On-going season rankings

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
nadph
Rikku
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by nadph » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:00 pm

hsqbrank wrote:Quad States (HSAPQ 15) – 1. Seven Lakes A (#8), 1. Cistercian A (#24), 3. St. Mark’s A (#32), 4. Seven Lakes B, 5. Cistercian B (#48)

I’m not certain if Seven Lakes A was missing any players or not.
Unless I'm misremembering, I believe that Seven Lakes A is missing Jonathan Xu, who put up ~55 ppg at NSC to Jiawei's 65 (and ~30 ppg at HSNCT to Jiawei's 52).
hsqbrank wrote:Missouri Fall Tournament (IS-96) – 1. Ladue, 2. Villa Duchesne, 3. Rock Bridge
Bouncebacks were apparently used for this tournament, which led to interesting results like Ladue getting 31 ppb in a match (according to the NAQT database). Is there anyplace one could find the actual PPB of teams at this tournament?
hsqbrank wrote:Pensacola Invitational (IS-99A) – 1. Rickards A, 2. Bayside
Kay told me that this tournament included a 100-point (I think) worksheet round, so if the stats do come up from this event, people should make sure to factor that in.

EDIT: clarify
Nikhil Desai
Bellarmine College Prep '12
Stanford '12-'15, '18

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5494
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Important Bird Area » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:05 pm

nadph wrote:
hsqbrank wrote:Missouri Fall Tournament (IS-96) – 1. Ladue, 2. Villa Duchesne, 3. Rock Bridge
Bouncebacks were apparently used for this tournament, which led to interesting results like Ladue getting 31 ppb in a match (according to the NAQT database). Is there anyplace one could find the actual PPB of teams at this tournament?
The ppb displays properly on scobo. I'll see about getting it fixed on naqt.com.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
Flutist Wren
Lulu
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:02 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Flutist Wren » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:24 pm

hsqbrank wrote:Missouri Fall Tournament (IS-96) – 1. Ladue, 2. Villa Duchesne, 3. Rock Bridge
On this note, Ladue was missing their second best player, and Clayton was missing their best player (by far) at this tournament.
Sam Haynes
Jefferson City High 2011
WUSTL 2015

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:34 pm

Also, for those concerned about future stars of the game, Max from Ladue is only a sophomore.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

User avatar
kayli
Auron
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by kayli » Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:34 pm

Pensacola Invitational stats have now been shared.
Kay, Chicago.

User avatar
Coach K
Wakka
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 4:25 pm
Location: Danville, KY
Contact:

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Coach K » Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:27 pm

For what it's worth Fred, the Adair County at Danville Fall was effectively their B team (I don't think they had any of their regular starters present).
Rob Kremer - Coach
Danville High School

User avatar
Remember-the-Alamo-Remember-Goliad
Wakka
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 10:28 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Remember-the-Alamo-Remember-Goliad » Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:38 pm

While that Demiurge of the Boards from Delaware continues to fret over the spiritual welfare of all things Texan (Cistercian, Sacagawea, the Mason-Dixon line, PACE, etc.) I think he needs to relax with a good opera. Last night's opening in Dallas -- Don Giovanni -- was superb. Tomorrow afternoon I'm motoring down to Houston with some of my opera students for the opening (almost) of Madama Butterfly. While she is committing suicide on stage, I'm be weeping in the rafters with the hoi-polloi!

Quiz Bowl is great, but Opera is divine, and that comes from someone who's an expert, of sorts, on things divine.

National Rankings? It's nice to see Cistercian's name get a bit of recognition, but I'm also aware that a lot of fine programs are not given the notice they deserve; of course, it helps to have a vigorous set of agressive promoters, which Cistercian has, to put all of this together. But, humility never hurt anyone, even a monk!

PS: Texas Rangers ARE going to the World Series - Ha, Ha, Ha!

PPS: Cistercian is taking a bit of break for the next week or two; tired students; cranky faculty advisor.
Gregory Schweers
County of Dallas
City of Irving
Cistercian Preparatory School Team
The only Monk on this whole board

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Edward Powers » Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:00 pm

Might the Demiurge of whom you speak actually be from New Jersey? Be that as it may, he certainly agrees that opera can be divine, and wishes he were heading to one at this moment! Meanwhile, belated congrats to those pesky Rangers, who mauled my Yankees and skillfully earned their way into the World Series. Best of luck! Meanwhile, enjoy your rest. Perhaps the heavenly qualities inherent in your beloved operas will rub off, energizing your team while alleviating your confessed crankiness? Stranger things have certainly happened, so why not this small miracle? And, in addition, you STILL have your broomstick, do you not, so why not just miracle the crankiness away?
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:34 pm

I've started putting together information for updated rankings, though it may take a few days for that to be finalized. It is also possible the number of teams ranked may increase once more due to more strong performances being shown; I'm still debating what to do with this.

Also, I'd like to start keeping pages devoted to tracking performances on the same set by different teams.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:16 pm

We now have 70 teams ranked.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
Unicolored Jay
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 781
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:28 pm
Location: Columbus, Ohio

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Unicolored Jay » Sun Oct 24, 2010 8:43 pm

http://results.scobo.net/SQBS.aspx?org= ... =standings

The only thing worth mentioning is that Solon A has missing half its starters, since the rest of the field was not good at all.
Jasper Lee
University of Tennessee
The Ohio State University '14
Solon High School '10

User avatar
Rufous-capped Thornbill
Tidus
Posts: 711
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:03 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Rufous-capped Thornbill » Sun Oct 24, 2010 9:14 pm

I see the fruits of Nishanth's studying over the summer have paid off.
Jarret Greene
South Range '10 / Ohio State '13 / Vermont '17
Member, PACE

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:31 pm

I've added a pair of posts to the blog over the past few days, neither of which are updates to the rankings.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:32 pm

Here's a dumb thing!
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
Frater Taciturnus
Auron
Posts: 2463
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:26 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Frater Taciturnus » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:36 am

I'm thinking a breakdown of today's ACF Fall sites and what they mean for the rankings should be very, very interesting.
George Berry
georgeberry.vcu@gmail.com
--------------
J. Sargeant Reynolds CC 2008, 2009, 2014
Virginia Commonwealth 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
Douglas Freeman 2005, 2006, 2007

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:02 pm

State College will be #1, because they're good at quiz bowl.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

Faiyad
Wakka
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:14 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Faiyad » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:18 pm

Ronnie the Bear wrote:Here's a dumb thing!

So, are the results from Vanderbilt not going to be factored in on this? I know that the finals were controversial, but, Johnson Central, Dunbar, and duPont Manual still did very well.
Faiyad Mannan,
Johnson Central '11
Kentucky '15

SoLegit12
Wakka
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:47 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by SoLegit12 » Sun Nov 07, 2010 10:23 pm

Faiyad wrote:
Ronnie the Bear wrote:Here's a dumb thing!

So, are the results from Vanderbilt not going to be factored in on this? I know that the finals were controversial, but, Johnson Central, Dunbar, and duPont Manual still did very well.
Considering the lack of stats, differences in games played, weakness/controversy of the decisive answer lines (particularly when the next item is accounted for), terrible single-elim playoff format and tiebreaker format, I would argue it shouldn't be factored.

EDIT: 100th post
Nick "Nick" Neuteufel
Criticizing your philosophy and social science writing since 2010.
***
duPont Manual HS '12
UNC Chapel Hill '16 (VP of the Carlolina Academic Team)
nneuteufel@gmail.com

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:20 pm

Faiyad wrote:
Ronnie the Bear wrote:Here's a dumb thing!

So, are the results from Vanderbilt not going to be factored in on this? I know that the finals were controversial, but, Johnson Central, Dunbar, and duPont Manual still did very well.
I don't care that the finals were controversial, really; I care that I have virtually no info to use whatsoever. No stats, no results beyond like, 3rd, no hard data. I unfortunately can't do a lot with that.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

Faiyad
Wakka
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:14 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Faiyad » Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:34 am

SoLegit12 wrote:
Faiyad wrote:
Ronnie the Bear wrote:Here's a dumb thing!

So, are the results from Vanderbilt not going to be factored in on this? I know that the finals were controversial, but, Johnson Central, Dunbar, and duPont Manual still did very well.
Considering the lack of stats, differences in games played, weakness/controversy of the decisive answer lines (particularly when the next item is accounted for), terrible single-elim playoff format and tiebreaker format, I would argue it shouldn't be factored.

EDIT: 100th post
Alright, so it wasn't perfect.
But good teams still did well; I thought that was worth mentioning.
Last edited by Faiyad on Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Faiyad Mannan,
Johnson Central '11
Kentucky '15

Faiyad
Wakka
Posts: 106
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:14 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Faiyad » Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:35 am

Ronnie the Bear wrote:
Faiyad wrote:
Ronnie the Bear wrote:Here's a dumb thing!

So, are the results from Vanderbilt not going to be factored in on this? I know that the finals were controversial, but, Johnson Central, Dunbar, and duPont Manual still did very well.
I don't care that the finals were controversial, really; I care that I have virtually no info to use whatsoever. No stats, no results beyond like, 3rd, no hard data. I unfortunately can't do a lot with that.
Understandable.
Faiyad Mannan,
Johnson Central '11
Kentucky '15

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:16 am

Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
kayli
Auron
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by kayli » Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:37 pm

Forty-sixth? Dark horse time.

*starts reading packets*
Kay, Chicago.

Angry Babies in Love
Yuna
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: MD//DC

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Angry Babies in Love » Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:46 pm

10th? Hmm. So much pressure gahh.
Programming note: For tomorrow's HFT mirror at Whitman, we will be shorthanded, especially in the morning; Daniel and I will be at an It's Academic taping but will rejoin the team in the afternoon.
Raynell Cooper
Arcadia ES '04
Richard Montgomery HS '11
George Washington University '15
University of Maryland, College Park '17
Hella things, National History Bee and Bowl

User avatar
Carambola!
Lulu
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 10:09 pm
Contact:

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Carambola! » Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:34 pm

Jeffrey Li
Mission San Jose High '11
Berkeley '15

But I shall forgive you. Some things are beautiful because they cannot be obtained.

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sat Nov 13, 2010 10:15 pm

laserphaser wrote:Shameless self-promotion time!
http://quizbowl.stanford.edu/tournament ... r_classic/
Good job sandbagging, broseph.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

nadph
Rikku
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:21 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by nadph » Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:25 am

Oh yeah, since there seems to be some confusion about who actually went to that event, "Bellarmine A" at CJC was Phil and Ankit.
Nikhil Desai
Bellarmine College Prep '12
Stanford '12-'15, '18

User avatar
Masked Canadian History Bandit
Rikku
Posts: 443
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:43 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Masked Canadian History Bandit » Sat Nov 20, 2010 11:32 pm

Fred wrote: Lisgar (Ontario) - I'm surprised they didn't get a single vote in the preseason poll. Might be the best team to have that happen this year, though I did not research that line at all.
Since you were keeping an eye on this, I'll try and make this easier for you. The Ottawa Quizbowl, the first NAQT tournament of the year for Canada, has been held and results are up: http://uotrivia.ca/stats/oqt10/

Unfortunately, the results are based on IS-97A, not an IS pack. But there is the Bell BOKCHOI (http://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewto ... =1&t=10817) on the 27th, running on an IS-98 set, which should see most of the same field (except for Bell) compete.
Patrick Liao
Lisgar Collegiate Institute 2011, University of Pennsylvania 2015, University of Toronto Faculty of Law 2019
President, Ontario Quizbowl Association (ONQBA)
Support the ONQBA on Facebook!

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Mon Nov 22, 2010 11:05 am

Fred wrote:
laserphaser wrote:Shameless self-promotion time!
http://quizbowl.stanford.edu/tournament ... r_classic/
Good job sandbagging, broseph.
To not be tongue in cheek, what was the deal with the MSJ & Bellarmine teams at this? I have no clue how meaningful any of it is, other than the general idea of "these schools have good players."
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
Smuttynose Island
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 482
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:07 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Smuttynose Island » Wed Nov 24, 2010 9:47 pm

I suppose it's worth pointing out that "JT B" was a three man team for two playoff games at HFT and a one man team for the last playoff game.
Daniel Hothem
TJHSST '11 | UVA '15 | Oregon '??
"You are the stuff of legends" - Chris Manners
https://sites.google.com/site/academicc ... ubuva/home

Tanay
Rikku
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:05 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Tanay » Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:26 pm

Fred wrote: To not be tongue in cheek, what was the deal with the MSJ & Bellarmine teams at this? I have no clue how meaningful any of it is, other than the general idea of "these schools have good players."
I don't know how/why MSJ divides its good players among teams. In general, we avoid doing such a thing, and Nikhil and I opted out of this tournament because it was run on IS-A.
Tanay
ex-Berkeley, ex-Bellarmine

User avatar
BGSO
Tidus
Posts: 685
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Champaign-Urbana and Arlington heights IL
Contact:

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by BGSO » Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:29 am

I think you mean an IS-A set, I'm pretty sure IS-A was the first set NAQT ever produced...
David Garb-
Buffalo Grove High School '09
UIUC-'13

Former member of the most dysfunctional scholastic bowl team in Illinois.
(11:23:30 PM) garb: Wait, are you talking about the porn or the reeses?

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:13 pm

Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
DongDonger
Lulu
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:59 am
Location: Aurora, IL

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by DongDonger » Fri Nov 26, 2010 2:16 am

A jump all the way to #13 after two tournaments so far? Go dark horses!
Eric Ordonez
IMSA '12

나는 한국 아냐

"My teammates will introduce themselves in order of skin color from lightest to darkest" - Bonny Jain

Chandragupta Maurya
Lulu
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Chandragupta Maurya » Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:38 am

Fred wrote:Yay there's an update yay.
I don't understand why Cistercian dropped 5 spots and is now below St. Marks, considering the fact that Cistercian beat St. Marks 505-165 at Quad States, in addition to having a higher PPG and margin at that tournament. In addition, Cistercian won the TQBA Spartan Showdown on November 13, going 10-0.
Vimal Konduri
Cistercian Preparatory School '13
Harvard '17

Romero
Wakka
Posts: 157
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 11:05 pm
Contact:

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Romero » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:10 am

Vimal,

My guess is that your bonus conversion on HSAPQ 15 was slightly lower than St. Marks. You will have chances in the future to play against top 100 teams and improve your ranking. Next weekend you have will likely have the chance to face LASA and Seven Lakes at HoHoHo.

Romero
Chris Romero
Texas Quiz Bowl Alliance & Louisiana Quiz Bowl Alliance
Quiz Bowl Coach
Former Player, Texas A&M University ('96-'07)
Former Player, Catholic High School-New Iberia, LA ('92-'96)

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Edward Powers » Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:36 pm

Vimal,

I think Coach Romero might be on to something when he suggests that your 300 plus point victory is not as important as your bonus stats if they were lower than St. Mark's. It is possibly because our beloved Fred absolutely loves PPB---he apparently thinks it is the most important stat. And we must agree it is quite important. But it is not inevitably decisive, for its decisiveness is dependent on a more important stat: TU conversion. Where two teams have very close TU conversion stats, then PPB will be decisive. But if team A, let's say Cistercian, has a TU of 75%, and Team B, let's say St. Mark's, since they are the team you mentioned, has a TU conversion rate of 25%, then clearly you will have the opportunity to answer 10 more bonus cycles than St. Marks in any match.Let's say you average 20 PPB, and St. Mark's is perfect---30 PPB. Clearly you are inferior!!!---But let's leave powers & negs out for a second and compute the final score in just such a match using 10 point TU's only. You get 15 TU's for 150 points, and you average 20 PPB, so this will be 300 more points. Your final score? 450. St. Marks, in this hypothetical, gets 5 TU's for 50, and with an astounding 30PPB gets 150 more on its 5 bonus cycles, for a final match total of 200 points.

Now do you see why you are an inferior team who had to drop in the rankings? ? Your PPB is just not good enough!!!!!!!!!

Comedy aside, we do compute and publish PPB stats for every match and tournament, but we do not keep TU conversion stats per se for any match or tournament---yet TU conversion stats are primary and TU's determine bonus opportunities; bonus opportunities are the dependent variable. So, teams with lower PPB can consistently defeat teams with higher PPB if they have a decisive advantage in TU conversion %'s, assuming the lower PPB are not ridiculously lower. But we do not keep a TU conversion % stats, so for simplicity, PPB is used to evaluate the quality of a team. Were tournaments simply based on bonus conversion, this would be an outstanding if obvious idea---but quizbowl is a competitive game, and TU's are the key to this competitive and game-like feature of quizbowl---a fact too often overlooked by those who love PPB stats.

Now, if you add powers to the mix, they can become even more decisive. Go look at the stats for the 2010 HSNCT and notice the TU% conversion of the top teams, especially if you take powers into account. Let's use Maggie Walker to illustrate the larger phenomenon. MWGS hit about 60 % of all TU's heard, giving it a 20% advantage on its opponents even if its opponents hit the remaining 40%, which they did not. This stat alone means MWGS has an opportunity at at least 4 more bonus cycles than its opponents in every match---an absolutely decisive advantage unless MWGS goes brain dead during such bonus cycles. Further, if you the multiply the over 100 TU's it powered by 1.5, and add this new number to its previous TU conversion total, then its TU rate is equivalent to about 73% of the points available on TU's---an overwhelming stat. In such a case, MWGS's bonus stats could be significantly lower than they actually were, it would not matter, except against teams that could hold MWGS's TU conversion down---teams like SC or DCD or Dorman, let's say, because they too tend to have overwhelming TU conversion rates---otherwise, MWGS would just blow teams away at the TU phase of the game. But we do not keep stats for this. So---PPB has become a valuable if sometimes misleading shorthand---for it is relied on too heavily, as in the hypothetical match I just delineated between Cistercian and St. Mark's---one that might have been similar to the actual one you mentioned? And none of this is meant to pick on St. Mark's, which is, I am sure, an excellent team. I simply used St. Mark's because it was mentioned in your above post and is, i imagine, a gifted rival.

So---go improve your PPB and leave Fred to his own comic methods!!!!!! (Hi FRED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:46 pm

I don't follow PPB blindly; I do believe it is the most important statistic, though I like power rates as well.

You make good points about TU conversion, though.

I have not paid much attention to head-to-head yet because there wasn't that much data out there. At this point in the season, though, certain teams do have enough of that information to affect their rankings, and I'm starting to look at that.

I don't expect the next set of rankings to come out for several weeks, possibly not until about Christmas.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Edward Powers » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:58 pm

Just having some fun, FRED! I am sure you look at other factors as well, but since you say you do, here is what I look at in order of importance---do you look at these as well?:

FIRST, I like wins & losses ( these tend to be decisive) :shock: ; and, more precisely, I look at these within a playoff bracket at a tournament, especially a major tournament which all excellent teams have targeted. Teams that consistently make the playoffs in tournament after tournament and then finish at or near the top of such tournaments consistently are the best teams. Further, in my judgment, 4 or 5 or 6 wins in such a playoff bracket are NOT 4 or 5 or 6 outliers that cannot be measured----for they have a context of a single tournament against a pattern of opponents, even if each opponent was only played once, all played all in a round robin, so, the final result should have significance and not be labeled as "5 or 6 " outlier matches. In 6 team playoff brackets like those at HFT, for example, the results are the fruit of 5 rounds of matches with 3 matches per round. Otherwise, could we not label LASA A's 5/6 wins against outstanding teams like SC, Dorman, TJ, Hunter and Dunbar in the HFT as nothing more than 5 outlier matches (6 if we count its win in the advantaged final against SC) from which we can draw no conclusions? Then why have tournaments at all---every match is a solitary match, so each is, in effect, an isolated event, in effect, an outlier? To describe it this way reveals the "outlier theory" as unpersuasive, and it should not persuade. Of course if one just took random matches out of context, these could be outliers with little substantive meaning in the big picture, but for me, wins and losses head to head within a tournment final playoff field is the decisive statistic, for as a New York Jet football coach one famously and comedically said : "You play to win the game", and, I might add, not to have the best stat lines beyond wins and losses;

SECOND, I LIKE PPG within playoff brackets (not prelims becuase these could be seeded in very unbalanced ways) because all other stats (PPB/TU's/Powers/Negs) are subsumed under PPG, and ALL can influence the outcome of a match;

THIRD, I like TU conversion stats, for in a pyramidal format this reveals superior knowledge and game skill and this is why we almost universally allow the team that wins the TU a monopoly on answering bonuses, generally without bounce-backs, and, of course, superior TU stats means superior bonus opportunities;

FOURTH, I like POWER STATs, as a subset of TU conversion stats because a genuine superiority here enhances TU conversion rates and generally can power an opponent out of a match and keep bonus opportunities coming;

FINALLY, I like PPB stats, for if #'s 2-4 above are close, this will decide who wins # 1 above; additionally , genuine superiority here suggests a greater breadth of knowledge for sure, and also a likely greater depth as well, unless one is consistently lower in TU conversion rates. Naturally, the team consistently higher in both TU conversion and PPB will inevitably be a very superior team.

So, what do you think, Fred?
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

Chandragupta Maurya
Lulu
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 7:29 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Chandragupta Maurya » Sat Nov 27, 2010 9:24 pm

Edward Powers wrote:Just having some fun, FRED! I am sure you look at other factors as well, but since you say you do, here is what I look at in order of importance---do you look at these as well?:

FIRST, I like wins & losses ( these tend to be decisive) :shock: ; and, more precisely, I look at these within a playoff bracket at a tournament, especially a major tournament which all excellent teams have targeted. Teams that consistently make the playoffs in tournament after tournament and then finish at or near the top of such tournaments consistently are the best teams. Further, in my judgment, 4 or 5 or 6 wins in such a playoff bracket are NOT 4 or 5 or 6 outliers that cannot be measured----for they have a context of a single tournament against a pattern of opponents, even if each opponent was only played once, all played all in a round robin, so, the final result should have significance and not be labeled as "5 or 6 " outlier matches. In 6 team playoff brackets like those at HFT, for example, the results are the fruit of 5 rounds of matches with 3 matches per round. Otherwise, could we not label LASA A's 5/6 wins against outstanding teams like SC, Dorman, TJ, Hunter and Dunbar in the HFT as nothing more than 5 outlier matches (6 if we count its win in the advantaged final against SC) from which we can draw no conclusions? Then why have tournaments at all---every match is a solitary match, so each is, in effect, an isolated event, in effect, an outlier? To describe it this way reveals the "outlier theory" as unpersuasive, and it should not persuade. Of course if one just took random matches out of context, these could be outliers with little substantive meaning in the big picture, but for me, wins and losses head to head within a tournment final playoff field is the decisive statistic, for as a New York Jet football coach one famously and comedically said : "You play to win the game", and, I might add, not to have the best stat lines beyond wins and losses;

SECOND, I LIKE PPG within playoff brackets (not prelims becuase these could be seeded in very unbalanced ways) because all other stats (PPB/TU's/Powers/Negs) are subsumed under PPG, and ALL can influence the outcome of a match;

THIRD, I like TU conversion stats, for in a pyramidal format this reveals superior knowledge and game skill and this is why we almost universally allow the team that wins the TU a monopoly on answering bonuses, generally without bounce-backs, and, of course, superior TU stats means superior bonus opportunities;

FOURTH, I like POWER STATs, as a subset of TU conversion stats because a genuine superiority here enhances TU conversion rates and generally can power an opponent out of a match and keep bonus opportunities coming;

FINALLY, I like PPB stats, for if #'s 2-4 above are close, this will decide who wins # 1 above; additionally , genuine superiority here suggests a greater breadth of knowledge for sure, and also a likely greater depth as well, unless one is consistently lower in TU conversion rates. Naturally, the team consistently higher in both TU conversion and PPB will inevitably be a very superior team.
I concur.
Vimal Konduri
Cistercian Preparatory School '13
Harvard '17

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:38 am

Edward Powers wrote:Just having some fun, FRED! I am sure you look at other factors as well, but since you say you do, here is what I look at in order of importance---do you look at these as well?:

FIRST, I like wins & losses ( these tend to be decisive) :shock: ; and, more precisely, I look at these within a playoff bracket at a tournament, especially a major tournament which all excellent teams have targeted. Teams that consistently make the playoffs in tournament after tournament and then finish at or near the top of such tournaments consistently are the best teams. Further, in my judgment, 4 or 5 or 6 wins in such a playoff bracket are NOT 4 or 5 or 6 outliers that cannot be measured----for they have a context of a single tournament against a pattern of opponents, even if each opponent was only played once, all played all in a round robin, so, the final result should have significance and not be labeled as "5 or 6 " outlier matches. In 6 team playoff brackets like those at HFT, for example, the results are the fruit of 5 rounds of matches with 3 matches per round. Otherwise, could we not label LASA A's 5/6 wins against outstanding teams like SC, Dorman, TJ, Hunter and Dunbar in the HFT as nothing more than 5 outlier matches (6 if we count its win in the advantaged final against SC) from which we can draw no conclusions? Then why have tournaments at all---every match is a solitary match, so each is, in effect, an isolated event, in effect, an outlier? To describe it this way reveals the "outlier theory" as unpersuasive, and it should not persuade. Of course if one just took random matches out of context, these could be outliers with little substantive meaning in the big picture, but for me, wins and losses head to head within a tournment final playoff field is the decisive statistic, for as a New York Jet football coach one famously and comedically said : "You play to win the game", and, I might add, not to have the best stat lines beyond wins and losses;

SECOND, I LIKE PPG within playoff brackets (not prelims becuase these could be seeded in very unbalanced ways) because all other stats (PPB/TU's/Powers/Negs) are subsumed under PPG, and ALL can influence the outcome of a match;

THIRD, I like TU conversion stats, for in a pyramidal format this reveals superior knowledge and game skill and this is why we almost universally allow the team that wins the TU a monopoly on answering bonuses, generally without bounce-backs, and, of course, superior TU stats means superior bonus opportunities;

FOURTH, I like POWER STATs, as a subset of TU conversion stats because a genuine superiority here enhances TU conversion rates and generally can power an opponent out of a match and keep bonus opportunities coming;

FINALLY, I like PPB stats, for if #'s 2-4 above are close, this will decide who wins # 1 above; additionally , genuine superiority here suggests a greater breadth of knowledge for sure, and also a likely greater depth as well, unless one is consistently lower in TU conversion rates. Naturally, the team consistently higher in both TU conversion and PPB will inevitably be a very superior team.

So, what do you think, Fred?
There's two flaws in your argument that I believe are pretty major.

First, regarding wins and losses, I don't think a small number of wins against a team shows that that team is definitively better.

Additionally and somewhat attached to the first one, not all tournaments use round robin playoffs; in fact, a lot use single elimination, which means that a lot of top teams at that tournament don't get to face off.

As for tossup conversion, I believe that actually does a worse job of determining depth of knowledge, since there's no way of determining if a TU was answered at the giveaway, the first clue or somewhere in between. Additionally, tossup conversion relies heavily upon quality of opponent, as a team at HFT would have a harder time being the firs to buzz in and answer a TU correctly against that field than against the normal field of a West Virginia tournament. This means that the tossup conversion statistic cannot be used for comparison at different sites, regardless of using the same site. PPB on the same set can largely be used for the same purpose.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Edward Powers » Sun Nov 28, 2010 10:26 am

You are still very very funny.

My concessions: Yes, sometimes round robins are not used, and when this occurs, my argument has less weight. But otherwise, it has much weight. And yes, sometimes TU's are gotten at the giveaway, so here it might reveal buzzer skill---a part of a team's exellence--or, it still reveals cognitive superiority---miniscule, to be sure, but there nonetheless. And, if you THINK not, you should propose a rule change---no bonuses allowed on buzzer races after he giveaway. Until you do, winning a TU earns a team the precious opportunity you seem to value most---the opportunity to rack up PPB. And rightly so.

But your tendency to dismiss wins and losses remains stunning. Your argument actually invalidates national tournaments and their final rankings at the end. Why? By definition, wins and losses against any team at nationals will involve a small sample against said team. I will give you our own examples at both PACE and the HSNCT in 2010, and I will use examples from teams we played only once. I will start with PACE : we lost to Dorman B, we defeated Walter Johnson, we lost to Alpharetta, we defeated Dunbar B, we lost to Lisle, we defeated Loyola. Now, turn to the HSNCT and more teams we had only one match with: we defeated Olmsted Falls, we lost to Solon; we defeated Chaska, we lost to Berkeley. Using your argument, one match does not allow any conclusions. Yet both PACE and the HSNCT ranked all of these teams at the end, and I believe they did so correctly and with both good cause and a good conscience. Why? Because in tournaments, TWO CONSTANTS are at work. FIRST, wins and losses against a field of teams ultimately refine the field into fairly reasonable gradations of quality, with the teams WINNING MOST FREQUENTLY against the field rising to the top, and those losing falling to the bottom. SECOND, the field plays against a set of questions DESIGNED to be relatively constant in its degree of difficulty, so that results in one round can be reasonably compared to results in others.

This pair of constants within a FIELD is what you seem to ignore. My interpretation is that a win is not simply a win when these constants are at work---a win is a win within a pattern of wins and losses against a constant field and a constant set of questions, so even if you play team only once, your overall wins & losses record is quite meaningful precisely because of the constants mentioned. And, of course, if a team consistently wins at a high rate at tournament after tournament, finishing at or near the top, clearly it might not be the best team, but surely it is among the best teams, as its consistent winning shows.

But here is where your theory of wins and losses becomes stunning. You suggest a win here or there proves little, since it is such a small sample. In another thread you called such wins "outliers". What you ignore is that teams rarely play each other more than once in a tournament, except perhaps in advantaged finals But using your logic, even an advantaged final has only two matches at most in addition to a possible preliminary match, thus, samples remain small,3 at most, so, logically, no tournament result necessarily means anything due to these small samples. Taken to its logical conclusion, your argument undermines all actual tournament results, inclluding national tournament, results, given the small samples they inevitably deal with. And if you suggest that national playoffs sometime have mulitple matches, you ignore this easy criticism: How do we know the finalists deserve to be there, since their earlier preliminary wins prove nothing---maybe the teams they defeated were truly superior, if only they had enough sample games to show this. SJHS was eliminated from the HSNCT by Berkeley, knocking us 10 spots lower in the HSNCT RANKINGS at the end. Should we not complain to the HSNCT saying that one win means little, yet the HSNCT made it worth 10 spots in the rankings!!! Would not everyone see us as trying to deny Berkeley its deserved finish and ranking? I think so, and it undermines Berkeley's fine result, does it not? We lost, Berkeley won, so Berkeley deserved to finish ahead of us.

So, in closing, it is my considered judgment that your theory ignores the constants I mention, constants designed to make tournaments meaningful even if almost all matches are against different opponents--in your vocabulary, "small samples". But it is not the isolated win or loss that matters, it is the PATTERN OF WIN and losses within, ultimately, a playoff field, against a common set of questions. And it is your common dismissal of such PATTERNS of wins, calling them isolated facts at most, which amazes your adoring and myriad fans here in the quizbowl world. :shock: :grin: :lol:

You really should reconsider your tendency to dismiss wins and losses in a controlled tournament and to substitute out of context stats like PPB in near isolation of all else. As the old saying goes, "stats are for losers". But if we were to focus on one stat alone, I would still go for the pattern of wins and losses over any other.
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

Angry Babies in Love
Yuna
Posts: 819
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 10:09 pm
Location: MD//DC

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Angry Babies in Love » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:54 pm

If you go by wins and losses, would the difficulty of the opponent be factored in? If not, you'd have a bunch of teams that are overrated because they are in poorer regions. If so, you'd give teams that don't play top teams every tournament a disadvantage.
The reason I like PPB so much is that it is independent of every factor except quality of team. I understand the counterargument that PPB doesn't cover the tossup phase, but I feel that bonuses are stronger indicators of a team's knowledge than tossups.
Raynell Cooper
Arcadia ES '04
Richard Montgomery HS '11
George Washington University '15
University of Maryland, College Park '17
Hella things, National History Bee and Bowl

Tanay
Rikku
Posts: 427
Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:05 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Tanay » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:16 pm

Having the two primary factors be points per bonus and powers per game seems like it would strike the correct balance between evaluating a team's depth of knowledge and its ability to get tossups against teams of similar caliber. To an extent, the number of powers per game is also affected by the strength of a team's opponents, but is still more indicative of ability and less prone to that problem than evaluating the total number of tossups.
Tanay
ex-Berkeley, ex-Bellarmine

User avatar
Charles Martel
Wakka
Posts: 199
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:21 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Charles Martel » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:26 pm

Would number of dead tossups per game be a useful measure to capture the breadth of a team's knowledge?
Adam Kalinich
MIT 2012-
Illinois Math and Science Academy 2009-2012

User avatar
Steeve Ho You Fat
Yuna
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:48 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Steeve Ho You Fat » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:34 pm

Anything that just measures tossups answered (or dead TUs) does nothing to differentiate between a team that's just a little less bad than the team they're playing and a really good team. Measuring dead TUs is faulty because it is dependent on the quality of one's opposition (especially if the better team negs). The total number of tossups answered means nothing. At the last tournament we played, we had games where we answered over 75% of the tossups, but when we played some of the good teams there, like Northmont, we only answered 7/20. Our power counts varied a lot less: one when we played Northmont as opposed to an average of 2.4 per game over the whole day. If we were in a stronger region, we would be playing more teams like Northmont who are capable of reducing our tossup count, which would also reduce our points per game. Our points per bonus, however, has nothing to do with our opponent's quality, and is therefore the best metric for comparing teams across regions that have not played each other. I also think that it is better than head-to-head, because, let's face it, especially at this point in the season most teams have only played each other at most two or three times. If one of these teams was missing people, tired, or just had a bad packet for them, that could swing the result. Does this mean that nationals tournaments are pointless? No. Winning games is still important. However, for rankings in the first half of the season, when, of the 100 teams ranked, most are from different parts of the country and haven't played each other, points per bonus is the best way to attempt to measure depth of knowledge.
Joe Nutter
PACE Treasurer
Michigan State University '14
Walnut Hills High School '11

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Edward Powers » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:52 pm

Raynell,

This thread is about ranking the BEST teams. Obviously a team winning every tournament in a region where scores are always in the high 100's or low 200's against national sets would make such wins significantly less imppressive for sure.

But Fred seems to drop teams who defeat other teams in the same tournament because the losing team has a higher PPB, ignoring, apparently, all else that occurred. I agree that PPB is an important stat, but not more important than TU conversion. Fred has ranked teams that have lost by over 300 points to an opponent at the same tournament because the winner's PPB was lower than the losers. I already showed upthread how this ignores TU conversion. But l'll repeat it briefly for your benefit. Team A gets 75% TU conversion against team B and averages 20 PPB. Team B gets 25 % conversion against Team A but gets 30 PPB. Who is better in the hypothetical? Ignoring powers and negs and making TU's all 10 points each, Team A wins 450-200.

You might think this is a strawman's argument, but it is not. Look at the Cisterican-St. Mark's match mentioned above---apparently, Cistercian defeated St. Mark's by over 300 points but averaged fewer PPB at Quad States. The result in the new ranking? Cistercian fell below St. Mark's. Why? Apparently because PPB were valued more than TU conversion. Fred seems to see the aggregate value of PPB, but fails to see the aggregate value of wins in the same playoff field. It is a stunning argument, in my view. Why bother to play tournaments? Why have TU's? Why not just have a written bonus contest? Why have buzzers? Why make TU's pyramidal? If my team or any team consistently gets 60% of the TU's in a tournament, our opponents have almost no chance unless our bonus conversion is ridiculously at odds with our TU conversion. PPB fails to take into bonus opportunities and total bonus points. So, if team A hits 120 TU's in a tournament with 200 TUH, and it averages 18 PPB, it will score 2160 total bonus points. Team B hits 90 TU's out of 200 TUH, and averages 24 PPB---a full 33 % better than team A at PPB, but team A is 33 % better a TU conversions. So, team B scores 2160 in bonuses as well. So, who wins? Leaving Powers & Negs aside, Team A scores 1200 additional points for TU conversion, for an overall point total of 3360 in 10 matches. or, a PPG of 336. team B scores an additional 900 points for it TU's, for a PPG avarage against the same set and same field of 3060 points, or 306 PPG.

So, which is the better team? The team with the 33% superiority in TU conversion stats will consistently outperform the team with the 33% bonus stats IN THE AGGREGATE. Sure, team A might lose periodically to Team B, since we are talking averages here, but overall statistics suggest Team A is the superior team and results will reveal this over time. Of course, from a purists point of view, both teams are flawed. But this analyisis reveals how important TU conversion is, and since questions ARE pyramidal, we must assume that the team with the significant edge in TU conversion is cognitively superior in this phase of the game, while, obviously, the team with the higher PPB is superior in that phase. But we do not keep TU conversion stats, while we do keep PPB stats. But when teams with lower PPB defeat teams with higher PPB by 200-300+ points and then the losing team is rated better because of one stat---PPB, surely the evaluator is missing something crucial which tournament results do not---hence the need to look at the overall pattern of wins and losses in a tournament. For Cistercian to fall in rankings below St. Mark's after defeating St. Mark's by over 300 points makes no sense. Yet it happened. The question is why? Because of a flawed system of valuation which substitutes one crucial part of the competition---PPB---for the entirety of factors contributing to victory. But rankings are also meant to be fun, and differences between teams and regions so subtle that subjectivity inevitably will enter in any evaluation. But TU conversion should not be ignored, for it is crucual to the most decisive stat---the overall pattern of wins and losses in a common field with common questions. Otherwise, I repeat, all tournaments are irrelevant, especially nationals.

Fred is fond of saying several wins against an opponent is not proof of superiority. But say it in reverse: Are several losses therefore proof of superiority? To dismiss several wins against the same team, especially at geographically diverse tournaments like HFT, undemines the rationale for holding such tournaments--to see how different regions might compare. Of course the number of matches against said tems will be small, due to geographic necessity, So why then dismiss actual wins when matches do take place? This approach is more than subjective---it is arbitrary, especially if that solitary victory is validated by a better record in the same playoff bracket against all other opponent shared by the two teams being compared---for the bracket results are the fruit of many matches against quality teams on the same questions. In a 6 bracket field like the one at HFT, 15 matches were played leading to 30 results for the teams involved---15 wins and 15 losses. These 30 results are not statistically irrelevant. So,to ignore a team's higher placement because it only had one result against the other teamm vitiates the very purpsoses of tournaments. So, this is what has been questioned here. That's all.

Of course if TU conversion is quite close, then a significant difference in PPB would doubtless be decisive. Further, you might like PPB more, but suppose you go to nationals, win, but the trophy is given to the team finishing fourth because its PPB is best? Surely this would be a silly decision. No one denies the importance of PPB. But it should not trump results head to head in common tournaments within the same playoff bracket. Yet it seems that is exacly what is happening in many cases in the national rankings. So, some, including me, are AMICABLY asking Fred why and pointing out some possible flaws in his method. We still love Fred, and we always know that his rankings are meant to be fun and yet can help no one in the actual heat of competition. Further, given so many tournaments and so many good teams, we understand that Fred needs criteria to make his evaluations, and we understand that others might use somewhat different evaluative criteria---that part of the fun if these forums. But when crucial factor like TU conversion % , or wins and losses and high placements in fields that everyone recognizes as excellent are systematically overlooked in favor of an important but dependent variable like PPB ( bonus points depend on TU conversion), then Fred should be asked to re-examine his methods., whether you personally share his evaluation of the importance of the PPB stat or not.
Last edited by Edward Powers on Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

SoLegit12
Wakka
Posts: 161
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 7:47 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by SoLegit12 » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:09 pm

Wurzel-Flummery wrote:If you go by wins and losses, would the difficulty of the opponent be factored in? If not, you'd have a bunch of teams that are overrated because they are in poorer regions. If so, you'd give teams that don't play top teams every tournament a disadvantage.
The reason I like PPB so much is that it is independent of every factor except quality of team. I understand the counterargument that PPB doesn't cover the tossup phase, but I feel that bonuses are stronger indicators of a team's knowledge than tossups.
This coming from the guy that dislikes bouncebacks
Nick "Nick" Neuteufel
Criticizing your philosophy and social science writing since 2010.
***
duPont Manual HS '12
UNC Chapel Hill '16 (VP of the Carlolina Academic Team)
nneuteufel@gmail.com

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15258
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by AKKOLADE » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:42 pm

Ed, I'm currently too busy with homework (this paper about salamanders and dispersal distance isn't going to write itself, of course) to give the full response to your points that I'd like to now, but I do have a question to ask of you, based off a comment Kuo-Kai made on the latest update.

At the Georgia mirror of HFT, Chattahoochee defeated Alpharetta by a final score of, I believe, 340-320. The total points may be off, but the margin of victory was 20.

Let's assume that the stats for the Georgia HFT are the only data points we have for these teams. For the entirety of the tournament, which ran for 10 games, Alpharetta's stats were better than Chattahoochee's (500 ppg & 22.68 ppb vs. 439 ppg & 21.36 ppb). It's certainly not like Chattahoochee was lapped or anything, but Alpharetta did at least put up bigger numbers.

How would you rank those two teams? How much of a gap would you put between those two teams? How would you balance the results of the key game between those two squads with their performances for the full tournament?
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

Edward Powers
Auron
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:52 pm

Re: On-going season rankings

Post by Edward Powers » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:47 pm

I wish people would read more carefully. I understand that TU conversion rates can be inflated in prelims. That is why I consistently stressed computing these rates in the playoffs, presumably against the overall best teams in the field, and these stats are of course more valuable if a round robin is played, for then all play all. Single eliminations remove 50% of the remaining teams every round, which is why RR tends to be preferred. But once in playoff rounds, why not count TU conversion? And the argument that too many questions are answered after the giveaway is a non-sequitur for several reasons. First, playoff teams in general tend to be playoff teams precisely because they buzz in sooner---before the giveaway. And, at those times when the giveaway is heard, buzzer skills still come into play and are crucial to overall excellence in this COMPETITIVE enterprise. Remove this, you remove the gamelike feature of quizbowl that makes it so attractive to so many, and you deny a skill we all know some teams have and others lack.

I will give you a personal example from an excellent tournament we went to last year---GDS's Ben Cooper. We were bracketed with Maggie walker and Richard montgomery in the prelims, along with 3 or four fair to good teams but not teams that could threat the top 3. We had some good fortune against RM, but then played MWGS. We were powered right out of the game----a point Tanay rightly makes. I think we actually hit 4 questions, powering 2. But MWGS powered 12 or so, an amazing performance. Through a bracketing error, we then had the misfortune of being paired with Maggie walker again, right after defeating a very gifted TJ team. We fared better in this match---we hit 6 TU's. powering 3 or 4, and lost some serious buzzer races to MWGS---which once again powered about 12 or 13 questions. We had a good team last year---but MWGS was great, and in general, it's TU conversion rate was so incredible that almost no one could keep up. This was NO ANOMALY---MWGS also had the best TU conversion at HSNCT, and powered over 100 TU's in less than 400 heard. Only teams with similar TU's conversion rates had a chance against MWGS, and we all know which teams they were last year---there were only about 5 or so that had a chance to do so, but then MWGS PPB also kicked in, so, MWGS won one National and was a serious contender for the 2nd.

Back to the real point: those of you who want to use PPB instead of overall results at tournaments, head to head, in playoffs, of course, explain to me why Cistercian should fall beneath a team it had just defeated by over 300 points in a tournament it finished in a tie for 1st with Seven Lakes? You only can do this by ignoring Cistercian's significant superiority in TU conversion, which led to a comfortable win. Why would you ignore such a fundamental stat, the independent variable in tournaments, while PPB is always a dependent variable?
Last edited by Edward Powers on Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Ed Powers
Coach
SJHS Academic Team
Metuchen, NJ

Locked