The Quizbowl Resource Center

In the vein of a similar thread created by Cody last year, this thread is meant to centralize the scheduling of next year's tournaments. If you're thinking about writing/announcing a tournament for next year, please post about it here. If you definitely plan on announcing at some point then go ahead and say so here early on so we don't accidentally overcrowd certain difficulty ranges.

Points of discussion:
1) The "low-key" regular difficulty open model (as opposed to the "big open where lots of strong teams come to one site" model) for 2014's DEES and 2015's Missouri Open seemed to go over decently. This is admittedly an extremely self-interested position but I would very much be interested in having another such regular-difficulty open in the fall this year, in addition to the traditional late winter pre-Nats open set.
2) Is it worth trying to resurrect the packet-submission model for any non-ACF tournaments?

Fall 2016
Early October: Early Fall Tournament (regular-minus)
Mid-Late October: Penn Bowl (regular (plus?))
Early November: ACF Fall
Mid November: Terrapin XIX
Late November: Delta Burke (Fall-minus)

Spring 2017
Mid-January: ACF Regionals
Early February: SCT
Late February: This Tournament Is A Crime
Early March: MCAT
Late March-Early April: ICT
Mid-April: ACF Nationals
Spring: MUT?
Spring: MARTYNAS JABLONKIS?

Maryland is running Terrapin XXIX in the fall. It will be regular difficulty. Someone who is actually involved with writing the tournament will post more soon.

Our Lady Peace wrote:Maryland is running Terrapin XXIX in the fall. It will be regular difficulty. Someone who is actually involved with writing the tournament will post more soon.

hoorah!

Delta Burke will run on November 11-12, not that it matters to too many folks here.

I'd like to solicit some advice regarding the timing and difficulty of a hypothetical Columbia-Michigan housewrite: would it be better September, November, February, March, or April (in terms of how well it would fit on the calendar)? Are some dates equally good/bad? Also, I strongly believe that this tournament would be better off on the easier side of what has now become "regular" difficulty, like MAGNI and ACF Regs 2010 were. However, if there's space for a regs+ tournament on the calendar, that can be considered too.

[quote="Periplus of the Erythraean Sea""]Points of discussion:
1) The "low-key" regular difficulty open model (as opposed to the "big open where lots of strong teams come to one site" model) for 2014's DEES and 2015's Missouri Open seemed to go over decently. This is admittedly an extremely self-interested position but I would very much be interested in having another such regular-difficulty open in the fall this year, in addition to the traditional late winter pre-Nats open set.
2) Is it worth trying to resurrect the packet-submission model for any non-ACF tournaments?[/quote]

1) I don't feel too strongly about this, but I think the "low-key" model that you describe worked better.
2) The last non-ACF/Chicago Open packet-submission tournaments were STIMPY and DEES in the 2014-15 season, which received 24 and 19 submitted packets, as compared to 72 packets for ACF Regionals 2015 (like, holy crap, an increase of 30 over three years from 2012). Granted, eleven were from high schools which I believe are now exempt, but that's still more than twice the number of packets submitted for the non-ACF tournaments. I just don't think teams across the country feel like writing for tournaments other than ACF. Granted, DEES was mismanaged and contributed to the low number of packets, but that isn't to say there wouldn't have been many more submissions if it was better managed.

Urech hydantoin synthesis wrote:I'd like to solicit some advice regarding the timing and difficulty of a hypothetical Columbia-Michigan housewrite: would it be better September, November, February, March, or April (in terms of how well it would fit on the calendar)?

I think it's fairly clear that the fall is already plenty crowded, between EFT, Penn Bowl (is this confirmed, by the way?), ACF Fall and Terrapin.

Speaking of the fall, does anybody know of a novice tournament in the works? If NAQT is producing another novice set next year, would it be offered at a more reasonable time (like, September)?

Urech hydantoin synthesis wrote:Also, I strongly believe that this tournament would be better off on the easier side of what has now become "regular" difficulty, like MAGNI and ACF Regs 2010 were. However, if there's space for a regs+ tournament on the calendar, that can be considered too.

The easier side of regular (but not MUT level) sounds perfectly fine for the fall.

Victor Prieto wrote:If NAQT is producing another novice set next year, would it be offered at a more reasonable time (like, September)?

We are planning to continue producing a Collegiate Novice Series. Exact timeline to be determined (the September dates are not always the best with reference to forming new teams at schools with no previous history of tournament attendance).

I think ACF gets more packets because it regularly features packet submission tournaments with a pretty set schedule, so people know about it, expect it, and plan for it. There just isn't other tournaments anymore with that institutionalized history (Penn Bowl, Terrapin, etc.). I am not as gung-ho in favor of packet submission tournaments as some folks, but I also think it is a bad move to assume no other packet submission tournaments but ACF can work. The key is good communication, on the ball editing, and a functional circuit (i.e., teams feel like they can avoid the packet submission tournaments because there's enough else on the docket right now).

Though someone more official will post at some point, I believe Oxford hopes to mirror its eponymous Open, with the more egregious British parts Americanized.

Cheynem wrote:I think ACF gets more packets because it regularly features packet submission tournaments with a pretty set schedule, so people know about it, expect it, and plan for it. There just isn't other tournaments anymore with that institutionalized history (Penn Bowl, Terrapin, etc.). I am not as gung-ho in favor of packet submission tournaments as some folks, but I also think it is a bad move to assume no other packet submission tournaments but ACF can work. The key is good communication, on the ball editing, and a functional circuit (i.e., teams feel like they can avoid the packet submission tournaments because there's enough else on the docket right now).

Personally I'd like to see a packet-submission open tournament of some kind ala Minnesota Opens of the past; such a set might allow editors to take a lighter load (maybe five to six editors' packets) and get some solid material from experienced writers who want a discount. Admittedly this requires some planning ahead but I think it's doable.

Victor Prieto wrote:

Urech hydantoin synthesis wrote:Also, I strongly believe that this tournament would be better off on the easier side of what has now become "regular" difficulty, like MAGNI and ACF Regs 2010 were. However, if there's space for a regs+ tournament on the calendar, that can be considered too.

The easier side of regular (but not MUT level) sounds perfectly fine for the fall.

If the fall is already too crowded as you said, then that doesn't apply.

Urech hydantoin synthesis wrote:I'd like to solicit some advice regarding the timing and difficulty of a hypothetical Columbia-Michigan housewrite: would it be better September, November, February, March, or April (in terms of how well it would fit on the calendar)? Are some dates equally good/bad? Also, I strongly believe that this tournament would be better off on the easier side of what has now become "regular" difficulty, like MAGNI and ACF Regs 2010 were. However, if there's space for a regs+ tournament on the calendar, that can be considered too.

It sounds like you guys aren't necessarily looking to be the tournament to fill this niche, but I'd be a big fan of having something in the reg+/nats- spot in March occupied by CRR, Oppen, and Stanford housewrite the past few years.

Urech hydantoin synthesis wrote:

Victor Prieto wrote:

Urech hydantoin synthesis wrote:Also, I strongly believe that this tournament would be better off on the easier side of what has now become "regular" difficulty, like MAGNI and ACF Regs 2010 were. However, if there's space for a regs+ tournament on the calendar, that can be considered too.

The easier side of regular (but not MUT level) sounds perfectly fine for the fall.

If the fall is already too crowded as you said, then that doesn't apply.

Oops, good point. I guess there's room in the MLK slot in January for something along the lines of what you're thinking about.

Itamar and I are working on a regular-difficulty tournament (which Itamar has tentatively named MARTYNAS JABLONKIS). We'd like to run it in late spring but if the schedule is too crowded we'll run it in the summer instead.

Victor Prieto wrote: Speaking of the fall, does anybody know of a novice tournament in the works? If NAQT is producing another novice set next year, would it be offered at a more reasonable time (like, September)?

Is anyone writing a Collegiate Novice tournament other than NAQT?

I can confirm that Oxford Open will be going ahead in late January at some point! It will be the same difficulty as last year which was probably Regular-minus, although these things are always subjective. We will also be producing an American version of the set, and as we will have at least 4 bona fide Americans, it should be well worth mirroring.

P.S. If people want we can combine all the excised questions into an open difficulty lit/history packet(s) for all you Americans to play

Æthelred the Unready Steady Cook wrote:I can confirm that Oxford Open will be going ahead in late January at some point! It will be the same difficulty as last year which was probably Regular-minus, although these things are always subjective. We will also be producing an American version of the set, and as we will have at least 4 bona fide Americans, it should be well worth mirroring.

P.S. If people want we can combine all the excised questions into an open difficulty lit/history packet(s) for all you Americans to play

20/20 Gyles Brandreth trivia.

Is anyone writing a Collegiate Novice tournament other than NAQT?

This seems to be the biggest lack in the schedule thus far. There has been some very easy, introductory set for each of the last 5-6 years, and it will be a shame to see that go away (he says, understanding his possible hypocrisy in not volunteering to help write such a set). But I reckon there would be an opportunity for some small cadre of writers to make a little money if they could put together even something as small as an eight-round novice set that could be available by late September/early October. I know you'd have a populous mirror in Florida for the CCs.

I helped organise the British version of VCU Novice last year, and I'm looking to run another iteration of a novice tournament at some point in the autumn. Given that there's a conspicuous lack of a novice set this year, I'd be happy to spend some time this summer writing and editing a similar tournament, if anyone else is willing to hop on board?

Columbia may have a novice set in the works - I'll have an update on that later.

Urech hydantoin synthesis wrote:Columbia may have a novice set in the works - I'll have an update on that later.

Update is that Columbia will _not_ have such a set for this year. However, I don't think there's any reason why there couldn't be an effort like ICCS to make one happen this year.

The MCAT (the Michigan-Columbia Academic Tournament) set will be ready in the spring, probably for mirrors in March, and will be erring on the easier side of regular (like MAGNI or ACF Regs 2010). The Columbia site of MCAT might be in March, pending discussion with various people.

I hope teams average 528 ppg and have a chance to retake the set in the fall

can you make it so it's the old MCAT & remove behavioral science even tho teams will have to settle with scores <45

So, it looks like the year's pretty healthily filled right now - the only thing really missing is the traditional pre-Nationals open tournament.

bird bird bird bird bird wrote:

Victor Prieto wrote:If NAQT is producing another novice set next year, would it be offered at a more reasonable time (like, September)?

We are planning to continue producing a Collegiate Novice Series. Exact timeline to be determined (the September dates are not always the best with reference to forming new teams at schools with no previous history of tournament attendance).

Is there any update on this? Canada is looking to have our usual two novice mirrors in late September and with the absence of "Collegiate Novice" this year (or any other September tournament) this looks like the best/most-likely option.
For what it's worth, you'll be definitely getting two mirror sites in Canada if you are worried about September interest, and last years NAQT Novice tournament was greatly enjoyed by those who were there.

Thanks!

Sigurd wrote:

bird bird bird bird bird wrote:

Victor Prieto wrote:If NAQT is producing another novice set next year, would it be offered at a more reasonable time (like, September)?

We are planning to continue producing a Collegiate Novice Series. Exact timeline to be determined (the September dates are not always the best with reference to forming new teams at schools with no previous history of tournament attendance).

Is there any update on this? Canada is looking to have our usual two novice mirrors in late September and with the absence of "Collegiate Novice" this year (or any other September tournament) this looks like the best/most-likely option.
For what it's worth, you'll be definitely getting two mirror sites in Canada if you are worried about September interest, and last years NAQT Novice tournament was greatly enjoyed by those who were there.

Thanks!

I think NAQT's college novice set will take the place of the Collegiate Novice tournament.

Sigurd wrote:

bird bird bird bird bird wrote:

Victor Prieto wrote:If NAQT is producing another novice set next year, would it be offered at a more reasonable time (like, September)?

We are planning to continue producing a Collegiate Novice Series. Exact timeline to be determined (the September dates are not always the best with reference to forming new teams at schools with no previous history of tournament attendance).

Is there any update on this? Canada is looking to have our usual two novice mirrors in late September and with the absence of "Collegiate Novice" this year (or any other September tournament) this looks like the best/most-likely option.

The NAQT Collegiate Novice sets will be ready by September 1. There are actually going to be two sets this year - one set at roughly D-II difficulty and another at novice difficulty. If anyone is interested in hosting and doesn't get an email from me today, email me at [email protected] so we know you're interested in hosting.

eliza.grames wrote:

Sigurd wrote:

bird bird bird bird bird wrote:

Victor Prieto wrote:If NAQT is producing another novice set next year, would it be offered at a more reasonable time (like, September)?

We are planning to continue producing a Collegiate Novice Series. Exact timeline to be determined (the September dates are not always the best with reference to forming new teams at schools with no previous history of tournament attendance).

Is there any update on this? Canada is looking to have our usual two novice mirrors in late September and with the absence of "Collegiate Novice" this year (or any other September tournament) this looks like the best/most-likely option.

The NAQT Collegiate Novice sets will be ready by September 1. There are actually going to be two sets this year - one set at roughly D-II difficulty and another at novice difficulty. If anyone is interested in hosting and doesn't get an email from me today, email me at [email protected] so we know you're interested in hosting.

Is the set at "novice difficulty" going to be at A set difficulty or IS set difficulty?

We plan to release both an IS-C and an ISA-C set again this year, the former of which is appropriate for most established colleges to run as a "Collegiate Novice" event. Events that plan to cater to entirely new participants have the A-series-converted set available to them.

Bump.

So, it's been brought to my attention that there is no early January tournament this year. I'm wondering two things here:

1) Is this a problem worth addressing?
2) Would people be interested in a packet submission event for early January given this late notice? It would need both A) enough teams interested in submitting packets and B) a few other people willing to serve as editors. I like working with packet submission and my company's winter vacation setup is pretty generous, so I will definitely have some time on my hands - I'm wondering if there will be enough other folks willing to help put together a tournament in December.

For 2), the difficulty/eligibility/packet/fee setup I had in mind would be the following:

- Difficulty around Penn Bowl/MLK, i.e. tossups and bonuses both a bit above regular difficulty. Easy parts and middle/late clues will be kept in line, but there will be some tougher answerlines.
- Open eligibility (this is partly to generate enough packet submitting teams without making tons of college teams ineligible at the last minute)
- Open teams must submit packets in order to play. Base fee for open teams is $120.
- Base fee for college teams is $140 for college teams that do not submit, and $90 for teams that do submit by whatever deadline ($70 for an earlier one)
- Mirror fee is $45, except for college teams that submit, which will pay $25.

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:Bump.

So, it's been brought to my attention that there is no early January tournament this year. I'm wondering two things here:

1) Is this a problem worth addressing?
2) Would people be interested in a packet submission event for early January given this late notice? It would need both A) enough teams interested in submitting packets and B) a few other people willing to serve as editors. I like working with packet submission and my company's winter vacation setup is pretty generous, so I will definitely have some time on my hands - I'm wondering if there will be enough other folks willing to help put together a tournament in December.

For 2), the difficulty/eligibility/packet/fee setup I had in mind would be the following:

- Difficulty around Penn Bowl/MLK, i.e. tossups and bonuses both a bit above regular difficulty. Easy parts and middle/late clues will be kept in line, but there will be some tougher answerlines.
- Open eligibility (this is partly to generate enough packet submitting teams without making tons of college teams ineligible at the last minute)
- Open teams must submit packets in order to play. Base fee for open teams is $120.
- Base fee for college teams is $140 for college teams that do not submit, and $90 for teams that do submit by whatever deadline ($70 for an earlier one)
- Mirror fee is $45, except for college teams that submit, which will pay $25.

I'd write a packet for such a tournament.

Me too.

As I (and others said) on Facebook: sure, I could probably get a packet together, but we'd need to get sites nailed down first.

I've put the announcement up. Working on nailing down sites.

MCAT will be delayed and turned to a summer open, so MARTYNAS JABLONKIS seems to be our only hope for a spring tournament (other than MUT, assuming it happens).

MARTYNAS JABLONKIS will also be delayed until a date TBD.

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: Spring: MUT?

Minnesotans, is there any word one way or another on if MUT will happen this year?

cruzeiro wrote:

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: Spring: MUT?

Minnesotans, is there any word one way or another on if MUT will happen this year?

Doesn't look like it. We're all a bit over-committed, either in quiz bowl or other endeavors.

Muriel Axon wrote:

cruzeiro wrote:

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: Spring: MUT?

Minnesotans, is there any word one way or another on if MUT will happen this year?

Doesn't look like it. We're all a bit over-committed, either in quiz bowl or other endeavors.

As I'm sure you know, this will be sorely missed by teams that aren't national competitors.

So we've got WAO, Regs, SCT, This Tournament is a Crime, aaand nothing else until nationals. That's two (!) regular-difficulty events in the spring semester and zero below regular (discounting delayed mirrors of sets from months in the past) (I guess DII SCT is below regular but nobody really plays it more than once in their career). WAO is supposed to be regular-plus and TTiaC is aiming for nats-minus.

Anybody in for writing another tournament at relatively short notice? Especially regular-minus or thereabouts -- if anybody's heading up a [location] Undergraduate Tournament then I'm probably available.

There's SUN being produced by a bunch of people from Florida, but at Fall-minus difficulty it doesn't exactly fill the niche that MUT covered.

EDIT: Also, forcing another regular difficulty tournament into January (especially since everybody is being reminded that it's being thrown together on short notice) seems like an odd allocation of quizbowl energy.

I'm saddened that MUT is gone, but as someone who has worked very hard on MUT for at least the last seven years, I desperately need a break. I hope teams are aware that we didn't just capriciously decide to end MUT production, but rather as Shan indicates, time crunch is a huge factor here.

I will also say the concept of MUT is not a secret formula; any group of dedicated people could really produce a MUT-like set.

EDIT: Also, forcing another regular difficulty tournament into January (especially since everybody is being reminded that it's being thrown together on short notice) seems like an odd allocation of quizbowl energy.

The amount of "quizbowl energy" is not a fixed resource to be distributed - it exists on account of people's willingness and motivation to write tournaments, which is a resource that is dependant on individuals. I wanted to write a tournament for this time slot, because that is what fit best into my personal plans and filled the gap in the schedule, and I assembled a team of people who were similarly willing. I also wanted to write a tougher tournament. Thankfully, the community was also cooperative in putting a number of packet submissions together for such an event.

MUT not happening is totally understandable, since Rob is committed to PACE, Andrew is doing NAQT, and Mike seems to be a bit worn out, to say nothing of the others. What I am concerned about is that collegiate quizbowl is not organically generating enough highly committed new writers/editors to produce (EDIT: head-edit) tournaments. Sure, quizbowl is probably fine with not having as many tournaments, but the point still stands.

For what it's worth, many of the past MUT writers had an interest in writing this year -- it's just that the amount that we'd be able to write, given our other commitments, adds up to far less than a full tournament. If someone is really driven to wrangle together a full below-regular tournament, you might be able to solicit contributions from some of us. But people outside of the Minnesota crew would have to do most of the writing and oversee the set production.

Ferlinghetti's Axis wrote: Also, forcing another regular difficulty tournament into January (especially since everybody is being reminded that it's being thrown together on short notice) seems like an odd allocation of quizbowl energy.

I meant for another tournament to be written for spring, MUT-style. Not January -- what with WAO, SCT, and to a lesser extent Regs and This Tournament is a Crime, January and February are full at this point. There's nothing much that I can see after that (in the space that MUT occupied especially) up until nationals. Unless you're critiquing WAO and not this hypothetical future event which I'm contemplating, in which case ignore me.

My initial impression is that science writers are probably in shortest supply at present. The chance of having a successful MUT-esque replacement would greatly increase with one or two. Not that any old bean can just start cranking out lit or history or whatever but those subjects have a much more forgiving learning curve.

Would it be possible for any of the material for the aborted / delayed tournaments (MCAT, MARTYNAS JABLONKIS, stuff from Minnesota and the rest of the world) to be combined into a unified spring tournament? I am curious whether, say, one event got all their science written but lacks history and the other has some history but lacks music, or if the decision to cancel was taken before writing properly started.

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:

EDIT: Also, forcing another regular difficulty tournament into January (especially since everybody is being reminded that it's being thrown together on short notice) seems like an odd allocation of quizbowl energy.

The amount of "quizbowl energy" is not a fixed resource to be distributed - it exists on account of people's willingness and motivation to write tournaments, which is a resource that is dependant on individuals. I wanted to write a tournament for this time slot, because that is what fit best into my personal plans and filled the gap in the schedule, and I assembled a team of people who were similarly willing. I also wanted to write a tougher tournament. Thankfully, the community was also cooperative in putting a number of packet submissions together for such an event.

MUT not happening is totally understandable, since Rob is committed to PACE, Andrew is doing NAQT, and Mike seems to be a bit worn out, to say nothing of the others. What I am concerned about is that collegiate quizbowl is not organically generating enough highly committed new writers/editors to produce (EDIT: head-edit) tournaments. Sure, quizbowl is probably fine with not having as many tournaments, but the point still stands.

I think it is important to also to remember that people like Mike Cheyne put a lot of work into high school questions. This also goes for college teams that produce high school housewrites such as Harvard's, Yale's, etc. The only way to remedy this problem is get collaboration between schools which would require better communication through, for example, a "collaborators wanted" thread. There are also a lot of great writers out there who haven't been "discovered" yet so to speak. If you get a few experienced editors (I'd say one for each major category of Lit, Science, History, and Fine Arts) and a bunch of newish but motivated writers, I think you could produce some good content.

I'm skipping WAO to TD our high school tournament and we are hosting ACF Regionals, so I'm missing two tournaments. I'm not too happy but things happen. Maybe next year we will have a ton of spring semester events.

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:

EDIT: Also, forcing another regular difficulty tournament into January (especially since everybody is being reminded that it's being thrown together on short notice) seems like an odd allocation of quizbowl energy.

The amount of "quizbowl energy" is not a fixed resource to be distributed - it exists on account of people's willingness and motivation to write tournaments, which is a resource that is dependant on individuals. I wanted to write a tournament for this time slot, because that is what fit best into my personal plans and filled the gap in the schedule, and I assembled a team of people who were similarly willing. I also wanted to write a tougher tournament. Thankfully, the community was also cooperative in putting a number of packet submissions together for such an event.

Look, I admire your willingness to write a bunch of quizbowl questions. I hate writing quizbowl questions, even though I enjoy writing in general. I don't feel that I get anything out of writing questions, but those who find it beneficial (for a variety of reasons I presume) are the backbone of the quizbowl community. Therefore, I get that these things are dependent on the willingness of people like you to write tournaments. I'm glad there's going to be another regular difficulty event in the spring.

Concerns like this one do cause me to raise my eyebrows:

RexSueciae wrote:So we've got WAO, Regs, SCT, This Tournament is a Crime, aaand nothing else until nationals.

That no tournaments are happening from about February 26-April 7 seems like an issue. This has happened mostly because a lot of projects have failed to materialize, which is regrettable but not really unprecedented. In an ideal world, there are so many events being written that we can't fit them all in the calendar. Since we don't live in that world, the best we can hope for is that enough events are written that there are no major gaps in the schedule. WAO is being held in January to fill that gap in the schedule, so that's an example of what I'm talking about. The timing of an event seems to be a negotiated effort between writers, hosts, and teams. I can't imagine WAO would be having mirrors in January if nobody wanted to host or play it. It seems like plenty of people are going to play WAO later this month, so there's probably no real problem in its timing.

But if there are so few events that a schedule gap is definitely going to exist, I wonder if it is worth discussing what priorities the community has. Do we value a January tournament more than a March tournament? I am not saying this is a good idea in this case, but It's not ludicrous to imagine a tournament being written at the best time for the writers and then played (later) at the best time for the players. My very mild take on the situation is to note concern over the seeming lack of communication about how tournaments are scheduled, despite that being a reason for this subforum's existence.

When Will announced the potential existence of the event, he opened with this question.

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: 1) Is this a problem worth addressing?

Nobody ever answered that question publicly. A few people responded publicly that they would submit packets for WAO. And now a few weeks later, people are raising concerns about the lack of events in March. The best solution for the future is to incentivize the production of more tournaments, but as long as there aren't quite enough tournaments to fill every timeslot, I think public input is the only way for writers to really know when they can best meet the needs of their consumers. I personally question the need for tournaments in January, but I also know there are people who disagree. What seems unanswered is which viewpoint seems to be more prevalent in the community. It doesn't seem like these conversations are being had, at least not publicly. My post was an attempt to kickstart that conversation, not poo-poo the existence of a tournament that people are working very hard on.

The only way to remedy this problem is get collaboration between schools which would require better communication through, for example, a "collaborators wanted" thread. There are also a lot of great writers out there who haven't been "discovered" yet so to speak. If you get a few experienced editors (I'd say one for each major category of Lit, Science, History, and Fine Arts) and a bunch of newish but motivated writers, I think you could produce some good content.

In the spirit of this, and what Vasa was suggesting, if someone is actually trying to make another regular difficulty-ish tournament happen around March/April, I would gladly help write the science (or history, if that's what's needed) for such a tournament.

Cambridge are writing a 14-packet set for the 11th of March that is intended to land around college regular difficulty. We'd be happy to offer it up for transatlantic mirrors if there's interest.

Caveat: some of the history and literature as currently written will probably not play well among American audiences and may require adaptation.