High school tournaments and timed rounds

[bt_green_warbler]

Idea: survey. Rather than simply saying "the top teams want this" or "the silent majority wants this", why not distribute a survey for hosts to hand out? There could be a question about changing/eliminating the trash distribution, one about timed games, and maybe a couple short answer/any other comments sections. This would allow NAQT to actually get a sense of what teams and coaches think, rather than wild speculation on the boards.

Quoting this from the NAQT distribution change thread, which is headed off in several different directions.

What's the intent of asking a survey question about timed games? Is our policy about timed (high school*) games at all controversial?

*(College is of course a different discussion.)

To review, current NAQT timer policy for high school tournaments works like this:

1. Regular season events (including state championships) are free to choose timed or untimed at the host's discretion.

2. HSNCT is timed because running a 200+ team tournament without timed rounds could very well end badly. (And: we can and do assemble an outstanding team of trained moderators from around the country to staff the event.)

I don't see either of those policies changing in the near future. Discuss.

[The Predictable Consequences]

I personally prefer untimed games; I feel that timed games bring an unnecessary element of gamesmanship and variability. However, whether a tournament is timed or untimed would have no effect on whether I would want attend or not.

[Nun's puffs]

I'd like to see some responses from people in Vermont (as few as there are on this site). Looking at the 2010 Sue Pasco tournament and seeing each of the top 2 teams having a prelim game with 10 tossups heard and another prelim game with 8 tossups heard- on an A set, nonetheless- makes me wonder if the teams involved find that fun. Choosing whether to have games timed or untimed at invitational tournaments is a huge double-edged sword. With timed rounds you might have results determined by what team gets the moderator who can only read 8 tossups per game if everything gets answered. With untimed rounds you have huge gaps in round times between said moderators and more competent ones.

[Transparent Pudding]

I think the benefits of having timed rounds at HSNCT definitely outweigh the risks; almost all rooms from my experience get at least 18 tossups, usually more. Issues like the Vermont case that Robert brought up are intriguing. If you have an untimed tournament with bad readers, the tournament will take ages. If you have a timed tournament with bad readers, games don't get to halftime. The only solution is no bad readers, but you can't always ensure that.

[Kentari]

Whether the game is timed or untimed, it always sucks to have a bad moderator. Timed rounds prevent bad moderators from ruining tournaments. Untimed rounds don't. If a tournament has bad moderators, timed is better. Otherwise, untimed rounds are best. That's it.

There shouldn't be a debate(if there is one) between timed and untimed rounds in high school tournaments. Local tournament can decide what it wants.

HSNCT would fall apart without timed rounds.

[Edward Elric]

HSNCT would fall apart without timed rounds.

I don't know that HSNCT would fall apart per se, considering some of the best moderators across the country moderate at it and NAQT does an excellent job with logistics.

[Mr. Scogan]

HSNCT would fall apart without timed rounds.

NAQT does an excellent job with logistics.

I realize the elevator situation is out of NAQT's control, but having to get from the bottom meeting room to a room on the 21st floor in like 15 minutes (or whatever time) between game 6 and game 7 when three of the five elevators are broken really impedes things, and from the perspective of a "new player", i think it would have been disastrous/annoying to have all the elevators broken, or all but one.

[bt_green_warbler]

HSNCT would fall apart without timed rounds.

I don't know that HSNCT would fall apart per se, considering some of the best moderators across the country moderate at it and NAQT does an excellent job with logistics.

For the record: untimed HSNCT would fall apart. Uneven moderating speed + more than 200 teams = disaster in the making.

[salmon of wisdom]

The only thing that annoys me about timed tournaments such as HSNCT is sometimes not hearing questions near the end of a packet. I feel that finishing 1 minute early is less annoying than possibly missing 2-3 questions and bonuses. Does NAQT have the average number of tossups heard per game at HSNCT? If the difference is significant, It might make sense to reduce the number of questions in each packet to reflect reality and equalize perceived distribution quirks.

[bt_green_warbler]

The 2011 HSNCT averaged 21.96 tossups heard per game.

Tossups heard (number of rooms)

15 (2)
16 (3)
17 (20)
18 (28)
19 (77)
20 (155)
21 (204)
22 (201)
23 (217)
24 (348)
---beyond this level required overtime tossups---
25 (1)
26 (1)
27 (4)

89.7% of HSNCT games had at least 20 tossups heard.

[Madagascar Serpent Eagle]

Why not increase the HSNCT to use 10 minute halves? That would remove the outliers of the under 18 TUH games while only increasing rounds by two minutes or less. Over 16 rounds, that's half an hour over the whole day, and this year it didn't end very late.

[bt_green_warbler]

We would like to believe that we can eliminate those outliers anyway by increasing moderator quality.

In general, we would prefer to have that extra time as a buffer against delay or disaster than use it for 10-minute halves. It's possible that will change in the future, if we can consistently run the tournament on time and lots of players would like to play the extra two minutes per game.

[Mr. Scogan]

We would like to believe that we can eliminate those outliers anyway by increasing moderator quality.

This is a good idea, I'm just curious, how exactly would this be accomplished? I don't recall there being any part of the survey that said "evaluate your moderators", which might be a good idea to prevent "bad/slow" moderators from reading high-profile prelim/playoff games. I know that there was a prelim game between two top 20 teams overall that only had 18 tossups read because the moderator was bad/slow. I wonder what NAQT/the rest of the quiz bowl community thinks of "prioritizing" moderators. I'm not saying whether its a good or bad idea, but I think it could be a fix/angle at "increasing moderator quality".

[bt_green_warbler]

We already collect data on how many tossups individual moderators are able to read (by matching the collected scoresheets to the staff grid). This data does inform which moderators receive playoff assignments and critical prelim games (notably: games late Saturday between two 5-4 teams get the best moderators we can find).

[jonah]

(notably: games late Saturday between two 5-4 teams get the best moderators we can find).

Same for games between 6-3 teams, since there's a pretty big difference between going into double-elimination playoffs with a loss and without.