The Quizbowl Resource Center

grayson77 wrote:Part IV


Johnson Central
They have a very large amount of knowledge as apparent from their success in KAAC.
Also, they have been pretty well when they have competed in actual quizbowl tournaments.
They many players that are very knowledgeable in their specific subjects.
However, the knowledge seems to be more breadth focused than depth focused.
I think that even if they don't compete in a single tournament (which is not likely), they could beat the vast majority of teams in a game of quizbowl.
They will likely be one of the best teams, but whether or not they compete... I do not know.
I hope they do!

We'll see ;)

I'm going to have to agree with Faiyad. Johnson Central has just has much depth of knowledge as the do breadth. Just sayin'.

jackatthedisco wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Faiyad. Johnson Central has just has much depth of knowledge as the do breadth. Just sayin'.

I'm not sure about that considering their performance on NAQT questions. Maybe relative to the rest of the state I guess.

jackatthedisco wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Faiyad. Johnson Central has just has much depth of knowledge as the do breadth. Just sayin'.

I don't really think I ever said that. Thanks though buddy! :D

I guess I got the wrong interpretation from your smiley. Oh well. It needed to be said, in my opinion. :)

Two quick things.
1. U of L is bidding to host the NAQT State, if we are chosen, we will host it in April
2. Also, Trinity should be strong this year, they were all sophomores last year and fared well in NAQT State

Matt Church
U of L

WKU is planning on hosting a tournament next semester. The most likely dates are Feb. 12th or March 27th, and we're looking at mirroring a house-written set (possibly BATE) for questions. Does that interest any teams?

Hilltopper22 wrote:WKU is planning on hosting a tournament next semester. The most likely dates are Feb. 12th or March 27th, and we're looking at mirroring a house-written set (possibly BATE) for questions. Does that interest any teams?

Ballard or Drallab will be there, anyone know if Grayson County is still planning on hosting a tournament

Hilltopper22 wrote:WKU is planning on hosting a tournament next semester. The most likely dates are Feb. 12th or March 27th, and we're looking at mirroring a house-written set (possibly BATE) for questions. Does that interest any teams?

March might be a hard month to find teams. As long as the question set is good, Dunbar will most definitely consider going here.

First off, I asked about the BATE set and that won't be possible because a decent number of Kentucky teams will play the set at Chattahoochee in December. We will look for other house-writes to use though.

maged wrote:anyone know if Grayson County is still planning on hosting a tournament

Last I heard from Scott, he wants to host an HSAPQ tournament next spring. I think they have the ability to do it, but it all comes down to whether the head coach wants it to happen.

You guys could use another NAQT set or mirror prison bowl or the PSAT set

Manual is going to do a mirror of PSAT.

I suggest that WKU do a mirror of Prison Bowl (or any other good set) on a weekend between district and regional KAAC.

We are probably going to have a tournament on HSAPQ questions.

grayson77 wrote:Manual is going to do a mirror of PSAT.

Last I heard from Nick, no they aren't.

Yeah, we're not going to have a PSAT mirror.

Prof.Whoopie wrote:

grayson77 wrote:Manual is going to do a mirror of PSAT.

Last I heard from Nick, no they aren't.

Okay then, it would be nice to see WKU mirror that set.

I'll talk to the rest of the team tomorrow and see what they think about a PSAT mirror, and if everyone is OK with that then I'll e-mail Aidan and see if we can put in a bid.

As for a date, that will take a little bit longer to decide. February 12th might draw the most teams, although there are a few conflicts. It's in the middle of Governor's Cup season (quick recall oriented teams may not want to do good quizbowl), it's on an ACT date, and there's a basketball game at WKU that afternoon that might make leaving the tournament a bit sketchy. None of those things would prevent me from selecting that date, but all of that together does make me want to put it out there for discussion for a bit before making a decision.

I feel like the end of March might be better in light of all of those conflicts on the 12th. Plus it would likely fall right before high schools have spring break and you're less likely to have some sort of terrible weather conflict (which Kentucky seems to specialize in the last couple of winters).

I've thought about this a bit more and the best date for us would most likely be March 19th, which is the weekend right after KAAC State. How does everyone feel about this?

Hilltopper22 wrote:I've thought about this a bit more and the best date for us would most likely be March 19th, which is the weekend right after KAAC State. How does everyone feel about this?

I would love to come if our coach is up for it!

March 19th would actually knock our stats guy out of helping, so March 26th is the date we're looking at as the best case scenario. It would be late enough that we
(fingers crossed) would avoid most weather problems, and would also avoid test dates, most major competitions, and Spring Break. I have contacted the WKU Events Coordinator's office to see if anything would conflict with it on campus. Right now I see the circus will be in Diddle Arena and orientation will be going on for some students. However, neither of those things should hinder people getting on or off campus. If something major is happening and I don't know, we would of course take steps to lessen the conflict or find another date.

So with all that said: Unless someone already has a quizbowl tournament planned for March 26th, we're going to go ahead and claim it.

Hilltopper22 wrote:I'll talk to the rest of the team tomorrow and see what they think about a PSAT mirror, and if everyone is OK with that then I'll e-mail Aidan and see if we can put in a bid.

Hey, I just saw this. I'd be open to having WKU mirror the set, but all mirrors in the eastern Midwest must be cleared by Saajid Moyen of Copley, OH, with whom we've had arrangements for quite a while. He felt that the Manual mirror would detract from his field, and so Manual couldn't mirror the set. I don't know how quizbowl geography is out in OH/KY, but if you think there's a chance of you leeching away some southern Ohio teams, I don't know if you'll be able to use our set. Please talk to him first, and then we can make arrangements if he gives it the OK.

If not, Prison Bowl is good.

We've decided to mirror GSAC on March 26th, as we host the first annual College Heights Academic Tournament. Here's our tournament thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10756

Not that it really matters (aka the questions were awful), but these are the Hart County results.

1st Russell
2nd Johnson
3rd Grayson
Manual (Sophmores)
5th
Daviess
Apollo
Russell B
Madisonville
9th
Marshall
Owensboro
Taylor
Hart

grayson77 wrote:Not that it really matters (aka the questions were awful), but these are the Hart County results.

1st Russell
2nd Johnson
3rd Grayson
Manual (Sophmores)
5th
Daviess
Apollo
Russell B
Madisonville
9th
Marshall
Owensboro
Taylor
Hart

The questions being awful shouldn't really matter. Every tournament runs the risk of having "bad" questions and inexperienced moderators. The questions have been the way are for years, but it still hasn't stopped teams like Dunbar, JC, and Russell from winning in the past.
Congrats to; the top 4 teams for doing well on Saturday, Russell and JC for making it to the championship for the second straight year(Russell's 4th time in the last 5 years), and Russell winning the tournament for the first time since 2006!!!

Questions have been pretty much the same for years, still hasn't stopped Dunbar, Johnson, Russell, and others from winning the tournament in the past.

Congrats to the top 4, Russell and Johnson for making it to the finals for the 2nd straight year, and to Russell for winning

Nah, bad questions always mean the results don't matter no matter where they're held.

Having seen practice questions for Hart County, I don't think any rational person would even consider it to be quizbowl. If quizbowl were chess, Hart County would be a checkers tournament that some chess players just happened to have attended.

Andrew RJ Lyon wrote:The questions being awful shouldn't really matter. Every tournament runs the risk of having "bad" questions and inexperienced moderators. The questions have been the way are for years, but it still hasn't stopped teams like Dunbar, JC, and Russell from winning in the past.

Yes, it really should matter. From what I'm hearing, you're better off preparing for this tournament by practicing more for buzzer races than for actual depth of knowledge. That's not quite the best way of gauging a team's strength.

The questions were quite awful.
Several of them were repeated word for word in two different rounds.
Then, the 30 etymology questions seemed like a bit much...

So basically, the field was good but the tournament wasn't.
The top four teams are all rather good at quiz bowl, but this tournament really does not serve to prove that fact.

Any idea when this year's DAFT questions will be archived?

EDIT: Will you guys be having a spring tournament again this year?

Faiyad wrote:Any idea when this year's DAFT questions will be archived?

EDIT: Will you guys be having a spring tournament again this year?

After all mirrors are done; we might have some spring mirrors (since a few schools that originally were going to mirror this semester were unable to do so)
There should be a spring tournament again, probably using HSAPQ

Could someone provide a more thorough explanation of the format change for 2011-12. I think they're going to change to something closer to standard quizbowl practices but I was wondering how close. Will the bonuses still just be one question, or will three part bonuses come into play? How many questions are there going to be in each round?

Nick,

According to what was rolled out at the coaches' conference the changes will go something like this: (keep in mind this is for HS, the middle school rules for numbers of questions, toss up length, and timing may be slightly different).

1. Toss ups and bonuses will be paired (but from different categories: i.e. Language Arts toss up WILL NOT have a Language Arts bonus).
2. The number of toss ups per half has yet to be determined but will probably be in the 20-25 per half range.
3. Bonus questions will be single part (no 3 part bonuses), and the bounce back rule will still be in effect.
4. Writers have been asked to provide toss ups in a range of 4-6 lines in length.
5. Bonuses are to be written in a 3-4 line length.
6. Not sure what the rules will be for timing halves...best guess is 15 minute halves for district and region, then 12 minutes for state pool play and back to 15 minutes in single elimination (that's what we've played the last couple of years, and is slated for 2011).

It was also pointed out that any math computational toss ups will be workable in the 5 second time for toss ups, and that computational math bonuses may be slightly more lengthy to work due to the 10 second time limit.

Basically the toss ups should continue the trend that we've seen over the last couple of years toward being more pyramidal, while bonuses should be shorter. No more waiting through a 4-6 pyramidal question on bonuses.

That information was current as of September's Coaches' conference, not sure if anything has changed since then.

Who will be writing these questions?

FCPanther wrote:1. Toss ups and bonuses will be paired (but from different categories: i.e. Language Arts toss up WILL NOT have a Language Arts bonus).

This doesn’t seem like a bad idea. It'll be more writing for the KAAC people, but if they want to go through it I can't see it hurting the game any.

FCPanther wrote:2. The number of toss ups per half has yet to be determined but will probably be in the 20-25 per half range.

Another step in the right direction. I’ve always thought 15 question halves would be a good ultimate goal for KAAC, and this isn’t far off.

FCPanther wrote:3. Bonus questions will be single part (no 3 part bonuses), and the bounce back rule will still be in effect.

3 part bonuses would be nice, but I imagine changing that at the same time everything else is changing would have caused some headaches. The idea of multi-part bonuses would be one of the bigger differences between KAAC and mACF format, and probably not go over well with some people in the state. I don’t really have an opinion on bouncebacks.

FCPanther wrote:4. Writers have been asked to provide tossups in a range of 4-6 lines in length.

This seems like another great step in the right direction.

FCPanther wrote:5. Bonuses are to be written in a 3-4 line length.

This is a good move for time saving measures, although I think bonuses could be a bit shorter.

FCPanther wrote:6. Not sure what the rules will be for timing halves...best guess is 15 minute halves for district and region, then 12 minutes for state pool play and back to 15 minutes in single elimination (that's what we've played the last couple of years, and is slated for 2011).

I figured this would stay the same.

FCPanther wrote:It was also pointed out that any math computational toss ups will be workable in the 5 second time for toss ups, and that computational math bonuses may be slightly more lengthy to work due to the 10 second time limit.

While I think it would be a decent idea to move away from computational math and bring in more theory, I doubt KAAC will ever get rid of it. Math teachers in this state would throw a fit.

Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Grannis.

Overall It seems like KAAC is making some further improvements in format. Hopefully in five years Governor’s Cup will be something resembling a more standard quizbowl format. Really, the only big differences left right now are: moving to three part bonuses, the number of questions, the math distribution, and the single elimination at State.

Huang wrote:Who will be writing these questions?

http://kaac.com/QuestionWriting/questionwriting.html

Seems to be something resembling open submission.

According to the National History Bowl there will be two sites in Kentucky one in Owensboro and one in Johnson Central. I haven't heard too much about it and was just curious if anyone would be going to this

I think we will probably go to the Owensboro one if that is not the day of Dunbar's tournament.

The Fleming County Academic Tournament is still on for tomorrow. The weather has impacted the field some (lost a total of 7 teams from 5 schools), but not as much as initially feared. We still have 26 teams from 14 schools. Results from what will be the last quick recall edition of the FCAT (as Governor's Cup goes more pyramidal so will we) should be up tomorrow night or Sunday. Schools still participating include:

Fleming County
Mason County
Johnson Central
Russell
Ashland
Daviess County
Adair County
Lafayette
Campbell County
Boone County
Simon Kenton
Bishop Brossart
George Rogers Clark
Dunbar (not their varsity)

Congratulations to Johnson Central, 2011 Fleming County Academic Tournament Champions. They defeated Dunbar in the championship match. Johnson defeated Adair County in one semifinal match, and Dunbar defeated Russell in the other.

Russell emerged as the champions of the "B" team division by outlasting Johnson Central. Other semifinalists included Bishop Brossart and Campbell County.

All in all a pretty good day despite the bracketing chaos brought on by the weather early in the week. Thanks to all that participated, and those that helped out and good luck in Governor's Cup.

It looks like the NASAT is happening again this year in Maryland. Is there any interest in trying to do tryouts and sending a Kentucky team this year?

Maybe implement something like this:

http://www.ihssbca.org/pdf/2011teamilli ... cation.pdf

Kahloon wrote:Maybe implement something like this:

http://www.ihssbca.org/pdf/2011teamilli ... cation.pdf

That seems like a decent application, although there would have to be some changes to the process for Kentucky. I really wish KAAC would get involved in something like this, they did it for Panasonic for a couple years so I don't see why they couldn't for NASAT.

Hilltopper22 wrote:That seems like a decent application, although there would have to be some changes to the process for Kentucky. I really wish KAAC would get involved in something like this, they did it for Panasonic for a couple years so I don't see why they couldn't for NASAT.

Because that would make too much sense?

So I know this is a quizbowl forum, but I am going to discuss Governor's Cup here.
They still have lots of problems, but I think they are starting to improve.

Those are probably the least balanced pools I've seen for a while. Oh well...
The top and bottom seem decently balanced though.

I feel somewhat sorry for Eastern and Pikeville, seeing that there are at least three pools either of those teams could have won.
And at the Johnson and Manual being together.
Our pool should be interesting...

I think the top 16 will be something like this (not really meant to be in order):
Dunbar
Manual
Johnson
Adair
Grayson
Pikeville
Russell
Eastern
Danville
(Simon Kenton and Campbell would probably fall here in any normal bracket.)
Apollo
Madisonville
Flemming County
Lone Oak
Mason County
Bethlehem
Barren County

Why would someone place Johnson and Manual, probably the two best teams in the state, in the same pool? Even if this is randomly assigned, it's a pretty good reason to change the system from random assignment to a more intelligent grouping made by some sort of seeding. The level of competition is not equal throughout the pools. This "luck of the draw" element makes for some pretty exciting sports, but makes for pretty bad academic competition especially if you're trying to accurately assess the merits of the teams.

Kahloon wrote:Why would someone place Johnson and Manual, probably the two best teams in the state, in the same pool? Even if this is randomly assigned, it's a pretty good reason to change the system from random assignment to a more intelligent grouping made by some sort of seeding. The level of competition is not equal throughout the pools. This "luck of the draw" element makes for some pretty exciting sports, but makes for pretty bad academic competition especially if you're trying to accurately assess the merits of the teams.

My thoughts exactly.
There are a several pools with 3-4 teams that are definitely not top 16 in the state.

Off topic but...
Also, the new outlier system for the written composition scoring caused an individual from our school who had two firsts and two mid scores to place behind three individuals with three mid scores and a low score. I know the intentions are good, but it doesn't really work out that well.

Absurd.