2013 NAC thread split
Posted: Thu Apr 25, 2013 8:45 am
The reason Middlesex went to the JNAC is because we received a letter inviting us to the JNAC. I'm not sure if this is normal procedure for QU, though.
Sponsored by the Partnership for Academic Competition Excellence (Twitter: @PACENSC)
https://hsquizbowl.org/forums/
Why is this thread still getting necro-ed? Why?geolawyerman wrote:Why is Irvington still going to the NAC? Why?
Let me clarify. Manheim Township at NAC is Manheim Township Middle School. Manheim Township High School will be attending HSNCT and NSC. We have switched to pyramidal quiz bowl.RyuAqua wrote:
From the looks of the schedule they posted, Millburn, Ardsley, Altamont, Hawken, Copley, and Manheim Township are also going, of teams that have some presence or mention on these boards.
I do not know, I am no longer with the team, being in college and all, but I tried my best to get them to stop going in my last year.geolawyerman wrote:Why is Irvington still going to the NAC? Why?
From looking at the QU site, Milburn (with one 'l') is in the middle school field. A cursory google search shows that there is at least one Milburn middle school not in NJ.RyuAqua wrote: From the looks of the schedule they posted, Millburn, Ardsley, Altamont, Hawken, and Copley [EDIT: apparently not Manheim Township; sorry!] are also going, of teams that have some presence or mention on these boards.
This is about the only thing I disagree with in the whole post, and at that only because it's a matter of individual/team opinion what facets of the tournament are the most important. Maybe they enjoy time between games to go do other things. I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't spend that entry fee for that small a number of games for the primary reason that the entry fee is meant to pay for the actual tournament, not the time spent doing things other than the tournament.RyuAqua wrote:To say that the NAC runs well because the "rounds run on time" is to miss the issue completely.
While I don't have direct experience with the Middle School tournament, I can vouch that Chip has sent us NAC invitation letters because of one or more "accomplishments" on our part that were nearly meaningless.RyuAqua wrote:The best thing to do with the letter - which I'm led to believe is something that Chip still sends to as many schools as he can look up or jot down from other national tournaments' field listings - is to ignore it and just walk away.
What will it take to get you to drop the ridiculous "if people feel like it, then it's OK" stream of bull you can't stop yourself from spouting even when you know other people are right? Anybody who's actually put in the effort to run, say, a high quality 24 team tournament that guarantees everybody 10 games and sends everybody home before 5 should be extremely offended at the idea that Chip half assing his job that we've put in way more effort on is acceptable just because some people who have no idea what is good are OK with it. It's a delusion that he gets away with by doing the absolute minimum amount of work possible then bilking his audience, and just because some people aren't bothered by it makes it no less obnoxious to those of us who put in more work on a regular invitational than he does on his entire 3 stage national championship.Howard wrote:This is about the only thing I disagree with in the whole post, and at that only because it's a matter of individual/team opinion what facets of the tournament are the most important. Maybe they enjoy time between games to go do other things. I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't spend that entry fee for that small a number of games for the primary reason that the entry fee is meant to pay for the actual tournament, not the time spent doing things other than the tournament.RyuAqua wrote:To say that the NAC runs well because the "rounds run on time" is to miss the issue completely.
Even at this it fails miserably. I could buy the concept of a team wanting to spend some time exploring the city they've travelled to, sightseeing, etc. But the schedule for NAC doesn't even do that well. One team I picked from the Washington schedule plays Friday at 11:15, 1:15, 1:45, and 5:15, then Saturday at 5:30 and 8:00. One middle school team plays 8:45, 9:45, 4:15 on Friday, then 8:30, 11:30, 7:30 on Saturday. What are they supposed to do for their two hours between games Saturday morning. Are they allowed to watch other games (this is a serious question, are questions used for multiple rounds or can teams watch other matches on their byes?), or do they go back to their rooms? They certainly don't have time to leave the hotel and go anywhere.Howard wrote:This is about the only thing I disagree with in the whole post, and at that only because it's a matter of individual/team opinion what facets of the tournament are the most important. Maybe they enjoy time between games to go do other things. I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't spend that entry fee for that small a number of games for the primary reason that the entry fee is meant to pay for the actual tournament, not the time spent doing things other than the tournament.RyuAqua wrote:To say that the NAC runs well because the "rounds run on time" is to miss the issue completely.
As someone who has played at NAC, I vaguely remember not being allowed to watch other matches. Our coach taught us juggling in the lobby at one of the buildings at Marymount and we played Flash games in the computer lab in two of our breaks.jonpin wrote:Even at this it fails miserably. I could buy the concept of a team wanting to spend some time exploring the city they've travelled to, sightseeing, etc. But the schedule for NAC doesn't even do that well. One team I picked from the Washington schedule plays Friday at 11:15, 1:15, 1:45, and 5:15, then Saturday at 5:30 and 8:00. One middle school team plays 8:45, 9:45, 4:15 on Friday, then 8:30, 11:30, 7:30 on Saturday. What are they supposed to do for their two hours between games Saturday morning. Are they allowed to watch other games (this is a serious question, are questions used for multiple rounds or can teams watch other matches on their byes?), or do they go back to their rooms? They certainly don't have time to leave the hotel and go anywhere.Howard wrote:This is about the only thing I disagree with in the whole post, and at that only because it's a matter of individual/team opinion what facets of the tournament are the most important. Maybe they enjoy time between games to go do other things. I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't spend that entry fee for that small a number of games for the primary reason that the entry fee is meant to pay for the actual tournament, not the time spent doing things other than the tournament.RyuAqua wrote:To say that the NAC runs well because the "rounds run on time" is to miss the issue completely.
No, this is a rather pathetic excuse on NAC's behalf. A team which is traveling to a national quiz bowl championship should totally expect to play quiz bowl for most of their time there.
There is nothing ridiculous about the concept that teams should be able to compete in whatever format(s) they wish for whatever reason(s) they wish. Failure to grasp this concept will result in diminished attendance at tournaments. You can feel good about the effort you put in-- and, deservedly you should-- but if it doesn't address the needs, wants, and desires of the teams in the area and a trend of diminishing attendance occurs, I think we need to ask ourselves why this is occurring and make moves to correct it.Horned Screamer wrote:What will it take to get you to drop the ridiculous "if people feel like it, then it's OK" stream of bull you can't stop yourself from spouting even when you know other people are right? Anybody who's actually put in the effort to run, say, a high quality 24 team tournament that guarantees everybody 10 games and sends everybody home before 5 should be extremely offended at the idea that Chip half assing his job that we've put in way more effort on is acceptable just because some people who have no idea what is good are OK with it. It's a delusion that he gets away with by doing the absolute minimum amount of work possible then bilking his audience, and just because some people aren't bothered by it makes it no less obnoxious to those of us who put in more work on a regular invitational than he does on his entire 3 stage national championship.
As there were somewhat conflicting answers given to this above: teams can indeed watch any other matches during the tournament (they are actually somewhat encouraged to, all the game rooms have far more seats for the audience than are ever filled). Chip uses different questions for each of the 24 or so rounds, even though he uses the same questions at the three sites. However, having watched round last year, you do end up feeling like you have cheated almost - though Chip seems mostly able now too avoid pure repeats of the exact same question, repetition of clues between rounds was not uncommon, so the more games you saw, the more likely you could pick up a question on a repeated clue that your opponent did not get a chance to hear.What are they supposed to do for their two hours between games Saturday morning. Are they allowed to watch other games (this is a serious question, are questions used for multiple rounds or can teams watch other matches on their byes?), or do they go back to their rooms? They certainly don't have time to leave the hotel and go anywhere.
"They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!" I think it's our moral duty as supporters of good quiz bowl to try to prevent teams from getting fleeced by charlatans.Howard wrote:There is nothing ridiculous about the concept that teams should be able to compete in whatever format(s) they wish for whatever reason(s) they wish.Horned Screamer wrote:What will it take to get you to drop the ridiculous "if people feel like it, then it's OK" stream of bull you can't stop yourself from spouting even when you know other people are right? Anybody who's actually put in the effort to run, say, a high quality 24 team tournament that guarantees everybody 10 games and sends everybody home before 5 should be extremely offended at the idea that Chip half assing his job that we've put in way more effort on is acceptable just because some people who have no idea what is good are OK with it. It's a delusion that he gets away with by doing the absolute minimum amount of work possible then bilking his audience, and just because some people aren't bothered by it makes it no less obnoxious to those of us who put in more work on a regular invitational than he does on his entire 3 stage national championship.
What are you even talking about?Failure to grasp this concept will result in diminished attendance at tournaments. You can feel good about the effort you put in-- and, deservedly you should-- but if it doesn't address the needs, wants, and desires of the teams in the area and a trend of diminishing attendance occurs, I think we need to ask ourselves why this is occurring and make moves to correct it.
Many of these teams DO know about good quizbowl now and do attend pyramidal tournaments during the year; in fact, I'm increasing convinced most of them know exactly what they're doing. As Pingry showed this year, you can be a team that can't go better than .500 at a regular NAQT tournament and yet become a NATIONAL CHAMPION at the NAC. When you're a sucker for trophies and meaningless awards, what's the issue with playing a crappy tournament with bad questions, few matches, and dubious ethics?geolawyerman wrote:Has anyone ever considered inviting some of these teams to pyramidal tournaments?
In the case of Pingry (who regularly goes to good quizbowl events in the competitive Northern NJ circuit as Chris pointed out), I get the impression the students run the team more than the coach, who doesn't know particularly much about the difference between QU/NAQT and isn't a sucker for trophies as far as I can tell.cchiego wrote:
Many of these teams DO know about good quizbowl now and do attend pyramidal tournaments during the year; in fact, I'm increasing convinced most of them know exactly what they're doing. As Pingry showed this year, you can be a team that can't go better than .500 at a regular NAQT tournament and yet become a NATIONAL CHAMPION at the NAC. When you're a sucker for trophies and meaningless awards, what's the issue with playing a crappy tournament with bad questions, few matches, and dubious ethics?
I read for Grand Junction in Consolation on Sunday. I talked to their coach and she seemed interested in running a tournament with NAQT questions in the Fall and said she could probably get many of the teams from the local league to play.cchiego wrote:We should also applaud schools like Benton (AR) and Grand Junction (CO) who have been consistent HSNCT attendees despite the lack of good quizbowl and the overwhelming anti-pyramidal attitude in their areas; I hope anyone who read for them at HSNCT gave them encouragement.geolawyerman wrote:Has anyone ever considered inviting some of these teams to pyramidal tournaments?
There's been declining attendance in the DC area for years. It was common to see 64 teams at a tournament with another 5 to 10 on the wait list. It's very rare to see a tournament with 32 teams now. In fact, many have on the order of 16 to 20. Not too long after the decline in attendance, organizers simply shifted their plans for a smaller number of teams rather than investigating the reasons for lower attendance and trying to fix the issue.jonpin wrote:"They bought their tickets. They knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!" I think it's our moral duty as supporters of good quiz bowl to try to prevent teams from getting fleeced by charlatans.
Fair enough. For what it's worth, I agree with this, although I think the board may paint a skewed perspective. I already listed the reasons I would probably never attend.
What are you even talking about?Failure to grasp this concept will result in diminished attendance at tournaments. You can feel good about the effort you put in-- and, deservedly you should-- but if it doesn't address the needs, wants, and desires of the teams in the area and a trend of diminishing attendance occurs, I think we need to ask ourselves why this is occurring and make moves to correct it.
HSNCT attendance in recent years: 200, 224, 240, 256.
NSC attendance in recent years: 64, 60, 60, 64.
NAC varsity attendance in recent years: 121, 136, 114, 127.
Do you see diminishing attendance for the major nationals?
And at the same time, if we threaten to leave the arena of people using buzzers and answering questions, we indeed need to start questioning our purpose.jonpin wrote:Some people want to go to a quiz bowl tournament to screw around for seven hours, some people want to go to a quiz bowl tournament to play quiz bowl. I say we address the needs, wants, and desires of the latter.
If the issue is truly that some teams want speedbowl or chip questions, as you say it is [and I don't really think that's the problem], then tough. This isn't something worth compromising over.Howard wrote:But I think you're missing the point a little. The statement was meant to serve as a general premise. Even if we're expanding nationally, we still need to be observant of local declines (and national when they happen) and be open to addressing the issues causing the decline, no matter what they are.
I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, but if it's more weird insinuation that all formats that involve "using buzzers and answering questions" have merit and should be considered, then, no, they don't. This is the format and making concessions to include lightning or, god forbid, worksheet rounds are intellectually dishonest and futile anyway.Howard wrote:And at the same time, if we threaten to leave the arena of people using buzzers and answering questions, we indeed need to start questioning our purpose.
The declining number of teams attending tournaments in the DC area is due to clubs not doing a very good job of reaching out to teams. Question quality has nothing to do with it.Howard wrote:There's been declining attendance in the DC area for years. It was common to see 64 teams at a tournament with another 5 to 10 on the wait list. It's very rare to see a tournament with 32 teams now. In fact, many have on the order of 16 to 20. Not too long after the decline in attendance, organizers simply shifted their plans for a smaller number of teams rather than investigating the reasons for lower attendance and trying to fix the issue.
No matter what, we're not going to satisfy everyone. Do I think some teams stopped attending tournaments because of pyramidal questions? Sure. Is it enough teams that this should be a significant concern? I don't really know. The bigger issue is that we continue to pretend these problems are imaginary. Okay, that's hyperbole. But realistically, I don't see tournament organizers (as a whole-- I know there are exceptions) or the DC community at large actively working to identify issues and work them out. I don't intend this to be limited to question type. Nor am I convinced question type is even a main issue. I'm not sure why you think my point here has anything to do with speed, pyramidal, or anything else. I purposely didn't mention those things for two reasons. I don't think the argument should be narrowed to that potential issue, and I don't think it's the largest issue anyway.Emily Krok wrote:If the issue is truly that some teams want speedbowl or chip questions, as you say it is [and I don't really think that's the problem], then tough. This isn't something worth compromising over.Howard wrote:But I think you're missing the point a little. The statement was meant to serve as a general premise. Even if we're expanding nationally, we still need to be observant of local declines (and national when they happen) and be open to addressing the issues causing the decline, no matter what they are.
It means that at some point, we do need to question whether we're serving our purpose and make sure that our changes don't move us so far away that we're nowhere close to our goal in the first place. While my statement is close to my personal position, it isn't intended to force this position on anyone else. I don't know if this is what you meant, but if you're saying "the format is the format and we're not changing anything for any reason," then we may as well admit that we're setting up the activity for our own ego. There's a host of things that can change. We can move to an all tossup format. We can change the number of questions in a game. We can allow conferring on tossups. We can change the scoring any number of ways. Power marks are an excellent example of a welcomed change. All I'm saying is that we need to consider change that will expand quizbowl up until the point where it doesn't meet a reasonable definition of quizbowl any more.Emily Krok wrote:I'm not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean, but if it's more weird insinuation that all formats that involve "using buzzers and answering questions" have merit and should be considered, then, no, they don't. This is the format and making concessions to include lightning or, god forbid, worksheet rounds are intellectually dishonest and futile anyway.Howard wrote:And at the same time, if we threaten to leave the arena of people using buzzers and answering questions, we indeed need to start questioning our purpose.
Although "nothing" is perhaps a little too strong a word, this is largely the point I was trying to make. Organizers are simply planning for a small number of teams (i.e., not actively trying to get more) and not worrying about the larger issues causing the lack of attendance.huff paste wrote:The declining number of teams attending tournaments in the DC area is due to clubs not doing a very good job of reaching out to teams. Question quality has nothing to do with it.Howard wrote:There's been declining attendance in the DC area for years. It was common to see 64 teams at a tournament with another 5 to 10 on the wait list. It's very rare to see a tournament with 32 teams now. In fact, many have on the order of 16 to 20. Not too long after the decline in attendance, organizers simply shifted their plans for a smaller number of teams rather than investigating the reasons for lower attendance and trying to fix the issue.
Tanay Kothari and I have started running the California Cup series of tournaments this year, which strictly uses good, pyramidal sets. We've had to deal with the things you're describing, but we also greatly increased the number of schools in the Bay Area that play quiz bowl in a more long-term sense. We've had to deal with teams straight up leaving in the middle of the tournament because they were crushed in the morning rounds (although that can be rectified when we get a much larger field and are able to split into divisions beyond JV and Varsity). But many of the ways in which you would address the issue would dilute the quality of the game. For one, the coaches who bring teams to this game should realize that their teams will be at the receiving end of a shellacking from more experienced teams/teams who actually study, and any notions to the contrary are pure fantasy. Quiz bowl is just as competitive as their local athletic competitions or debate or whatever, and they should not be operating under the delusion that they're going to play an easy game Trivial Pursuit with buzzers. NAQT sets are more for those teams that want to be able to catch a break with trash and general knowledge in between the academic stuff, but even then teams have to realize that the game is fundamentally one that holds itself to high academic standards. Declining attendance can occur for any number of reasons, but the solution is not to dilute the quality of the game. It's to let teams play other teams of a similar skill level, hold more novice events, and generally listen to the concerns of new teams (without compromising on the core aspects of the game, of course). I don't think programs are necessarily content to run 20 team tournaments; it seems they've just accepted the reality of what's happening around them. But really, if teams are unwilling to put in the effort to get better and learn more things, then there's really nothing that can be done for them.Howard wrote: I've previously come to this board and reminded or informed people that coaches who do not regularly check here tell me that they do not enjoy attending tournaments with pyramidal questions because they spend their morning rounds getting beaten badly, and then they don't feel like staying for the consolation games because their team is largely depressed. The typical reaction is that these coaches don't really exist and I'm making things up for my own personal "agenda." While it seems rather clear that pyramidal questions set up a construct by their very design for such occurrences to occur, that doesn't mean that the solution needs to be to move away from pyramidal questions. There are modifications to the typical game schedule that can be made to combat such issues and work at making sure teams play more games with other teams near their own abilities.
When I come here and say there are teams that only want to play a 1/2 day of quizbowl, the typical reaction is that they should want to play more quizbowl. We need to realize that we're never going to make people into things they aren't. If we have a significant number of teams that only want to play 1/2 day, we need to work at setting things up so that can occur. And it doesn't mean that everyone needs to be limited to 1/2 day, either.
Programs seem content to run 20 team tournaments. I cannot stress enough this is a recipe for disaster. By natural attrition, programs will come and go. The smaller the number of schools with a program, the more likely it is new programs will not start and the activity in general will suffer. In all seriousness, if we cannot get more than 20 teams to a tournament in the Baltimore-DC metro area something is wrong in a major way.
This is something I will be working on this summer (getting in contact with people in areas like Nebraska and trying to get good questions used at tournaments). I have a good start with the Grand Junction, CO circuit.Matt Weiner wrote: The only reason Chip and the Auk have a stranglehold on Nebraska and other areas like that is because of the lack of better tournaments to play. As soon as NAQT or HSAPQ sets something else up there, Nebraska and all the rest will enthusiastically join the good quizbowl movement just like everyplace else has.
You've made a lot of vague statements, but what would your ideal tournament look like? Our team has been trying to bring Baltimore-area schools into the circuit (we got Westlake, Hammond, Atholton, and ER to come to our tournament this year) and has had moderate success, with a pyramidal set. All the players who stick to It's Academic (that I've met) aren't against what they call "NAQT questions", they just have no knowledge of the circuit (I met one person who wanted to go to our tournament, but their coach told them it was cancelled, even though it obviously wasn't). Yes, our tournaments have small fields, but we really don't have the amount of staff needed for any larger tournaments.Howard wrote:Although "nothing" is perhaps a little too strong a word, this is largely the point I was trying to make. Organizers are simply planning for a small number of teams (i.e., not actively trying to get more) and not worrying about the larger issues causing the lack of attendance.
Yeah I think John could do better than demean people for not doing enough to spread the circuit, especially when people are very much doing the thing he claims they aren't doing. There have been plenty of pyramidal tournaments in the mid-Atlantic that have successfully recruited teams to good quizbowl and many of you have done good work in expanding the circuit. To further the point, the rest of us out in flyover country happen to be great at spreading good quizbowl too, and we're doing it by hosting tournaments large and small and with good questions and formats! The fact that some tournaments have small fields is usually for a lot of good reasons, but apparently in John Gilbert Funtime Fantasyland you can just pull 40 moderators out of the air and magically get every school in the state of Maryland to go to your quizbowl tournaments, and if you don't then you're causing the death of academic competition through your refusal to use bad formats and do magic.Mr. Joyboy wrote:You've made a lot of vague statements, but what would your ideal tournament look like? Our team has been trying to bring Baltimore-area schools into the circuit (we got Westlake, Hammond, Atholton, and ER to come to our tournament this year) and has had moderate success, with a pyramidal set. All the players who stick to It's Academic (that I've met) aren't against what they call "NAQT questions", they just have no knowledge of the circuit (I met one person who wanted to go to our tournament, but their coach told them it was cancelled, even though it obviously wasn't). Yes, our tournaments have small fields, but we really don't have the amount of staff needed for any larger tournaments.Howard wrote:Although "nothing" is perhaps a little too strong a word, this is largely the point I was trying to make. Organizers are simply planning for a small number of teams (i.e., not actively trying to get more) and not worrying about the larger issues causing the lack of attendance.
This. This is the number one thing we can do to assess what we need to do to expand. And I'll add that we should consider any team playing one tournament a year or less to be "new." I've even brought up the idea of creating divisions before and that has been largely dismissed as well. As a coach, I don't reasonably expect that my current team are going to score many points against top-tier teams. And I'd be surprised if similarly capable teams thought differently.List of Fighting Spirit characters wrote:...and generally listen to the concerns of new teams (without compromising on the core aspects of the game, of course).
For my team, I think their ideal tournament would consist entirely of tossups and would allow conferring. At the same time, I'm realistic and don't expect large numbers of these. I doubt we're in any sort of majority, either. We'd be content with a large tournament where we could play most of our games with teams near our ability. I'm disappointed that we couldn't make it to your tournament; the date just wouldn't work out for us.Mr. Joyboy wrote:You've made a lot of vague statements, but what would your ideal tournament look like? Our team has been trying to bring Baltimore-area schools into the circuit (we got Westlake, Hammond, Atholton, and ER to come to our tournament this year) and has had moderate success, with a pyramidal set. All the players who stick to It's Academic (that I've met) aren't against what they call "NAQT questions", they just have no knowledge of the circuit (I met one person who wanted to go to our tournament, but their coach told them it was cancelled, even though it obviously wasn't). Yes, our tournaments have small fields, but we really don't have the amount of staff needed for any larger tournaments.
Wait, what the heck? Why is everything this guy about tournament structure says ignored in favor of complaining about his complaining about pyramidality? I guess he could do a better job of not complaining about pyramidality, but that part is easy enough to ignore right?Matt Weiner wrote:So, to summarize: You think quizbowl should change to be more like what people who want quizbowl to be terrible want to see, in order to attract those people. Many others disagree with you. Repeat once every six months from 2005 to the end of time.
We reached the limit. 3 teams were no shows. However, some teams who registered w/ buzzers unfortunately didn't bring them. After that, one buzzer system didn't work. That left us w/ the exact number of buzzers needed. I think that we might have had 1 extra staffer (w/ 1 reader per room), but the staff level fluctuated over the day, so at many points, we had the exact number of staff needed.Howard wrote:And you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the attendance at the last tournament didn't reach the limit necessitated by staffing, so if the implication is that attendance was low for staffing reasons, I don't believe that to be true.
I also don't understand why it is so hard to grasp that once a team becomes disheartened, there is little that can be said or done to bring them back. This largely does not happen with my team because I've told them in advance what to expect. But we need to keep in mind that not all coaches-- especially not new ones-- have the ability to foresee the end result. I was once in a position where I didn't foresee a disheartening end result, and it didn't feel good for me or the team. But it was what it was. The team and I both learned from it.Matt Weiner wrote:Yes, there's the context of John Gilbert being a tireless crusader for the legitimacy of It's Academic, of his posting (in this very thread) that everyone's "preferences" are equally valid and should be catered to, and the fact that he defends rather than mocks people who claim to want more games against teams of their level but then leave tournaments early before bracketed afternoon rounds, which are nothing but games between teams of the same level and are created for that purpose.
At some point a decision needs to be made. I've seen enough and received enough feedback from other coaches to be convinced we're missing out on a quite large number of teams in the Baltimore/DC area simply because too many teams spend their morning rounds playing teams they have difficulty answering a couple tossups against. So, we can remain in the endless cycle of not creating more divisions because we don't have enough teams, and not having enough teams because the early matches are too skewed. Or, we can try to do something about it. I've proposed a solution. Perhaps if you don't think it's a good one, you can propose something different that you think will achieve the desired result.Matt Weiner wrote:As far as multiple divisions being a panacea, I don't quite agree; at the same time, it's an idea that does have its place in some tournaments, but hardly seems like it will solve the issue of tournaments that are too small to have one division as it is.
I apparently made a mistake in thinking your response earlier was actually intended to be constructive. I'm under no such delusion here, but I'll give a genuine response nonetheless.Matt Weiner wrote:In general, to answer your question directly, the answer to why "everything this guy about tournament structure says [is] ignored" is because everything he says proceeds from factually false premises (high school quizbowl is dying, teams don't play good tournaments, you can't attract new or less skilled teams to tournaments on good questions) and/or ridiculous, wrong opinions (it's okay to play Chip Beall, quizbowl is just glorified practice for televised game shows). When people are consistently, obstinately, and self-interestedly wrong for several hundred posts over the course of a decade and won't listen to those who have proven themselves to know better, ignoring them is a great idea.
So, if tournament entries matched the cap, which in turn matched the amount of staff, I don't think we can look just to staffing as a source of the problem. I.e., additional staff would not have resulted in more teams. At the same time, it's a reasonable conclusion that you do need more staff (and buzzers) to accomodate more teams if we take actions that result in more teams.Mr. Joyboy wrote:We reached the limit. 3 teams were no shows. However, some teams who registered w/ buzzers unfortunately didn't bring them. After that, one buzzer system didn't work. That left us w/ the exact number of buzzers needed. I think that we might have had 1 extra staffer (w/ 1 reader per room), but the staff level fluctuated over the day, so at many points, we had the exact number of staff needed.