ACF rule change regarding high schools

[grapesmoker]

Attention all high school players and teams interested in participating in future ACF tournaments:

The ACF members recently took a vote, the result of which was the removal of both the writing exemptions and the special discounts granted to high school teams. What this means for you is this: if you would have been otherwise required to write a packet to attend an ACF event, but were exempt from doing so because of your high school status, that exemption no longer applies. You will have to write a packet like everyone else if you have played academic collegiate tournaments (of any kind) since before September 1, 2009. It also means that no special discounts will be given to teams solely on the basis of their high school status. Of course, high school teams will be afforded all the regular discounts (and assessed all the regular penalties) that apply to collegiate teams.

If you have any questions, I will be happy to try and answer them by email or in this thread.

[Charbroil]

As I asked in the other thread, what was the reasoning behind this?

[Cheynem]

I can't speak for ACF, but it makes perfect sense to me. The collegiate/high school game, for better or for worse (to quoth Jeannie Darcy, DON'T GET ME STARTED), has become more and more intersected. In effect, by giving a complete blank pass to high schoolers on writing packets, the way the game is structured now results in high schoolers getting SIX years of playing collegiate tournaments without writing packets and FOUR years of a discount. This is, at least in my opinion, an unfair advantage, especially for the already quite good HS programs that play a lot of collegiate tournaments and are perfectly capable of writing a packet.

[Charbroil]

...the way the game is structured now results in high schoolers getting SIX years of playing collegiate tournaments without writing packets and FOUR years of a discount. This is, at least in my opinion, an unfair advantage...

I can sort of see what you mean, in that it doesn't seem fair that an elite high school program like State College or Dorman, etc. didn't need to write a packet while some team with one person who played DII SCT three years ago accompanying three freshmen who've never played does. That said, I have to ask who this rule change benefits. As far as I'm aware, ACF tournaments are not encountering a shortage of submitted packets, so this rule seems like it would only make it more difficult for second tier high school teams to play ACF events without benefitting anyone*.

* I guess there is the benefit of preventing overcrowding of some ACF events, such as various recent ACF Falls, but I have to admit I'm curious why ACF considers it a problem that its tournaments are too popular.

Beyond that, this is more of a personal example, but what about the effects this policy will have on high schoolers who are not particularly intense players but who attended a collegiate event for whatever reason? For example, St. Charles Open this past summer was originally meant to be an ANGST mirror (until ANGST started metastasizing in difficulty towards a regular difficulty event). As you can see, most of our field was made up of high schoolers, most of whom weren't "elite" players even in the limited context of Missouri Quiz Bowl. If our tournament had been an ANGST mirror, all of them would have had to start writing packets immediately upon their entering collegiate Quiz Bowl, which I really think would be an issue if they join a team without a strong packet writing tradition (especially at the DII level), since it would have either made it more difficult for both those players and those teams to participate in any packet submission events (since most packet submission events base their policies on ACF). Thus, I don't see what the benefit is to a policy which doesn't seem to have any obvious benefit, but which could make it more difficult for casual players to get involved in the collegiate game.

[Cheynem]

Not to be a jerk, but ACF has no responsibility to attract second tier high schools or make it easy for them to attend. I look at it in this way--if you want to swim with the sharks, you have to learn to eat flesh. It's simply unfair in my opinion to "free ride" in the sense that you are given discounts and exemptions if you are continually going to take advantage of it. I doubt the ACF people are interested in screwing over some random insta-gib who blundered into attending a mirror of a collegiate tournament (this could be resolved through an appeal for an exemption), but let's face it--if you're going to mirror and run collegiate tournaments, why shouldn't you own up to the responsibilities faced by collegiate players?

[Frater Taciturnus]

also, the system as it existed overtaxed host teams by forcing them to provide staff for teams they were making negligible (or possibly even negative) amounts of money off providing a tournament for.

[grapesmoker]

I can sort of see what you mean, in that it doesn't seem fair that an elite high school program like State College or Dorman, etc. didn't need to write a packet while some team with one person who played DII SCT three years ago accompanying three freshmen who've never played does. That said, I have to ask who this rule change benefits. As far as I'm aware, ACF tournaments are not encountering a shortage of submitted packets, so this rule seems like it would only make it more difficult for second tier high school teams to play ACF events without benefitting anyone.

As Mike already pointed out, ACF is not in the business of being accessible to second-tier high school teams, who, anyway, wouldn't be affected by this rule anyway because by and large, second-tier high school teams don't play college tournaments.

I guess there is the benefit of preventing overcrowding of some ACF events, such as various recent ACF Falls, but I have to admit I'm curious why ACF considers it a problem that its tournaments are too popular.

I don't consider popularity a problem; in fact, it is precisely because ACF events are increasing in popularity that we're moving to normalizing requirements across the board. The bottom line is: you want to play college quizbowl, you follow the college quizbowl rules. For the teams that are dedicated enough to be attending ACF events in the first place, this should not be a problem.

Beyond that, this is more of a personal example, but what about the effects this policy will have on high schoolers who are not particularly intense players but who attended a collegiate event for whatever reason? For example, St. Charles Open this past summer was originally meant to be an ANGST mirror (until ANGST started metastasizing in difficulty towards a regular difficulty event). As you can see, most of our field was made up of high schoolers, most of whom weren't "elite" players even in the limited context of Missouri Quiz Bowl. If our tournament had been an ANGST mirror, all of them would have had to start writing packets immediately upon their entering collegiate Quiz Bowl, which I really think would be an issue if they join a team without a strong packet writing tradition (especially at the DII level), since it would have either made it more difficult for both those players and those teams to participate in any packet submission events (since most packet submission events base their policies on ACF). Thus, I don't see what the benefit is to a policy which doesn't seem to have any obvious benefit, but which could make it more difficult for casual players to get involved in the collegiate game.

That's why individual exemptions exist. I can assure you that we are reasonable people and have no interest in punishing inexperienced teams that mistakenly blundered into a collegiate event.

As for the benefit, it benefits ACF because we get more packets, and it benefits the schools because they have to write. That's how these things work.

[grapesmoker]

also, the system as it existed overtaxed host teams by forcing them to provide staff for teams they were making negligible (or possibly even negative) amounts of money off providing a tournament for.

This is also true and was basically the rationale for eliminating the discount. That's basically orthogonal to the packet-writing question.

[Ethnic history of the Vilnius region]

Let me just make sure I have this right: does this rule change require a college team to write a packet if one of its players played in a collegiate event of any kind before 9/1/09 when said player was a high schooler?

[grapesmoker]

Let me just make sure I have this right: does this rule change require a college team to write a packet if one of its players played in a collegiate event of any kind before 9/1/09 when said player was a high schooler?

That is correct.

[Charbroil]

As Mike already pointed out, ACF is not in the business of being accessible to second-tier high school teams, who, anyway, wouldn't be affected by this rule anyway because by and large, second-tier high school teams don't play college tournaments.

When I say "second tier," I mean teams not in the top 15 or top 20, but in the top 50 or 60. A significant number of those teams attend ACF Fall.

I don't consider popularity a problem; in fact, it is precisely because ACF events are increasing in popularity that we're moving to normalizing requirements across the board. The bottom line is: you want to play college quizbowl, you follow the college quizbowl rules. For the teams that are dedicated enough to be attending ACF events in the first place, this should not be a problem.

I have to admit, I don't understand this emphasis on telling high school teams to follow college quizbowl rules when, as I've noted, I don't see any actual benefit to doing so*. If this policy served no other purpose, would you still argue that it should be implemented even if it would cause fewer high school teams to attend ACF tournaments?

*I know that you mentioned the benefits of this policy--I'll address that in a moment.

That's why individual exemptions exist. I can assure you that we are reasonable people and have no interest in punishing inexperienced teams that mistakenly blundered into a collegiate event.

I actually didn't know that ACF gives out exemptions for packets. That said, I would argue that the people most likely to be affected by this policy (people who played a collegiate event in high school without being high caliber high school players) are probably also most likely not to be as familiar with the circuit, and thus are also fairly likely not to know about and/or ask about exemptions.

As for the benefit, it benefits ACF because we get more packets, and it benefits the schools because they have to write. That's how these things work.

Will this really make it much easier for ACF to produce its tournaments because there's currently a dearth of packets? If so, I withdraw all of my objections.

As for benefiting the schools because they have to write, I think more high school teams are going to be kept from playing ACF tournaments than are going to decide to start writing packets, but that's just conjecture.

[ether a go-go]

I don't think this is a big deal. The quality of the high school circuit now is at the point that a Top 60 team has to take quizbowl pretty seriously to get that good. If a high school team that isn't exempted doesn't want to write a packet, then they can go play other tournaments.

A few years ago, the exemption made sense because some people wanted to show that it was possible for high school teams to play college events, there were very few examples of high school programs producing decent questions at the college level, and some circuit events had small fields. Quizbowl evolves, and rules should evolve so that they make sense in the current era.

This could be a good stepping stone. Writing a single packet is a reasonable amount of work to get into the habit of writing questions, and hopefully there will be some teams that enjoy the experience and are inspired to either contribute to other tournaments or produce their own. Perhaps someday we'll see the idea of packet submission high school events take off.

[grapesmoker]

When I say "second tier," I mean teams not in the top 15 or top 20, but in the top 50 or 60. A significant number of those teams attend ACF Fall.

And I tell you again, that if those teams have been attending college tournaments since September 2009, then we deem them competent enough to write a packet if they wish to continue playing college tournaments. Anyway, have 60 high school teams ever turned out for any ACF event? I take that number to be more like 10, and every high school team I've ever seen play at an ACF event is more than capable of writing.

I have to admit, I don't understand this emphasis on telling high school teams to follow college quizbowl rules when, as I've noted, I don't see any actual benefit to doing so*. If this policy served no other purpose, would you still argue that it should be implemented even if it would cause fewer high school teams to attend ACF tournaments?

*I know that you mentioned the benefits of this policy--I'll address that in a moment.

The fact that you don't see any benefit from doing so is, as my dad would say, a fact from your biography. Everyone at ACF, including people with extensive involvement in the high school circuit, was supportive of this policy. The bottom line is that if a high school team has been playing college tournaments for a while, we encourage them to see themselves as participants in the college circuit, rather than as consumers of the product that the college circuit generates. I firmly believe that this will lead to a stronger circuit in the long run. A few years ago, this was not a feasible option (and the question of high schools playing ACF tournaments hadn't even come up); now, it is a viable option, so we're doing it. For some time, high school teams were a special case and now that we think they can hold their own against collegiate competition, they have to follow the same rules. Simple as that.

I actually didn't know that ACF gives out exemptions for packets. That said, I would argue that the people most likely to be affected by this policy (people who played a collegiate event in high school without being high caliber high school players) are probably also most likely not to be as familiar with the circuit, and thus are also fairly likely not to know about and/or ask about exemptions.

ACF editors have always had the power to make exceptions if they thought it in the best interests of the tournament. Anyway, this argument strikes me as totally incoherent. So we're postulating some hypothetical team that wants to play an ACF tournament, and yet is so unfamiliar with ACF that it doesn't know that ACF has editors that have the power to grant exemptions even though it says that they can do so on the ACF webpage? Wake me up when that happens.

Will this really make it much easier for ACF to produce its tournaments because there's currently a dearth of packets? If so, I withdraw all of my objections.

Will the number of extra packets lighten the work of ACF editors substantially? I would guess that it would not. That's just not how tournament editing works, which you know if you've edited any kind of sizable packet-submission event. However, additional submissions do help because packets can be cross-combined across sites, which means that you can often plug a hole in one packet with a good question from another. That's worth something in and of itself.

More importantly, I want to emphasize, as I did above, the need for all participants in the college game to see themselves as participants and not passive consumers of a product. I think it will be very beneficial for high school students to get involved in the process of contributing to the circuit in a way that only playing tournaments is not.

As for benefiting the schools because they have to write, I think more high school teams are going to be kept from playing ACF tournaments than are going to decide to start writing packets, but that's just conjecture.

Again, ACF does not have the goal of being accessible to every high school team. High school teams that want to play high school tournaments have, in this blessed day and age, a multitude of avenues available to them for doing so. High school teams that want to play college tournaments on an equal footing with college teams will need to start contributing to the game in the same way that college teams do. If this policy results in fewer teams attending because a team that finishes around 60th place at HSNCT doesn't want to write a packet, that's fine with us; those teams, I am guessing, were never likely to attend an ACF event anyway. On the other hand, I've seen the dedication and work ethic of the top teams, and I am confident that this requirement will be no deterrent for them.

As Mike Cheyne said, if you want to swim with the sharks, learn to eat flesh.

[Charbroil]

I overlooked the fact that high school teams would still be eligible for the exemption for teams with less than two years of collegiate Quiz Bowl experience in my criticisms. I apologize.

[grapesmoker]

I overlooked the fact that high school teams would still be eligible for the exemption for teams with less than two years of collegiate Quiz Bowl experience in my criticisms. I apologize.

That has always been the rule for college teams so long as there have been ACF rules. I just want to clarify that this does not place any additional burden on any high school team beyond what is required of college teams playing ACF events.

[Black-throated Antshrike]

Charbroil wrote:
As for benefiting the schools because they have to write, I think more high school teams are going to be kept from playing ACF tournaments than are going to decide to start writing packets, but that's just conjecture.

I know that this hasn't affected my team, (namely we haven't had the chance to play ACF other than in practice) but I don't see why that would detract that many high school teams. I personally write questions and enjoy it, as do some of my teammates. I believe that those high schools that would attend ACF events are familiar enough with the caliber of questions to be expected. Plus, I'm sure the ACF editors would be more than willing to provide some guidelines as to what is a good method for writing questions.*

*I am making an assumption here due to the fact that NAQT does this with their writers.

[grapesmoker]

Plus, I'm sure the ACF editors would be more than willing to provide some guidelines as to what is a good method for writing questions.

We already do this. You can find a few documents on question-writing on the ACF website under the "Documents" heading.

[DumbJaques]

I for one welcome all new flesh-eating provisions to the ACF constitution.*

*Beware policy changes concerning beard-eating.

Seriously guys, if a group of "second-tier" high school players attends ACF events for three years, guess what? It's not because they sat down and said "wow, Regionals is $5 cheaper than IS-100A, time to get my Ortega y Gasset on!" It's because they're sufficiently hardcore, and the entire point of discounts is to help foster growth among teams that aren't yet. I also think this whole "second-tier" business is nonsense to begin with, because if you've been forging a squad in the fires of the collegiate circuit for two years, you're not going to stay second-tier for very long.

[Kyle]

There's only one tiny, almost inconsequential problem that I can see with the new requirement, but I want to mention it here so that later, when it comes up, I might be able to take credit for having foreseen it. There are a couple of universities that start late. Both Stanford and the University of Washington, for example, start after the first packet submission deadline. Oxford (not that we get huge numbers of experienced American quizbowlers as undergraduates, although we did get Alison) starts the same week as the no-penalty deadline. If you're a high schooler who has been going to ACF tournaments and is thus already required to write packets even before you start college, then there is some chance that you're going to have to begin working on your ACF Fall packet before you meet your teammates. And my experience from having run Harvard's team for two years is that even the very most accomplished high school quizbowl players are not terribly proactive about actually contacting their future teammates over the summer.*** Perhaps this rule change will remind them that they need to be on top of it?

*** Although I found one exception. Always-eager Shady Side senior Andy Watkins sent me an email in May 2007, more than three months before he started college, with some tossups he had written, including one on the Ob River, along with the note that "I just got back from NAQT nationals, and the studying marathon that preceded it left me entirely unable to judge the difficulty of what I'm seeing. At this point, for all I know, the Ob should be as familiar as Hamlet."

[jonpin]

As Mike already pointed out, ACF is not in the business of being accessible to second-tier high school teams, who, anyway, wouldn't be affected by this rule anyway because by and large, second-tier high school teams don't play college tournaments.

When I say "second tier," I mean teams not in the top 15 or top 20, but in the top 50 or 60. A significant number of those teams attend ACF Fall.

This may have been said already, but were I to have taken my A-team to ACF Fall this month, not one of them would have to write a packet before entering college. High school seniors who attend ACF Fall will now need to start writing by sophomore year of college; juniors will now have to write as college freshmen.
If you've attended ACF Fall twice, there's no good reason for you not to contribute a packet.

Yes there are situations where a team of three seniors and a really good sophomore will attend, and two years down the road that young student will now have to write a packet with students who haven't attended ACF Fall in the past.

[Mechanical Beasts]

*** Although I found one exception. Always-eager Shady Side senior Andy Watkins sent me an email in May 2007, more than three months before he started college, with some tossups he had written, including one on the Ob River, along with the note that "I just got back from NAQT nationals, and the studying marathon that preceded it left me entirely unable to judge the difficulty of what I'm seeing. At this point, for all I know, the Ob should be as familiar as Hamlet."

Those were for HFT II!

I shouldn't be saying that in public, huh?

And more importantly, I should mention that my Ob judgement was largely colored by my Dynamic Planet: Rivers and Lakes experience. I recall creating the mnemonic for the longest rivers of the fictional city of "Nay-My-Hop, CA"; the Ob was seventh, beating out the Parana. Kyle swiftly explained to me why the Ob was a terribly boring river.

[Charbroil]

I also think this whole "second-tier" business is nonsense to begin with, because if you've been forging a squad in the fires of the collegiate circuit for two years, you're not going to stay second-tier for very long.

As the major public objector to this policy, I'd like to mention again that I overlooked the fact that you'd still have had to attend collegiate events for the past two years to be affected by this policy.