NAQT vs Housewrite

[Speedygrapes]

Often while reading discussions comparing different quizbowl teams, I see the phrase "X team is really good on NAQT sets" or "Y team plays well on housewrites." What does this mean?

I have played on both types of sets and have always noticed that there are a lot more trash questions in NAQT sets. Looking at set distributions from NAQT and multiple housewrites confirmed my observations. Is that all there is to it, or are there other differences between them?

[vinteuil]

I have played on both types of sets and have always noticed that there are a lot more trash questions in NAQT sets. Looking at set distributions from NAQT and multiple housewrites confirmed my observations. Is that all there is to it, or are there other differences between them?

Look at the geography and current events distributions as well, then perhaps at religion, mythology, philosophy, and arts.

[db0wman]

Additionally, NAQT tossups tend to be much shorter than those found in housewrites.

[Jangar]

NAQT is also such a prolific question set-producer at the high school level that it's not uncommon for some teams to adjust their play style and studying habits specifically to play better on NAQT-style questions and tournaments. Such teams are (or were) referred to as NAQTeams, which is apparently generally used as a derogatory term with the implication being that such teams cannot succeed on different sets. For example, I've seen Hunter be accused of being an NAQTeam on multiple occasions, although this is probably largely due to their back-to-back HSNCT wins in 2016 and 2017 and their runner-up placement in 2018.

[karstenontheshore]

Such teams are (or were) referred to as NAQTeams, which is apparently generally used as a derogatory term with the implication being that such teams cannot succeed on different sets. For example, I've seen Hunter be accused of being an NAQTeam on multiple occasions, although this is probably largely due to their back-to-back HSNCT wins in 2016 and 2017 and their runner-up placement in 2018.

I don't think the term is derogatory in the least. I've always interpreted it as that a team is widely known for their strength on NAQT questions and not their lack of success at other sets. After all, Hunter won BHSAT main site by THREE GAMES last year, and this year got third at HFT and second at Columbia Fall (WHAQ), all being top three finishes at housewrites. I don't think they find it offensive that people refer to the fact that they tend to perform better on NAQT sets, likely because of NAQT's tendency towards history and geography. I think it's more of your second point that they have had such incredible success at HSNCT.

[Subotai the Valiant, Final Dog of War]

Speaking for the Hunter team, we do not take the least offense to people making the (very obvious) statement that we play better on NAQT. After all, it's good to be recognized for being good. And I'm sure most other teams better at NAQT than other sets would agree with us that it's better to be recognized for excellence at one style than to be not recognized at all.

So yeah, I don't think that the term NAQTeam is derogatory.

EDIT: On that note, we were very happy when Karsten called us an NAQTeam in his rankings. To anyone out there who may have thought he was publicly degrading a team, don't be angry at Karsten.

[Speedygrapes]

Thanks everyone for all responses!

Speaking for the Hunter team, we do not take the least offense to people making the (very obvious) statement that we play better on NAQT. After all, it's good to be recognized for being good. And I'm sure most other teams better at NAQT than other sets would agree with us that it's better to be recognized for excellence at one style than to be not recognized at all.

What are some specific characteristics/strengths of Hunter that make u guys better on NAQT?

[CPiGuy]

What are some specific characteristics/strengths of Hunter that make u guys better on NAQT?

I don't know about Hunter specifically, but having very strong current events, geography, and trash knowledge is generally associated with higher performance on NAQT questions.

[Vembanad]

What are some specific characteristics/strengths of Hunter that make u guys better on NAQT?

I don't know about Hunter specifically, but having very strong current events, geography, and trash knowledge is generally associated with higher performance on NAQT questions.

I can confirm that Hunter is strong in CE and geo, particularly the latter. We're also strong in history; though according to the distribution, history does not come up in NAQT significantly more than other subjects (like lit), it does often feel more prevalent. NAQT is also much lower in arts than other sets (which we benefit from by being not-great at visual arts, though Daniel and Ben are both very good music players). As for trash, we don't really have that strength this year, but we certainly did with Sam Brochin.

Another part of it, though, is that the sort of "random stuff" that NAQT asks about is somehow different than the sort of random stuff housewrites ask about. It's hard to explain exactly why this is, but I know that I and most members of the Hunter team are better at NAQT-style "random stuff" (notably not Asher Jaffe, who is very good at the sort of "random stuff" that is asked on housewrites).

Even within very academic disciplines, questions have different styles and subdistributions that make certain teams better at one set or the other. NAQT has a higher US History subdistribution than other tournaments, for example.