NY/NJ Date Claims 2011-2012

[Edward Powers]

Date Claims for 2011-2012:

September 10:
September 17:
September 24:Maryland Fall Tournament @ College Park, Md. (on IS 107)

October 1:
October 8:Yom Kippur; PHSAT (on IS 107)@ Princeton University; OLEFIN @ TJHS, Alexandria, Va.
October 15:
October 22: Kellenberg's LIFT XI @ Uniondale, LI (on IS 109); Yale's FAcT @ New Haven, Ct.(on IS 110A)
October 29:Hunter College HS Fall Novice @ HCHS, NY City; MAGNI @ Brown, Providence, RI
October 30: (Sunday) Bergen Academies Middle School Tournament, Hackensack NJ (Rescheduled to January 29th due to snow))

November 5: ACF Fall @ Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
November 12:Harvard's Annual HFT
November 19:
November 26:Thanksgiving Weekend

December 3:
December 10:NHBB Regional Competition in Westchester (Using a 'B' Set)
December 17:Saint Joe's Pre-Christmas Tournament (Using Dunbar's DAFT III Set) @ SJHS, Metuchen, NJ
December 24: Christmas Eve
December 31:New Year's Eve

January 7:The XVIIIth Hills West Invitational @ Half Hollow Hills West, Dix Hillls L.I. (On NAQT Set 112A)
January 14:
January 21:The Garden State Academic Competition (A Mirror of Maggie Walker's GSAC XIX) @ St. Joe's in Metuchen, NJ
January 28:
January 29: (Sunday) Bergen Academies Middle School Tournament, BAJAC, on Set MS-02 (Rescheduled from October 30)

February 4:NHBB Northern New Jersey Regional @ Ridgewood High School (using a 'B' Set)
February 11: Connecticut NHBB @ Yale, New Haven ( using a "C" Set); Delaware Spring @ Wilmington Charter, DE (Sets 113 Varsity/110 A JV)
February 12: (Sunday) The GSAC @ Saint Joe's, Metuchen (Rescheduled from 1/21/12 on Set GSAC XIX by Maggie Walker)
February 18:Presidents Day Week Winter Break Begins, ending on the 26th of February
February 25:NJ NHBB STATES @ Princeton (using an 'A' Set)

March 3: Prison Bowl IV (Hunter's Set) @ Hunter College HS, NYC, NY; also, BATE (On NAQT Set 113) @ Bloomfield, NJ
March 10:Blue Hen @ University of Delaware (On NAQT Set 115)
March 11: ( A Sunday) The Stuyvesant Academic Tournament ( On NAQT 108A?) Both the date and the set are tentative.
March 17:NHBB's Long Island Tournament @ Hills West (on a C Set); also The JBMT at Millburn, NJ (Confirmed on NAQT Set IS 111)
March 24:Yale's BHSAT@ New Haven, Ct.
March 31:BOAT IV, Mirroring LIST II @ BCA in Hackensack, NJ

April 7:Easter
April 14:NJ NAQT States @ Princeton (Set IS 116); also, The Metro-NYC NAQT States @ Scarsdale HS (Set IS 116)
April 21:KPAQT II @ Kings Park HS, LI (NAQT Set 114A); also, Caesar Rodney Rider Bowl III @ Camden, Delaware
April 28 & 29: The NHBB National Championships, Washington DC; also on April 28th: Colonia's Annual CAAC @ Colonia HS

May 5:Wiss-Wash @ Wissahickon HS (a Mirror of WUHSAC)
May 12:
May 19:CAT (On IS 115 & MSNCT-12) @ Chatham HS, Chatham, NJ
May 25-27:NAQT'S HSNCT @ The Hyatt Regency Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia

June 9-10:PACE'S NSC @ Washington University, Saint Louis, Missouri
June 16-17: HSAPQ'S NASAT @ The Ohio State University, Columbus Ohio

Whenever I see a local date claim on the hsquizbowl tournament announcement site, or, whenever someone claims a date on this thread, I will post it for the 2011-2012 season. I will also post date claims for major Regional & National Tournaments that might be of interest in the NY/NJ and broader Tri-State region.

Color Code---Stealthily Plagiarized on June 24th, 2011 from the DC/MD/VA Date Claim Thread (imitation being, as they say, the highest form of flattery):

Black: Regular & Local Tournamens;
Green: Tournaments of Interest Beyond The NY/NJ Region
Blue: National Tournaments
Orange: Important Non-Tournament Information

[Nun's puffs]

It may be of use to Kellenberg to say that the PSAT is on October 15th.

[BroNi]

Put LIFT XI @ Kellenberg tentatively on Oct. 22.

[Edward Powers]

Brother Nigel,

I have placed LIFT XI on the calendar as you requested; I will keep it tentative until informed otherwise.

[Edward Powers]

I have been in talks with Maggie Walker to host their outstanding GSAC Set again for next year here in the Northeast Region, so I have tentatively placed this mirror of GSAC XIX on next year's calendar pending final word from MWGS.

[ChathamNJ]

Thanks for doing this, Ed.

1) CAT will be held on May 19.

2) If all the NJ coaches who read this board (I know there aren't many) could respond with the dates of their spring break, we might be in a position to request a State Championship date that works for as many of us as possible instead of waiting for Princeton, Rutgers, or someone else to offer a date that works with them. This is the kind of effort I might have spearheaded a year or two ago, but now I'm just gonna toss it out there and see if anyone grabs it.

That said, our spring break is April 2-6, so the "undesirable" Saturdays for us are 3/31 and 4/7.

[RyuAqua]

An entirely unofficial heads-up: While this isn't exactly "NY/NJ," Yale's BHSAT will be happening again in New Haven, Connecticut next year, presumably on its traditional date of the last Saturday in March. We're looking to get a much greater presence from the NYC Metro area as well as New Jersey next year, so do consider joining us!

More info on FAcT, our fall tournament, should be coming soon as well. We're looking at moving it earlier next year, to September.

[Edward Powers]

Steve,

Glad to do it.

Our Spring break goes from April 5-April 15, so April 7th is not good for us.

And Matt, Yale is surely in the Tri-State Region and both Yale's FAcT & BHSAT will be placed on the calendar. You'll notice that I've already tentatively claimed the last Saturday in March for your BHSAT, and as soon as you know a firm date for FAcT I will place it on the schedule as well. Hopefully more NY/NJ teams can compete in these tournaments next year.

[Nun's puffs]

Does anyone know when the New York Science Olympiad is? If the people at KP want to run KPAQT around the same time as last year (as of now I don't know), they'll definitely want to avoid that date.
Also, Kings Park's spring break is the same time as St. Joseph's.

[lchen]

Hunter College High School will host Prison Bowl V on March 3, and a tournament (set TBD) on October 29.

EDIT: Changed date of fall tournament.

[Edward Powers]

Having just received permission from my Administration to do so, I have moved our December date claim from the 3rd to the 17th due to the conflict with SAT testing on the 3rd. Hopefully this new date will be a better date for most potential competitors. Now to get a great question Set! HSAPQ, NAQT or even a great house-written Set are all options being contemplated right now.

Of course if Maggie Walker wishes, we could mirror its GSAC Set on this December date and acquire a different Set for March 17th, our current tentative date claim for GSAC XIX.

Any thoughts from anyone out there about these possible options? Any preferences?

[Edward Powers]

An FYI:

Hunter College High School has changed its Fall date claim, moving it firmly to October 29.

[Nun's puffs]

How about holding a Fall Novice mirror for that tournament, since there wasn't one last year?

[Edward Powers]

Which Fall Novice Set are you suggesting that we mirror? My guess is that it is NOT ACF Fall (a collegiate packet largely designed to attract collegiate novices). So, if NOT ACF Fall, then did I miss one of which you are aware? If so, where might I find its authors so I can inquire if they will be writing one next year?

[Nun's puffs]

The Fall Novice I refer to is this one: http://www.quizbowlpackets.com/archive/2010FNT/
Based on this thread I assume a 2011 edition will be written, and thus the thread's creator is who you would contact: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=11430

[Edward Powers]

Rob,

Do you also know which tournaments used this set this year? Further, was this Set also known as the VCU/Vanderbilt Set, or am I confusing two distinct sets? I ask because I thought I stayed fairly abreast of events on this site, but I seem to have completely missed this set. So---did it go by another name like "VCU/VANDY"? Any help you can give would be appreciated.

[Madagascar Serpent Eagle]

Rob,

Do you also know which tournaments used this set this year? Further, was this Set also known as the VCU/Vanderbilt Set, or am I confusing two distinct sets? I ask because I thought I stayed fairly abreast of events on this site, but I seem to have completely missed this set. So---did it go by another name like "VCU/VANDY"? Any help you can give would be appreciated.

No, that one was different. It was intended to be a regular difficulty high school set. The Fall Novice Tournament (FNT) is specifically targeted to newer programs and players and is free to mirror.

[Edward Powers]

Joe,

Thanks.

But do you know of any HS tournaments that used the FNT Set so I could see how well it played across the broad range of teams in each field of teams that played it?

[Nun's puffs]

The topic for the 2010 Fall Novice set, which includes a list of tournaments that used it, is here: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=10267
Northwestern and Thomas Jefferson appear to be the largest mirrors.

[urbanpf]

Ed,

We're looking to revive the Joseph Bookstaber Memorial Academic Tournament as an NAQT format event.
TENTATIVE DATE UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE: Saturday, November 19, 2011

Peter

[Edward Powers]

Peter,

It has been posted as a tentative NAQT event, as per your request.

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

A few NHBB related points:
We will be running at least two, likely 3 distinct sets of questions next year. Our A set is our longest and most challenging. We will also have a B set and likely a C set. All sets will have their own JV versions too. All sets will also be written by HSAPQ. That said, the following two dates are certain:
Dec 9: Westchester County NHBB Regional - White Plains HS, White Plains, NY - B set
Apr 28-29: NHBB Nationals in DC

In the coming weeks, we will look to line up dates for tournaments at Half Hollow Hills on Long Island (B set), Columbia University on a Sunday (C set), Ridgewood, NJ (C set), Princeton (A set), and CT (A set, hopefully at Yale). Teams are not limited by geography; i.e. Long Island teams can play in NJ and CT, and vice versa, though of course you can only play each set once. We're looking at about 60 regionals all told next year and would like to push the 200 team mark at a vastly improved NHBB Nationals in DC.

[RyuAqua]

d CT (A set, hopefully at Yale).

So this is the second time I've seen a post from you to this effect before anyone involved with Yale quizbowl has gotten a communication from NHB asking if we are actually willing or able to host this. I found it bizarre both times that you expressed your desire to host a tournament with us publicly before you expressed anything to, well, us.

I also question the need for six separate History Bowl sets. Given that many quizbowl circuits are already facing the overcrowding of regular tournaments, and given that a team only really needs to play one qualifier to determine whether it gets to the national finals, it doesn't make sense to me for NHB and its actual writing crew, HSAPQ, to expend tons of effort writing superfluous sets that crowd out regular tournaments just so that individual teams are able to play History Bowl three times. All you should really need is one Varsity set and one JV set, which should regardless be of the same difficulty for every qualifier so that the merits and seeding of each division's teams are comparable across all sites in the country. If one Varsity set and one JV set are written pyramidally, on topics important to high school-age history enthusiasts and students alike, the competition is a much smaller writing burden; the combination of pyramidality and answerability means by definition that a set is usable in regions of differing caliber. (Besides, if I were a player, I'd find it more than a little condescending if NHB decided to give my region the "B" or "C" set - it sends a pretty clear message that the teams playing those sets "aren't good enough" for the real deal, but should nonetheless feel ready to qualify for a national tournament costing hundreds of dollars.)

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

d CT (A set, hopefully at Yale).

So this is the second time I've seen a post from you to this effect before anyone involved with Yale quizbowl has gotten a communication from NHB asking if we are actually willing or able to host this. I found it bizarre both times that you expressed your desire to host a tournament with us publicly before you expressed anything to, well, us.

I also question the need for six separate History Bowl sets. Given that many quizbowl circuits are already facing the overcrowding of regular tournaments, and given that a team only really needs to play one qualifier to determine whether it gets to the national finals, it doesn't make sense to me for NHB and its actual writing crew, HSAPQ, to expend tons of effort writing superfluous sets that crowd out regular tournaments just so that individual teams are able to play History Bowl three times. All you should really need is one Varsity set and one JV set, which should regardless be of the same difficulty for every qualifier so that the merits and seeding of each division's teams are comparable across all sites in the country. If one Varsity set and one JV set are written pyramidally, on topics important to high school-age history enthusiasts and students alike, the competition is a much smaller writing burden; the combination of pyramidality and answerability means by definition that a set is usable in regions of differing caliber. (Besides, if I were a player, I'd find it more than a little condescending if NHB decided to give my region the "B" or "C" set - it sends a pretty clear message that the teams playing those sets "aren't good enough" for the real deal, but should nonetheless feel ready to qualify for a national tournament costing hundreds of dollars.)

Not to derail this thread, but in response to your two points: I had talked with a number of people on Yale's team this past year, and they had expressed interest in hosting an NHBB regional. At the time, we had a CT host, but they backed out rather late in the process, so it wasn't possible for this past year. For next year, Danila had indicated that it might work out. In any case, I'll be in touch soon, if he or anyone at Yale might be interested in making that a possibility.
As for six separate History Bowl sets: this isn't as daft as it sounds. For starters, the JV versions are 80-90% the same as the varsity sets, just with some of the hardest answer lines removed to make it a little more accessible. So really, it's just three. And yes, we definitely need three sets. After having run 32 tournaments around the country this year, regions vary wildly in what constitutes a fun tournament. The questions we used in DC, for example, would not have been as much fun for most other regions, as the DC circuit, is along with IL one of the two strongest in the country. If I cut back on length of questions or difficulty, I'll hear about it on the boards. But I can't just cater to the top 100 teams in the country, and this goes for attracting teams to Nationals too. Do you really think it's condescending for NAQT to have A sets versus IS sets? It's the same exact deal, just with an extra set to try and appeal to new teams or less-developed circuits in particular. As for overcrowding, first, please note that we are not at all limited to the standard circuit teams. The NHBB is really only viable if we bring in many new schools. Over 100 schools played one of their first ever qb-style events through us this past year. So far from overcrowding, it's vital that we continue to expand the circuit; if we don't, the NHBB doesn't fly and I go back to doing something else. If teams don't want to go to NHBB events, no one's forcing them too, of course. But if they so choose to, then, well, is that really a bad thing? Teams will go to tournaments they like, and that's the way it should be. And after having moderated at over 20 different standard qb events this year, I think everyone knows that I'm all for promoting everyone else's tournaments too and helping qb throughout the country succeed and grow.
Finally, as for questions, I think HSAPQ is happy to have our business, and as many of their writers are qb enthusiasts looking for jobs writing questions, I don't think burden is the right word. And as far as seeding for our Nationals goes, it's honestly not that difficult to piece together what different scores mean on different sets. While this year's inaugural NHBB Nationals was far from perfect, nobody complained about the seeding process, and next year, with more results, this will only get easier.

[RyuAqua]

Not to derail this thread, but in response to your two points: I had talked with a number of people on Yale's team this past year, and they had expressed interest in hosting an NHBB regional. At the time, we had a CT host, but they backed out rather late in the process, so it wasn't possible for this past year. For next year, Danila had indicated that it might work out. In any case, I'll be in touch soon, if he or anyone at Yale might be interested in making that a possibility.

Okay. I was unaware (as was John last time we talked about the first post, I think) that this exchange had occurred. Feel free to e-mail as intended about ensuring that there is a Connecticut site (keeping in mind that Danila has graduated as of a few days ago - congrats Danila!)

I have some thoughts about (and some disagreements with) the previous posts about NHB and its plans for next year. Here they are.

As for six separate History Bowl sets: this isn't as daft as it sounds. For starters, the JV versions are 80-90% the same as the varsity sets, just with some of the hardest answer lines removed to make it a little more accessible. So really, it's just three.

If you are running two divisions of one event, this is probably the best and most efficient way to write them; no problems here. Going on:

And yes, we definitely need three sets. After having run 32 tournaments around the country this year, regions vary wildly in what constitutes a fun tournament. The questions we used in DC, for example, would not have been as much fun for most other regions, as the DC circuit, is along with IL one of the two strongest in the country. If I cut back on length of questions or difficulty, I'll hear about it on the boards. But I can't just cater to the top 100 teams in the country, and this goes for attracting teams to Nationals too.

I dispute the idea that good sets must be of different difficulties to match the strength of their relative circuits. If the tossups are pyramidal, the team-specific questions test for different gradations of knowledge, and answers are written with an eye to relevance and accessibility for young history enthusiasts and high school students – which, if “history” is replaced with “knowledge,” should serve as an approximate definition of what “good sets” of quizbowl questions are – then teams who ought to make it to Nationals should prove themselves decently able to answer the questions needed to make the cutoff in any field. To do otherwise, and let current circuit strength dictate which region gets what difficulty grade, is not only potentially condescending, as I said earlier, but removes the chance for teams which are new to academic competition to really show what they know at the outset. Writing harder sets for better circuits also perpetuates the fallacy that “regular” high school difficulty is somehow too easy for the best teams or that they somehow “need more” because they’re very good, and could leave non-elite teams in those regions feeling out in the cold as a result.

Even if you do go ahead with the three-set plan which I oppose, I don’t see the JV field deriving any benefit from having an upper-level JV set just because the Varsity field is getting more difficult material. Circuit strength is largely a matter of how many elite teams there are in an area, which doesn’t necessarily trickle down to the other teams that fill out fields (or to those elite teams’ younger/less experienced players); as such, there’s no need to make JV-A harder than JV-B and those sets should be regularized across all fields.

As an aside: Vendors such as NAQT write their invitational sets with an eye to the entirety of the national field without having to write sets at four to six discrete difficulty levels; their success at getting literally hundreds of teams every year to play at two constant difficulty levels for regular and introductory fields respectively, even with massive regional differences, shows me that more specific fine-tuning is not necessary. Speaking of which…

Do you really think it's condescending for NAQT to have A sets versus IS sets? It's the same exact deal, just with an extra set to try and appeal to new teams or less-developed circuits in particular.

There’s a difference in kind here that I don’t think this argument acknowledges. Regular-season NAQT has two discrete difficulties, for which multiple sets a year are produced, so that teams can play an entire season at the difficulty level(s) appropriate to them. So it makes sense for a region’s NAQT season to have IS tournaments throughout the year for regular tournaments, accompanied by A-sets for introductory tournaments. At least as far as I was aware, History Bowl is a competition that doesn’t require a season’s worth of tournaments; it therefore doesn’t make much sense to (a) create more tournaments or (b) have them at staggered difficulty levels so that teams at a given level aren’t finding themselves at a different one just because they wanted to play more History Bowl events during a year.

And for the sake of full disclosure, having played three HSNCTs and read a recent (much improved and actually easier) A-set for FAcT, I don’t believe teams that qualify for HSNCT on an A-set performance alone are prepared for the Nationals competition that NAQT offers. If there’s a region where A-sets are the only material NAQT deems appropriate for all teams, I wouldn’t begrudge NAQT for using that set there, but also take some issue with encouraging teams from that region to go to Nationals before they’ve played the IS-sets and studied the material to get them ready. I don’t think there are any regions where the region has had ONLY A-sets given to it in the past year, denying teams the chance to play regular-difficulty quizbowl outright; if there were, feel free to apply my arguments about condescension to NAQT as well.

Furthermore, if all teams in a region are significantly new or below Nationals caliber, is it possible that every team in that region play JV and compete in that division (which NAQT A-sets can’t lead to in high school the way your JV setup does) for your national? You could calibrate the JV rules so that they are something like the NAQT DI/DII collegiate rule to this effect, i.e. “Any player who is below 11th grade or equivalent, OR has not played History Bowl during the past season, shall be eligible for his/her school’s JV team”; this would save the labor required to make an easier Varsity-level set.

As for overcrowding, first, please note that we are not at all limited to the standard circuit teams. The NHBB is really only viable if we bring in many new schools. Over 100 schools played one of their first ever qb-style events through us this past year. So far from overcrowding, it's vital that we continue to expand the circuit; if we don't, the NHBB doesn't fly and I go back to doing something else. If teams don't want to go to NHBB events, no one's forcing them too, of course. But if they so choose to, then, well, is that really a bad thing? Teams will go to tournaments they like, and that's the way it should be. And after having moderated at over 20 different standard qb events this year, I think everyone knows that I'm all for promoting everyone else's tournaments too and helping qb throughout the country succeed and grow.

You have done a great job recruiting altogether-new teams to your event, and I look forward to seeing the benefit that quizbowl as a whole receives from altogether new teams joining the ranks of buzzer-wielders. I’m glad that such recruiting happened, but I don’t think History Bowl really helps the broader quizbowl circuit grow if it begins to take up to three dates in each region rather than up to one (plus one for Nationals). You guys managed to help mitigate this issue last year by using weekdays and Sundays often; I think it will be necessary to do even more of this if the potential conflicts increase.

Finally, as for questions, I think HSAPQ is happy to have our business, and as many of their writers are qb enthusiasts looking for jobs writing questions, I don't think burden is the right word.

This seems like a needlessly optimistic view of how sets are actually produced. Writing an entire set of quizbowl questions (or two, or three) is no trivial matter, and there isn’t exactly a surplus of “qb enthusiasts” who are both willing and able (after considerations such as schoolwork, their own playing careers, non-quizbowl pursuits and the work needed to produce college tournaments) to help write high school sets. I don’t think it’s a trade secret that a huge number of quizbowl sets are finished on a last-minute basis, with a large amount of actual question production done as late as the night before their due date by a few individuals. A lot of this chalks up to the fact that writing questions is a serious, non-trivial effort – a rewarding effort that’s enjoyable for some, more duty-like/burdensome to others – and enthusiasm doesn’t necessarily complete quality sets in a timely manner. I don’t speak for HSAPQ as I’m not an official writer, but I find it hard to believe that the addition of three History Bowl sets plus the JV-ification process for all three is so easy to handwave, and I’m not as trusting in the enthusiasm of quizbowl players as a motor for getting things done – at least not after that company already has two tournament sets, 32 packets of VHSL, VHSL States, the History Bowl finals, NASAT, and custom orders on its plate. And I worry that adding unnecessary sets to that will discourage, rather than encourage, the new writers that both vendors absolutely need to recruit and maintain without causing burnout.

Here’s an example: take a look at me. I’m very interested in doing more writing for high school vendors next year, precisely because the need for new writers is so high and the burden on current writers is practically unsustainable. However, I’m also committed to a large share in at least two large events (a regular collegiate one in the fall, BHSAT XXI in the spring) and am unsure that I’d be able to contribute meaningfully to either vendor’s current level of output next year, to say nothing of possible increases.

It’d be much easier to recruit writers for History Bowl if your organization could say something like “We need 10* packets for our qualifying set, 16* packets for Nationals, and someone to JV-ify both sets,” rather than asking for [3(10) + 16 = ] 46* off the bat and trusting that the extra thousand questions will get done; every packet needed is a packet that some real people are going to have to put time and effort into writing. If the writing total is much greater than one qualifier plus Nationals, I also encourage NHB and HSAPQ to recruit writers aggressively, even if it’s for small shares of the set, and suggest that HSAPQ might be able to create a separate pipeline of History Bowl writers who might not be able to take on the rest of HSAPQ’s assignments as well.

And as far as seeding for our Nationals goes, it's honestly not that difficult to piece together what different scores mean on different sets. While this year's inaugural NHBB Nationals was far from perfect, nobody complained about the seeding process, and next year, with more results, this will only get easier.

Conceded. My previous arguments against the proposed difficulty arrangement still stand.

===

Final thoughts: If the multiple-set, multiple-host plans are too solidly in-place to change, I still think it’s possible for NHB to go down to two sets (one fall, one spring?) for each region rather than three. I reiterate also that a greater proportion of History Bowl events should occur on weekdays and Sundays as the number of History Bowl events goes up, so that it and regular quizbowl can coexist well as you and I both want it to. I wish you guys at NHB the best of luck in making your event a success and in supporting the general quizbowl game as you do so.

*numbers are approximate. Did last year’s qualifiers have 10 rounds or 8? And how many did the final Nationals set consist of? I’m unsure.

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Okay, this thread should probably be split, but I'll leave that to the moderators. Matt, let me provide a little more insight here as a few additional details from my end will help put this discussion in proper context. In the last week alone, I've had two new people approach me about specifically writing for the NHBB. I of course sent them in the direction of HSAPQ. Also, I'm happy to write a few of our packets for next year over the summer, and with literally dozens of people having expressed their interest to me in helping out with NHBB for next year, I'm optimistic that this isn't going to be too much for HSAPQ to handle.
As for having 6 regionals in the greater NYC area, let me break this down a little. One of these (likely a tournament at Columbia) will actually be on a Sunday and while open to all, will be primarily geared toward (i.e. we'll be actively recruiting) NYC schools and the approximately 50-60 Jewish high schools in the NYC area who would never go to a Saturday tournament. I don't expect more than a small handful of other non-NYC or non-Jewish schools to come to this one. Next we come to Long Island. There you have about 200 high schools in Nassau and Suffolk counties, but less than 10 schools that would ever travel off Long Island to a regional (Kellenberg, Kings Park, Half Hollow Hills, Friends Academy, North Babylon, Great Neck South, and probably a couple others, but that's it). This same phenomenon exists for Westchester (note that our tournament was the first pyramidal tournament that many Westchester schools ever played), and to a lesser extent in NJ and CT. In NJ, we had 44 teams in Ridgewood (Bergen County, 20 min NW of NYC) last year, and this year, that number could near 60-70, so I'd prefer to split NJ in Ridgewood and the Princeton area.
One other important point, I have literally logged 40,000 miles on my Chevy Cobalt since August 1 - that's how 32 tournaments got off the ground this year. But for next year, now that we have a vast NHBB network of helpers, directors, etc., I am planning on staying much more in the greater NYC area, and doing lots and lots of recruiting among the literally hundreds of good schools in the area that either don't do qb at all, or just The Challenge. Again, many of these teams will be new to qb altogether, so it's not a matter of our tournaments or other tournaments, it's our tournaments, or nothing. Or, perhaps more accurately, it's our tournaments, where I'm always happy to promote and let people announce other qb tournaments, and then hopefully those new teams move on to the other events too.
My hunch is that most qb teams will do one NHBB tournament next year; a few might do two, maybe 1 or 2 would do 3, but I'm really not trying to crowd out other tournaments. Since many area teams hate traveling more than an hour in any direction, the calendar isn't as crowded as it looks. It's not as if there's already, say 15 different CT events or Long Island events to play, Westchester is basically self contained, NYC is a special case, and NJ needs two tournaments both to make it more accessible for more teams, but also to avoid our tournament in Ridgewood from getting out of control (to give you an idea of the growth here, in 2010, I ran our pilot tournament there with 34 teams but 16 (sic) of those were from Ridgewood itself, and 9 others were teams that played last year in Westchester or Long Island). So we in effect went from 9 teams to 39 (as of this year's 44 Ridgewood tournament teams "only" 5 were from RIdgewood itself.)
Lastly, just a word on pyramidality, and 3 sets v 2. Some people may disagree with me here, but I think that the length and difficulty of many questions is an obstacle to growing the game among new teams. I ran NHBB events this year in places as diverse as Montana, Kentucky, DC, New Jersey, Texas, and next year, we're likely to be adding Shanghai, Paris, and Puerto Rico to this mix. I really think having three levels of difficulty is appropriate; the difference between the top 100 teams and scores of the new schools that we brought in is immense. I am very, very wary both for the sake of keeping new teams interested in qb in general and making sure they come back to NHBB events in particular, of throwing too much obscure information at them. Also, keep in mind that for our C set, we're not talking speed check - this is HSAPQ doing the writing after all. I just really want to make sure that we have most of our questions answerable by any good student who hasn't been sleeping through his/her AP history courses. And as for Nationals, right now, I'm leaning strongly to rebracketing after lunch. Yes, some teams will certainly be overmatched against the top of the field, but this is also true at HSNCT, and I'm sure that any national tournament organizer would be happy to have more teams, as long as they qualified - even if they went 3-2 in a weak region. Also, at NHBB Nationals more so than others, teams are coming for the DC experience too; for some teams, it's not so much about putting together a winning record. Bottom line: I'm happy to pay the $1000-$1500 or so for a C set, we'll have people to write it, we'll post samples on the website within 6 weeks or so, and we'll see how it works for this year.

[Horned Screamer]

I think Matt Jackson is saying in his arguments about difficulty that you should not have to write a harder set to accommodate D.C. (because the harder set should be nationals, the easier one is still fair for them to play), not that you should force worse sites to play an inappropriately hard set.

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Hi Ed,
NHBB Northern New Jersey regionals will be at Ridgewood High School in Bergen County on Feb 4 on our C set (ie our easiest and most accessible one). Westchester NY, on B set will be December 10. Nationals is confirmed in DC for April 28-29. More dates to follow soon. Thanks for your help in maintaining this.

[Edward Powers]

Hello Dave,

Your regional NHBB dates have been posted. But why an easier set for NJ?

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Hmm. Okay, the more I think of it, the more it probably makes sense to play Westchester on C and the North Jersey tournament on B. Let's switch those for now, though I suppose there's an off chance that I might then switch Westchester to B again too. I'll poll the coaches there and see what they'd prefer.

[Nun's puffs]

I don't see how that makes any sense. The White Plains site last year was run on the A set, and it was one of the strongest fields to play on it. Four teams scored at least 400 points per game, something which only two teams at New Jersey barely accomplished. Most sites didn't even have a team break 400 PPG, not even on the B set. Unless the people there requested an easier set, it would be completely unfair to give the Westchester site the easiest set.

[Edward Powers]

PPG in Jersey were impacted by a cut in the number of questions---only 8 TU's in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd quarters, and, therefore, only 8 bonuses in round 2 as well, cutting exactly 100 possible points from each of the 5 prelim rounds and the 3 or 4 playoff rounds, otherwise teams like Hunter, Seton Hall, High Tech & SJHS would most likely have significantly exceeded the 2000 plus points that both Hunter & SJHS scored and the near 2000 that SHP and High Tech scored---which was why I too was puzzled by the plan to use an easier set ---but my puzzlement was about how such an easier set would be appropriate for New Jersey.

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Okay, just to clarify here: not only did the NJ set feature 8 questions in quarters 1, 2, and 4 (q. 3 was the 60 second round and was not affected), but the questions were significantly harder at that point than at White Plains. In fact, the set (and there was only 1) got edited so many times over the course of the year, that all comparisons among sites should be taken with a whole canister of salt. Also, after the first few tournaments, some sites used a B set, and others basically an even more abridged version. Note that there was huge overlap (>90% of questions) between all three variants, while next year, all three sets will be completely distinct, though each will have a slightly easier and shorter JV version that is based on the respective varsity sets.
One other word on Westchester: yes, it's a strong region, but only White Plains from Westchester cracked Morlan's top 100 this year. The A set is really meant to be used sparingly - and NYC area teams will have two opportunities to play it in CT and Princeton-area, so I don't see the need to also use it in Westchester, particularly when that area also featured many teams that weren't strong at all (i.e. lots of B and C teams especially).
So to clarify:
NJ - Princeton & CT - Set A
NY - Westchester, NJ - RIdgewood, NY - Long Island - Set B
NY - New York City - Set C (on a Sunday)

[jonpin]

We're going to do our best to decide our plans before we break for the summer, but BCA may be holding two tournaments next year:

A fall tournament, tentatively called BAFFLING III, which would likely be in December, with December 10 the best guess.
A spring tournament, BOAT IV, which would likely be in March, with March 24 or 31 the most likely choices.

The existence of these tournaments is tentative. The choice of dates are tentative. The question source is speculative. But I'm aware that dates are being snatched up (and there's not much left in April once spring break is removed) and wanted to get our very loose plans out there.

[Rob Celeste]

Hi Coach Powers,

Please add Kings Park's second annual tournament (KPAQT II) for Saturday April 21st. This is a tentative date. We will be using an "A" level NAQT set of questions.

Take care!

[Edward Powers]

Harvard just posted it's annual HFT for November 12, 2011, so I placed it on our local NY/NJ calendar in case any local teams would like to play against what is traditionally one of the great national high school fields every year. Last year, for example, the top 6 teams when all was said and done were LASA, State College, Dorman, TJA, Hunter and Dunbar. Not a bad field to test yourself against if you possess National aspirations. So, it is posted here.

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Update: the NHBB Connecticut regional is going to be played on a C set; this will allow area teams another opportunity to play another NHBB set if they're interested, while hopefully attracting lots of CT schools who are relatively or entirely new to quiz bowl. Note that our C set will still be written by HSAPQ and therefore still very much be a high-quality, pyramidal set. While it will be easier and more accessible, it should still be worth playing for every team; just especially accessible for new schools. Westchester, Long Island, and Northern NJ will be the area B set tournaments; New York City and CT the C set, and the Princeton area will be the A set.

[Edward Powers]

Dave,

You are dividing NJ into two regions---Ridgewood and Princeton, using two different sets, B & A, respectively. Does that mean a team can attend both tournaments? Further, by dividing the state this way, does this not prevent an overall State Champion from emerging, unless teams go to both? Or do you intend to designate one site as the site for the Bowl & Bee State Championship, as Ridgewood was last year, while the other site will be a regional or national qualifying site or something like this? And is the A Set harder or easier than the B Set, or are they comparable in difficulty? Finally, you've posted a date for the Ridgewood Tournament; do you have a date and a specific site in mind for the one to be held in Princeton? Will it be at Princeton University, or a local High School, or, a 3rd option?

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Dave,

You are dividing NJ into two regions---Ridgewood and Princeton, using two different sets, B & A, respectively. Does that mean a team can attend both tournaments? Further, by dividing the state this way, does this not prevent an overall State Champion from emerging, unless teams go to both? Or do you intend to designate one site as the site for the Bowl & Bee State Championship, as Ridgewood was last year, while the other site will be a regional or national qualifying site or something like this? And is the A Set harder or easier than the B Set, or are they comparable in difficulty? Finally, you've posted a date for the Ridgewood Tournament; do you have a date and a specific site in mind for the one to be held in Princeton? Will it be at Princeton University, or a local High School, or, a 3rd option?

Ed,
To clarify, there won't be a NJ state champion, per se next year. That's the bad news, I guess. The good news is that, yes, absolutely, teams can go to both Ridgewood and Princeton. Both will function the same way as far as Nationals qualifying goes - teams need to go 3-2 in the 5 prelim matches or win a playoff match, no exceptions (there will be no wild cards). The A set will be both harder and longer than the B set, but the A set will not be as long as this year's NHBB Nationals or as hard. There will also be a C set tournament in NYC, and CT will probably run on C as well; it's just better suited for attracting many new schools, though it will still be pyramidal in nature. The date and site for the Princeton area tournament are up in the air; the most likely scenario is going to be doing the tournament at Princeton on whatever date works best for most teams. I will be getting on this in mid-July after I get back to NJ after 2 months on the road.
Greetings from ACE camp,
David

[Edward Powers]

Dave,

Why sacrifice something as exciting as a State Championship? Why not invite the winner of your first site---perhaps Princeton--- to play the winner of your 2nd site at the 2nd site---Ridgewood (or vice-versa, depending on the chronological order of these 2 tournaments)--- with the winner earning the title as overall State Champion? My kids are proud of being the reigning State Champions, as other players from other schools would be, I am sure, in the future. Further, my kids would like a chance to defend their title. So---might this idea be a possibility? I hope so. And the same reasoning can be applied to the Bee as well. Why not add this kind of competitive excitement and drama to each tournament and to each phase of each tournament?

Changing subjects, how are the ACE Camps going? Have any players/schools been impressive? Any surprises? A scouting report---just for fun, of course---might be enjoyable for readers here! And, are there any local players at the camps?

[Standard-winged Nightjar]

Dave,

Why sacrifice something as exciting as a State Championship? Why not invite the winner of your first site---perhaps Princeton--- to play the winner of your 2nd site at the 2nd site---Ridgewood (or vice-versa, depending on the chronological order of these 2 tournaments)--- with the winner earning the title as overall State Champion? My kids are proud of being the reigning State Champions, as other players from other schools would be, I am sure, in the future. Further, my kids would like a chance to defend their title. So---might this idea be a possibility? I hope so. And the same reasoning can be applied to the Bee as well. Why not add this kind of competitive excitement and drama to each tournament and to each phase of each tournament?

Changing subjects, how are the ACE Camps going? Have any players/schools been impressive? Any surprises? A scouting report---just for fun, of course---might be enjoyable for readers here! And, are there any local players at the camps?

Ed,
It's a good idea to have a united state championship, and it can probably be worked out. The only issue would be if one team could make the one tournament but not the other. I'll give it some thought, but there's probably a way to work it out. For some states (e.g. Texas and California) we might have to resort to total points across tournaments, but one way or another, we can probably have a designated state champion for most states this year, and all states by the year after next.
From an NHBB standpoint, Detroit Catholic looks to be very, very good from ACE Illinois. They have an ancient history phenom, Collin who won going away in the Ancient History side event I ran this evening. And Bobby Dorigo-Jones is one of the best history players here too; he came in second in the European Military History tournament. Beyond that, the most encouraging thing is seeing lots of great talent and enthusiasm from lots of players whose schools did not do NHBB last year but are looking to join in for this year. ACE has been going great, and I'm looking forward to TN and KY next month. Nobody here from the NJ/NY/CT area; maybe we'll have better luck at the other camps. Eventually, it would be great if ACE might expand to closer to home; but that involves generating interest among students. I think it will get there though, eventually. I'll certainly be directing Ridgewood kids to come to camp next year, and I can't recommend it enough for all students from all teams. Everyone seems to be having a great time, and the mix of tournaments, subjects, practice, and equal competition is terrific.

[Edward Powers]

Thanks for the quick response and the update about ACE Camp. It does not surprise me that DCC has excellent players; we played both their A & B Teams at the HSNCT and both were outstanding. Glad to hear you are having a good time, and, naturally, glad to hear you are willing to try and have unified state championships wherever feasible.

[jonpin]

I've received an invitation to the ridiculous NORJAC at Leonia HS which is slated for December 10. I don't know if (and I really hope not) any reputable quiz bowl teams attend this event, but I guess put it on the calendar.

Bergen will likely not be holding a fall high school tournament, but instead holding a middle school tournament (formal announcement to be made in July), likely on a Sunday in late October. Pencil it for October 30 for now.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

I've received an invitation to the ridiculous NORJAC at Leonia HS which is slated for December 10. I don't know if (and I really hope not) any reputable quiz bowl teams attend this event, but I guess put it on the calendar.

What kind of tournament is it? If it's not a "good quizbowl" tournament, then don't put it on this list.

[jonpin]

Jeopardy-style with added funn, three rounds, and a $100/75 entry fee. It literally makes me mad that they get dozens of teams at their event.

[Down and out in Quintana Roo]

We've already done too much damage even mentioning the name of the tournament. There is no good reason to include it with all the quality ones on the above list.

[Edward Powers]

Jon,

A point of clarification if you do not mind: Do you want me to delete your "Baffling III" tournament for December 10th?

[jonpin]

Jon,

A point of clarification if you do not mind: Do you want me to delete your "Baffling III" tournament for December 10th?

Yes, it's now our plan to hold a MS in the fall and just the one HS tournament in the spring.

[Nun's puffs]

We've already done too much damage even mentioning the name of the tournament. There is no good reason to include it with all the quality ones on the above list.

There was already a thread about it, so not mentioning it doesn't exactly help:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11001

[BroNi]

Does anyone know when the New York Science Olympiad is? If the people at KP want to run KPAQT around the same time as last year (as of now I don't know), they'll definitely want to avoid that date.
Also, Kings Park's spring break is the same time as St. Joseph's.

Western Long Island's Regional SO Competition is on Feb. 4th. Most other NY regionals will be on that date.

NY's State SO Championship will be Friday and Saturday, 3/30-3/31.