The format/rebound debate

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
Locked
Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

The format/rebound debate

Post by Tegan »

I think this whole debate boils down to the question of: "what is an appropriate reward for winning the toss-up?"

While jewtemplar argued that the wide margin of victory in NAQT is at least partially due to pacing (and I think it is hard to argue against this being at least partially the reason), I also think the rebound issue plays a part. My team has played enough NAQT format to be pulling out there hair when a team beats them to a toss-up, and then get 0 or fewer points on a bonus that they could have swept. In NAQT, sometimes its not a question of not knowing the toss-up, or being beaten to it, but having someone with the tendency to neg a bit much. As some one observed, if you neg on an easy toss-up, and there is an easy bonus, that can lead to an 85 point swing at the end of the question. This is not a criticism, merely an observation.

I personally prefer the rebound, though it means "30-20-10" and the multiple choice-type questions which I really like are out.

As I go along, I begin to realize that comparing quiz bowl to baseball or football is not entirely appropriate.....the better comparison is to tennis or golf. European courses differ from American courses.....clay is different from grass is different from hardcourt. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but it might be according to an individual philosophy. It is possible to be a master of all, but that seems to be more the exception than the rule. They are all legitimate, just different. A player might choose Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, but not the French because the clay surface is far too different a format to get used to.

Quiz Bowl has no World Series or Super Bowl.....but it does have a series of events (call them the Grand Slam if you will; though I am not sure that there are only four)

To quote former TRASH subject Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

Those of you going to PACE, I look forward to seeing you. It was interesting to finally put names to faces in Rosemont last weekend.

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

Heck, the concept of bonuses being worth 3x as much as a tossup could be subject to a lot of debate. If we really wanted to reward both speed and "teamwork" equally, one would think we would place equal or nearer equal value for both. If anything, that alone is the basis for the blowouts in quiz bowl scores. (Heck, a free throw is worth 1 point, not 2 per shot).

But yes, my own interpretation of quiz bowl as analogous to sport is more along the lines of golf in terms of the variables that confront good academic teams (though recently baseball analogies also can exist because the style of questions really depends on the writer [pitcher]). Sometimes the greens are fast, sometimes they're slow. The wind can change the way one plays a ball on a hole-by-hole basis or day-by-day. In golf, we reward those who can make the adjustments, and I think the challenge with quiz bowl is that teams are imposed with various adjustments to be made from TV shows to singles matches to computer games to team matches in various formats, and those that can manuever within those changes with bbb, interrupts, or handouts (talk about more fights in format) are successful. It's an understanding of how the game is played at the particular event.
Emil Thomas Chuck, Ph.D.
Founder, PACE
Facebook junkie and unofficial advisor to aspiring health professionals in quiz bowl
---
Pimping Green Tea Ginger Ale (Canada Dry)

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

Being from Illinois, I grew up on both teams having a chance at the bonus, and it absolutely shocked me that this was not the ways things worked in college. At my first practice, I just stared there in disbelief for a few minutes after realizing it.

But there's one thing that not having that rule prohibits: about how its possible, in a tie or close game, to get the last tossup and still lose. For instance, in one game, my team was up by 10. Going into the last tossup, the other team negged it (except there is no neg around here, so the score didn't change) but then a guy on my team answered correctly. I had to restrain myself from hitting him, because it meant that we just gave the other team a chance to win. Fortunately, we 20'ed the bonus (which is like a 30 in college), but if we had gotten nothing and they had gotten 20, they could have forced a tiebreaker which we could have lost.

Whether or not you want to create a possible disincentive to correctly answer something that you are sure about is a good question to consider.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

Well, it's no different from being up 10 with 10 seconds to go on the clock when a tossup is read. You can neg at 3 seconds left and still win.
Emil Thomas Chuck, Ph.D.
Founder, PACE
Facebook junkie and unofficial advisor to aspiring health professionals in quiz bowl
---
Pimping Green Tea Ginger Ale (Canada Dry)

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

E.T. Chuck wrote:Well, it's no different from being up 10 with 10 seconds to go on the clock when a tossup is read. You can neg at 3 seconds left and still win.
Yes it is. If you're up 10 with 3 seconds left and you are 100% sure you know the answer, it is in your interest to get it correct.

If there are bouncebacks and you are up 10 with 3 seconds left and you are 100% sure you know the answer, it is -against- your interest to get it correct, because of the uncertainty of the bonus.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

pakman044
Rikku
Posts: 408
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:56 am
Location: Carrboro, NC
Contact:

Post by pakman044 »

How about this--to prevent intentional negs at the end of match, why not have a rule that says that if the tossup is interrupted, it is missed, then the question is completed and the opposing team has the usual amount of time to answer after the question is completed EVEN IF TIME EXPIRES. I know of at least one timed format that does this, and I think it would be more fair. Obviously, if time expires before someone attempts an answer without an interrupt, the game is over.

Patrick King

User avatar
dtaylor4
Auron
Posts: 3733
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 am

Post by dtaylor4 »

IMO, the rule should be that if the reader begins reading before the buzzer, the question must be completed.

User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3204
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed »

DaGeneral wrote:IMO, the rule should be that if the reader begins reading before the buzzer, the question must be completed.
iirc, that is the NAQT requirement if one of the two teams cannot see the clock. I don't know what sort of rules NAQT has for its readers as to how they must display the clock or respond to player complaints about the clock not being visible, but a large group of readers could force that rule upon NAQT if they all agreed to place the clock poorly.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
dtaylor4
Auron
Posts: 3733
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 am

Post by dtaylor4 »

Instead of the readers doing that, why not get a huge group of players/coaches/readers to petition NAQT to create such a rule?

User avatar
solonqb
Tidus
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:00 am
Location: Pasadena, CA
Contact:

Post by solonqb »

Intentional negs are a perfectly defensible time-eating strategy in NAQT, as long as they are at least relevant to the question and not clearly 'dilatory or stalling in nature' (ie not something completely ridiculous like profanity).
Noah Rahman
Welcome to Simbabwe, where the property is already owned and the houses built and you compete to burn and dispossess them. Compete with Robert Mugabe, Canaan Banana, Cecil Rhodes and Sir Godfrey Huggins to earn a place on the all-time EU travel ban list!

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques »

Intentional negs are a perfectly defensible time-eating strategy in NAQT, as long as they are at least relevant to the question and not clearly 'dilatory or stalling in nature' (ie not something completely ridiculous like profanity).
I'm waiting for an opportunity to buzz in with like 6 seconds left and say "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis"
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE

jewtemplar
Rikku
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:18 am
Location: Burke, VA
Contact:

Post by jewtemplar »

If NAQT is a timed format, then the timing should be taken seriously. Is it unfair if a point guard handles the ball more slowly in the final seconds of a basketball game if his team is leading? Intentionally sabotaging one's scoring capability to avoid the chance of a reversal is a common tactic in timed sports, and for once I think the analogy works. Obviously finish the tossup if the clock is not visible, but don't try to mold a timed format to an untimed preference.

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

I think we've derailed this train in the matter of hours... impressive.

But back to point... that's why people have to study the game and understand strategy, especially in the last minute of a timed match (or maybe 3). Same thing with reboundable bonuses.
Emil Thomas Chuck, Ph.D.
Founder, PACE
Facebook junkie and unofficial advisor to aspiring health professionals in quiz bowl
---
Pimping Green Tea Ginger Ale (Canada Dry)

User avatar
solonqb
Tidus
Posts: 634
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 11:00 am
Location: Pasadena, CA
Contact:

Post by solonqb »

Well, mostly because Romero and Barry summed up the main argument for/against bouncebacks in the other thread.
Noah Rahman
Welcome to Simbabwe, where the property is already owned and the houses built and you compete to burn and dispossess them. Compete with Robert Mugabe, Canaan Banana, Cecil Rhodes and Sir Godfrey Huggins to earn a place on the all-time EU travel ban list!

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

DaGeneral wrote:Instead of the readers doing that, why not get a huge group of players/coaches/readers to petition NAQT to create such a rule?
:w-hat:

Well, this isn't an issue of governance, and even if it were, I don't see why they would want to make that change. If it ain't broke...
Emil Thomas Chuck, Ph.D.
Founder, PACE
Facebook junkie and unofficial advisor to aspiring health professionals in quiz bowl
---
Pimping Green Tea Ginger Ale (Canada Dry)

User avatar
Irreligion in Bangladesh
Auron
Posts: 2103
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 1:18 am
Location: Winnebago, IL

Post by Irreligion in Bangladesh »

I have an idea. A bonus is bounced back if a team answers the tossup, but is not bounced back if the tossup is powered.

It rewards the team with the tossup with the bonus, but if it wasn't good enough to power the tossup, it punishes them by allowing the opponent the bounceback. If a question is left to a last-clue buzzerrace and the 'inferior' team gets it, the 'superior' team can still exert their superiority by outscoring on the bonus. If a superior team gets it on the buzzerrace but allows some bonus parts to be bounced back, it is their fault for not powering it/not being 'superior' enough to 30 the bonus.

Another facet of this is that it could increase the amount of early buzzes, both powers and negs. A possible variation is that if a team negs, it is excluded from the bounceback, even if the other team only gets a 10 point TU.

Locked