz bowl. If the good quiz bowl came to them, however, I see no reason or indication that they wouldn't play. I know St. Mark's has expressed a willingness to host and, even if TQBA wanted to stick to Houston, I think something could be worked out wherein St. Mark's hosts tournaments on the sets that TQBA doesn't play. While I'm sure that some teams from Houston and elsewhere that go to TQBA events would not be interested in such tournaments, LASA would be, and I have to imagine that some other teams like SJ and Bellaire might be as well, and they would be providing good quiz bowl to a whole new market.

[etchdulac]

If you look at the stats from the NAC, for example, teams consistently convert a lower percentage of available points than they do at HSNCT or NSC.

I'm not real sure where you get that idea, though I don't know how we're generating an NAC available points total, how much lightning rounds skew that, and so on. Has anyone bothered to do real stats for NAC? Anyway, here's what I see, keeping in mind the lightning round skew, as well as the fact that only a few NAC questions are followed by bonus sets...

At NAC's New Orleans portion this year, there were five games out of 102 where one team finished with double-digit points (even though roughly half of NAC's tossups are only worth 5 or 10 points) and none where both finished with double-digit points.

Then you look at an HNSCT bottom-rung team like 2-8 Santa Teresa, which averaged 62 points per game, got over 100 twice and played three games where neither team got to 100. Dead-last Sand Rock didn't get past 30 until its last game, when they jumped up to 70.

To do a direct comparison... EP Chapin averaged 49 PPG at HSNCT and 152 while going 0-6 at NAC.

There were 34 teams out of 192 (18 percent or so?) that averaged less than 100 points per game. At NAC, no one averages less than 100 per game.

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

If you look at the stats from the NAC, for example, teams consistently convert a lower percentage of available points than they do at HSNCT or NSC.

I'm not real sure where you get that idea, though I don't know how we're generating an NAC available points total, how much lightning rounds skew that, and so on. Has anyone bothered to do real stats for NAC? Anyway, here's what I see, keeping in mind the lightning round skew, as well as the fact that only a few NAC questions are followed by bonus sets...

At NAC's New Orleans portion this year, there were five games out of 102 where one team finished with double-digit points (even though roughly half of NAC's tossups are only worth 5 or 10 points) and none where both finished with double-digit points.

Then you look at an HNSCT bottom-rung team like 2-8 Santa Teresa, which averaged 62 points per game, got over 100 twice and played three games where neither team got to 100. Dead-last Sand Rock didn't get past 30 until its last game, when they jumped up to 70.

To do a direct comparison... EP Chapin averaged 49 PPG at HSNCT and 152 while going 0-6 at NAC.

There were 34 teams out of 192 (18 percent or so?) that averaged less than 100 points per game. At NAC, no one averages less than 100 per game.

I don't have a full analysis on it, but at the very least you'll have to do some control for category rounds. Isn't that a possible 100 points for each team, plus bounceback on the opponent's miss? That would skew things towards NAC teams reaching triple digits more easily, not having to face off against the other team.

[etchdulac]

A quick check of stats suggests that they haven't had a pyramidal tournament any closer to them than Temple or Oklahoma in years other than the one St. Mark's hosted. ... If the good quiz bowl came to them, however, I see no reason or indication that they wouldn't play.

Having recently worked in the Plano area, I'm sure Chris has a better-grounded opinion on this than I do.

I know St. Mark's has expressed a willingness to host and, even if TQBA wanted to stick to Houston, I think something could be worked out wherein St. Mark's hosts tournaments on the sets that TQBA doesn't play.

Just like with Klein theoretically hosting HSAPQ, I see no reason TQBA would be against St. Mark's hosting again. I don't think any of us feel that we have to have a hand in every good event that's going on. That's quite a responsibility to bear. I also think that, with a few basic assurances, Chris would consider promoting any such event on our calendar... but again, that's something he would decide.

Basically, if there are people out there willing to run tournaments, that's a big plus to me.

[etchdulac]

My responses are pretty useless at this point; instead of continually directing people to Romero on specific issues, I'll just issue a blanket "talk to Chris" at [email protected], and refrain from further speculative discussion.

[New York Undercover]

I encourage people here who have been arguing in favor of HSAPQ to e-mail Mr Romero to show that other parts of the nation would also like Texas to move to "better" quizbowl than NAQT IS sets. (Obviously, I will be e-mailing him as well)

[New York Undercover]

In slightly other news, I was talking to someone on Facebook about TQBA and this was the depressing response I got

Hey Pulak, this was my first year participating in TQBA events, and I have to say, I'm more fond of QU than NAQT. QU's format is more friendly, and their questions aren't based mostly on literature and history.

[Matt Weiner]

Remember that it's not your responsibility to save every idiot in the world. Anyone trying to fix a quizbowl circuit should develop a plan that will get the best possible results among realistic options (immediate 100% success with no opposition is not a realistic option) and stick to it, revising your approach periodically based on evidence about what works best. If you go crazy focusing on that one straggler who says ridiculous things to defend his decision to play bad quizbowl, you're going to waste time that you could be spending on 10 other teams that might be more ready to listen to reason.

[Captain Sinico]

I'd like to say that I, too, don't understand what the argument in this thread is. People, states, and organizations can (and do!) use both NAQT and HSAPQ questions in a given year. By all accounts, NAQT has and will continue to issue wildcard bids to worthy (and even some less worthy) programs, so I don't see how there's support for the claim that a theoretical team that played only HSAPQ tournaments and did very well might not get an HSNCT bid if they wanted one (perhaps someone from NAQT could clarify this point.) However, such teams don't exist to my knowledge; without known exception, teams that play a lot of HSAPQ also play at least some NAQT and circuits that run HSAPQ also run NAQT.
Relatedly, I hope and demand that the parties here will stop issuing irrelevant and/or personal attacks on one another; that will not be tolerated by me any further, so consider this a warning.

MaS

[Important Bird Area]

People, states, and organizations can (and do!) use both NAQT and HSAPQ questions in a given year. By all accounts, NAQT has and will continue to issue wildcard bids to worthy (and even some less worthy) programs, so I don't see how there's support for the claim that a theoretical team that played only HSAPQ tournaments and did very well might not get an HSNCT bid if they wanted one (perhaps someone from NAQT could clarify this point.) However, such teams don't exist to my knowledge; without known exception, teams that play a lot of HSAPQ also play at least some NAQT and circuits that run HSAPQ also run NAQT.

I can go ahead and clarify that a team putting up excellent performance at an HSAPQ event would likely be well-qualified for HSNCT. (No guarantees, of course, but that would depend on the precise nature of the excellence displayed by what, as Mike points out, is presently a hypothetical team.)

[mavstats]

I've spoken/texted/generally pestered Chris Romero (who runs TQBA), and his goal is to grow Texas Quiz Bowl. That being said, he's struggling to find ways to accommodate teams that aren't interested in tough questions, playing more than 3 or 4 matches a day, and so forth. That's why TQBA uses so many IS-A and IS sets. When you look at the teams that have consistently fielded teams at tournaments in the past 4 years, the list look likes this: Bellaire, St. John's. Now, obviously, LASA isn't going anywhere, so bump that up, and Temple has added to the fields as of late, but if we could grow by getting St. Mark's involved more consistently, along with Klein, John Cooper, Kinkaid, and Taylor, all of a sudden we're fielding more than just 8 teams at a tournament. Not to insult those of you who haven't ever been to a Texas tournament, but (and Thomas you can certainly confirm this) we struggle with filling up the field and getting enough moderators. On the other hand though, in order to return to the day and age when Texas was a national player (2002-2004; and of course, I am a little biased seeing as it was my high school), we need more APQ questions. Just to give an example, LASA and St. John's were very evenly matched on NAQT IS-A, IS, and SCT questions. Once we hit APQ, I think LASA beat us 565-95. We got absolutely pummeled. Fast forward to HSNCT: LASA finshes 11th with a team of 4 sophomores and a junior, and St. John's, with 5 seniors, barely finishes 43rd. There's no question that for Texas teams to be adequately prepared, we need the tougher APQ questions.

I'm pretty sure people are just skimming posts at this point, but I hope this clarifies the argument a bit more.

[roflmaozedong]

While I don't know why Plano schools go to NAC, I do know that it's not because they think they have no other options. Plano schools have gone to HSNCT in the past, but now they stick to NAC, where they have been much more successful.

It's because during the past year there was a grand total of 1 NAQT tournament within an hour's drive, which was at St. Marks. I believe the Plano team attended but the West team was unable to because of logistic issues, which is a shame because West graduated its top 11 players this past year. This, compounded with the stark lack of preparation and talent in the lowerclassmen will mean that they will not have any legitimate chance of contending at a national tournament for years to come.

[Diocletian]

Since you haven't identified yourself, I will assume that you are a player or someone else equally involved in a Dallas-Ft. Worth area team and address this to such a person.

It is true that there was only one tournament within an hour's drive, but I think there are some other things worth looking at here:

• 1. Using St. Mark's schedule last year as a guide, there were a number of tournaments were within a reasonable range for a team in that area. They attended tournaments in Temple, Austin, and Oklahoma in addition to the tournament at St. Mark's. I know that LASA, which is in Austin, will try to host at least two tournaments next year, and I imagine that there will be tournaments in Oklahoma as well. In addition, teams could attend TQBA events in Houston, which isn't too much of a stretch given that St. John's from Houston made it to the St. Mark's tournament. The point is that there are plenty of tournaments available to a team in that area if they are willing to travel more than one hour.
  2. It seems logical to me that one reason there aren't more tournaments in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area is that, as of now, only St. Mark's seems to have dedication to good quiz bowl, and that it would be hard to justify holding lots of tournaments in an area with that little perceived interest. A vicious cycle is thus formed where lack of interest breeds lack of tournaments, which furthers lack of interest, etc. If, however, one of the Plano schools or any other area team is interested, I encourage them to hold a tournament or at the very least come to other tournaments.
  3. Coming to good, pyramidal tournaments will make the unprepared and untalented lowerclassmen better. NAQT lists going to tournaments as the number one way to improve, and, even if those guys won't go to HSNCT or NSC, they can at least get better at Chip. Look at John Cooper. They are the reigning NAC champs and have done respectably at a a few TQBA tournaments.

In short, the best way to advance good quiz bowl in Texas (which I assume you have some interest in since you are posting on these forums) is to participate and come to tournaments.

[Huang]

I believe LASA is hosting a regular season mirror of Dunbar Fall on October 10th. Confirm/deny?
If so, Texas teams should definitely go to that tournament in addition to LASA's mirror of Fall Novice.

[Romero]

There will be a TQBA event at Plano Senior on October 17th. This event (along with St. Marks in Spring) will fulfill my goal of assuring a minimum of two pyramidal events in the DFW area next year.

Texas Quiz Bowl Schedule
September 12, 2009 LASA Event (Austin)
September 26, 2009 Texas Quiz Bowl Kickoff (Katy)
October 17, 2009 Fall Event #2 (Plano)
November 14, 2009 Fall Event #3 (TBA)
December 12, 2009 Houston Holiday Hoedown (TBA)
To Be Announced Spring Event #1 (TBA)
February 6, 2010 St. Marks Event (Dallas)
To Be Announced Texas State Championship (TBA)
To Be Announced Nationals Prep Event (Houston)