NAQT Virginia Championship -- 2006-04-22 @ UVa

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Tue Jan 24, 2006 6:27 pm

This is a preliminary announcement for the 2006 NAQT Virginia Championship to be held on Saturday, April 22, at the University of Virginia.

As the name implies, this tournament will be open only to schools in Virginia.

More information will obviously follow.

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:37 pm

Summary: Online registration open. Come and play.

***************************

The format will be timed rounds of toss-ups with non-related bonuses using questions provided by National Academic Quiz Tournaments (NAQT). Each team is guaranteed at least seven rounds of play, but most teams will play additional games. The teams that perform best qualify for PACE National Championships (Durham, NC) as well as the NAQT National Championship Tournament (Chicago, IL).

Check-in for team coaches/representatives and buzzer systems will be in Wilson Hall 301. A free breakfast will be provided starting at 8:30, and opening ceremonies will take place at 9:15, all in Wilson Hall 402 (adjacent to Cabell Hall, on Jefferson Park Avenue). Competition will start soon after, with the preliminary rounds ending mid-afternoon. For lunch, you may eat at one of the nearby â€œCornerâ€

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:53 pm

I hope this will feature a 16-team keep-the-winning-bracket-team-playing double elimination playoff like the one discussed on the Cav Open III thread, but I guess that all depends on the # of teams coming and the general consensus of the players and coaches, though most people seemed to enjoy the double elim. at the Cav Open. In any case, it's good to hear there'll be 7 prelims...

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:57 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:I hope this will feature a 16-team keep-the-winning-bracket-team-playing double elimination playoff like the one discussed on the Cav Open III thread, but I guess that all depends on the # of teams coming and the general consensus of the players and coaches, though most people seemed to enjoy the double elim. at the Cav Open. In any case, it's good to hear there'll be 7 prelims...

No decision on playoff format yet, obviously, but there also won't necessarily be 7 prelims -- could be 6 and a play-in.

-Steve

Lapego1 · Post by **Lapego1** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 7:33 pm

I think you should try to go for 16-team double elim for playoffs. The play-in round often just involves two teams of uneven level playing with the top teams essentially destroying the bottom teams. Another possible format may be, depending on the number of teams, to give top 8 after 6 rounds an automatic bye, then have (if 24 teams) 9-24 play a single-elim play-in round. Thus, you end up with a 16-team double elimination without complete blowouts when you have 9 vs. 24 as when you have 1 vs. 24. I liked the general format of the Cav. Classic. Now if there were only some way we could merge the Classic and Open formats into a hybrid format of sorts...

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:43 pm

Lapego1 wrote:I think you should try to go for 16-team double elim for playoffs. The play-in round often just involves two teams of uneven level playing with the top teams essentially destroying the bottom teams. Another possible format may be, depending on the number of teams, to give top 8 after 6 rounds an automatic bye, then have (if 24 teams) 9-24 play a single-elim play-in round. Thus, you end up with a 16-team double elimination without complete blowouts when you have 9 vs. 24 as when you have 1 vs. 24. I liked the general format of the Cav. Classic. Now if there were only some way we could merge the Classic and Open formats into a hybrid format of sorts...

Yeah, there's not really a unique format we always use for Cav Classic/Open... Differences lie in number of teams and number of packets (generally less for house-written Classic than NAQT Open). I believe we had around 24 teams for NAQT Championships last year, so we did the 9-24 play-in followed by 2 sets of 8 double-elim a la Cav Open. The thing about 16 double-elim would be that it would take all 15 packets without leaving any for tie-breakers (if we need/want them).

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:30 pm

Ehh, my vote's for Lapego's idea: 16 team double elim, preceeded by a 9-24 game (or a 1-32 game depending on the # of teams), preceeded by 6 prelims, preferably swiss paired if practicable (real time swiss pairing would be optimal but that would require laptops in every room). I don't think tiebreaking games are a great idea anyway, nor am I fond of timed rounds, especially if there's a tiebreaker necessary and no questions are left, or questions get thrown out.

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 6:38 pm

by the way whatever the preliminary format is I just hope it's not the same kind of random pairing as we saw at the Cav Open. I was checking out the stats and noticed Midlothian had an INCREDIBLY difficult schedule, featuring RE Lee A, Princess Anne, Gov A, TJ A, and Gov C. now i'm not saying Midlo finished last in the tournament solely because of this, I mean they aren't that good to begin with, but to give a team like them that kind of schedule and turn them into a punching bag is a bit ridiculous.

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:21 pm

Snail mail invitations went out on Friday to over 200 VA schools, so we are anticipating a small flood in the upcoming week. Email invitations will go out in the next couple of days.

If you want to beat the flood, you can register online at
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~quizbowl/register

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:19 pm

Registrations are rolling in; here's another field update:

Field update on 3/29:
Clover Hill A
Clover Hill B
Ocean Lakes
Stone Bridge
Parry McCluer A
Parry McCluer B
Rappahannock County
Maggie Walker A
Maggie Walker B
Maggie Walker C
Maggie Walker D
Cave Spring A
Cave Spring B
Robinson A
Robinson B
Thomas Jefferson A
Thomas Jefferson B
Thomas Jefferson C
Osbourn
Douglas Freeman
Fairfax

(21 teams registered; only 3 spots remain until waiting list)

Still waiting for some regulars, though... StA-B? Charlottesville? Langley? Etc.

Frater Taciturnus · Post by **Frater Taciturnus** » Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:17 pm

IF necessary, and we may want to do this anything, most of Freeman wants to take two teams.

EDIT: Wow, what a difference a day makes. We now have three people going. So never mind.

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 3:36 pm

Field update 4/4, early registration deadline.

Clover Hill A
Clover Hill B
Ocean Lakes
Stone Bridge
Parry McCluer A
Parry McCluer B
Rappahannock County
Maggie Walker A
Maggie Walker B
Maggie Walker C
Maggie Walker D
Cave Spring A
Cave Spring B
Robinson A
Robinson B
Thomas Jefferson A
Thomas Jefferson B
Thomas Jefferson C
Osbourn
Douglas Freeman
Fairfax
Langley
J.E.B. Stuart
Marshall

(24 total)

Wait list*:
Prince George
Eastern Montgomery

* Teams from wait list will be accepted pending availability of moderators and roundness of number of total teams.

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:25 am

Below is a field update as of 4/11.

We're looking for a few more competent moderators, since this will be timed NAQT, and we also want to try to include the wait-listed teams. Any takers?

Clover Hill A
Clover Hill B
Stone Bridge
Parry McCluer A (small)
Parry McCluer B (small)
Rappahannock County (small)
Maggie Walker A
Maggie Walker B
Maggie Walker C
Maggie Walker D
Cave Spring A (small)
Cave Spring B (small)
Robinson A
Robinson B
Thomas Jefferson A
Thomas Jefferson B
Thomas Jefferson C
Osbourn
Douglas Freeman
Fairfax
Langley
J.E.B. Stuart
Marshall
Prince George

WAIT LIST:
Eastern Montgomery (small)
Prince Edward A (small)
Prince Edward B (small)
Prince Edward C (small)
St. Christopher's (small)

"small" schools are being defined as enrollment of under 750 for grades 10-12, and would compete in a separate division.

Looks like it will be an interesting tournament, but I'm kind of personally disappointed that great teams like Spotswood, Charlottesville, St. A-B, Collegiate, Ocean Lakes, and Princess Anne couldn't make it. We hope to see them in the fall...

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:53 am

yangsta wrote: WAIT LIST:
Eastern Montgomery (small)
Prince Edward A (small)
Prince Edward B (small)
Prince Edward C (small)
St. Christopher's (small)

Good to see St. Christophers could make it, guess I was able to convince Clarke Miller it was worthwhile....

But wow, no StAB or C-Ville? What the heck? That is a disappointment.

As for this small school division thing, it's different, but I guess it could work... it'll be interesting to see. MLW would qualify on the enrollment part, but normally we'd be excluded for being selective (but so would private schools like St. C). Ahh well, we'd rather take on the big boys anyway

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 2:36 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:
yangsta wrote: WAIT LIST:
Eastern Montgomery (small)
Prince Edward A (small)
Prince Edward B (small)
Prince Edward C (small)
St. Christopher's (small)

As for this small school division thing, it's different, but I guess it could work... it'll be interesting to see.

The small schools thing is to prevent situations where smaller/newer programs have to face off against gigantor programs, a la Midlothian in the Cav Open, as some of you have mentioned. It would also qualify the winner of this separate division for the NCT. NAQT host requirements for HS States state, "Hosts may offer separate competitions for different divisions based on school size or other criteria."

It's also entirely by coincidence that the only teams on the wait list are small schools; the whole list is by order of registrations received.

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:39 pm

yangsta wrote:
Matt Morrison wrote:
yangsta wrote: WAIT LIST:
Eastern Montgomery (small)
Prince Edward A (small)
Prince Edward B (small)
Prince Edward C (small)
St. Christopher's (small)

As for this small school division thing, it's different, but I guess it could work... it'll be interesting to see.
The small schools thing is to prevent situations where smaller/newer programs have to face off against gigantor programs, a la Midlothian in the Cav Open, as some of you have mentioned.

Yea but Midlo is a fairly large school, and they've been doing quizbowl for a while, but I see your point. However, I think the best way to prevent impossible schedules and such is to do something other than random pairing (Swiss pairing preferably, but that may be impracticable without laptops in every room). And yea I noticed that host requirement clause for states; in general I think it's fairer to offer some sort of separate division, either a division II, JV division, or small school division.

Lapego1 · Post by **Lapego1** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:49 pm

A division II would not be such a bad idea, perhaps for next year. As opposed to a small school division, division II might allow multiple teams that are just in it for the experience (e.g. B or C teams from the same school) to still play games without getting destroyed. A JV division, geared towards sophomores and freshmen would not be as appropriate as you might have juniors and seniors playing in an infant program (as was the Midlothian case while we're still using the example).

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:22 pm

Lapego1 wrote:A division II would not be such a bad idea, perhaps for next year. As opposed to a small school division, division II might allow multiple teams that are just in it for the experience (e.g. B or C teams from the same school) to still play games without getting destroyed. A JV division, geared towards sophomores and freshmen would not be as appropriate as you might have juniors and seniors playing in an infant program (as was the Midlothian case while we're still using the exam).

I can see the merits of both types of "dividing" the field.

The school size (small schools division) seems to be the NAQT high school standard, whereas player experience (Div II) seems to be NAQT's college model.

We're following what NAQT does at the HSNCT (their limit is 500, but due to larger-than-average schools in our state, ours is 750). This is our first foray into dividing the field into separate divisions, so that's why we're starting with what seems to be the NAQT high school standard...

I think many of us would welcome a discussion on different division types, but that should probably be saved for another thread.

And I'm sorry for using Midlothian as an example -- that was my mistake in thinking they were a small school.

MamaFlanagan · Post by **MamaFlanagan** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:40 am

Sorry to let you down, yangsta, but our team is really cutting back for this year. I'm going to be in western mass visiting colleges this weekend and my fellows are heavily involved in other stuff. We're probably not even making it to a national tournament this year. This is the problem with a small, senior heavy team, we're finding. Once senioritis and colleges come calling, quizteam goes pfft.

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 10:59 pm

Field update as of 4/19. Apparently I lied when I said that the previous update was final... -1 from Robinson, +1 from Ocean Lakes, Prince Edward A goes to Open Division.

Open Division (21)
Clover Hill A
Clover Hill B
Stone Bridge
Maggie Walker A
Maggie Walker B
Maggie Walker C
Maggie Walker D
Robinson
Thomas Jefferson A
Thomas Jefferson B
Thomas Jefferson C
Osbourn
Douglas Freeman
Fairfax
Langley
J.E.B. Stuart
Marshall
Prince George
Hermitage
Prince Edward A
Ocean Lakes

Small Schools Division (9)
Eastern Montgomery (small)
Cave Spring A (small)
Cave Spring B (small)
Parry McCluer A (small)
Parry McCluer B (small)
Rappahannock County (small)
Prince Edward B (small)
Prince Edward C (small)
St. Christopher's (small)

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:55 pm

There are some parking issues that were relayed in recent emails to coaches; let me know if you didn't get one.

Also, depending on the level of chaos tomorrow, there might be semi-live stats at http://www.student.virginia.edu/~quizbowl/naqt2006

vcuEvan · Post by **vcuEvan** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 5:49 pm

I'm glad that Ocean Lakes is coming now. I've been wanting to play them at NAQTs for a while now.

Zip Zap Rap Pants · Post by **Zip Zap Rap Pants** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:18 pm

With an odd number of teams like that in both divisions, does that mean we have to have bye rounds? I know it's kind of late, but you could always throw in our D team or Prince Edward A or somebody else in small schools to even it out, and do 9 rounds of round robin in small schools, since it's supposed to be a fairly long tournament anyway with the Open Division double elim. playoffs, right?

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 11:15 pm

Matt Morrison wrote:With an odd number of teams like that in both divisions, does that mean we have to have bye rounds? I know it's kind of late, but you could always throw in our D team or Prince Edward A or somebody else in small schools to even it out, and do 9 rounds of round robin in small schools, since it's supposed to be a fairly long tournament anyway with the Open Division double elim. playoffs, right?

It will be 3 X 7 for Open and 9 for Small, so yes, unfortunately 4 teams will have byes during any given round.

Small Schools Division will have single-elimination from 8, scheduled to end just before the final match(es) of the Open Division.

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 12:26 pm

http://www.student.virginia.edu/~quizbowl/naqt2006

[/url]

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:10 pm

We're down to the final four, who're currently playing double elimination to determine the champion.

Updated bracket (with playoff scores for Open Division) is available at the address above.

Current matches:
Maggie Walker A (1) vs. Langley (4)
Thomas Jefferson A (2) vs. Maggie Walker B (3)

Over in the Small Schools Division, they're playing single-elimination...

Cave Spring A (1) vs. Cave-Mont Scab Team (8)
Cave Spring B (4) vs. Parry McCluer A (5)
St. Christopher's (2) vs. Prince Edward A (7)
Eastern Montgomery (3) vs. Rappahannock County (6)

Fun fun.

dschafer · Post by **dschafer** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:28 pm

Results as I remember them (someone with official results: feel free to correct me if I remembered wrong):

1. Gov A
2. TJ A
3. Gov B
4. Langley
5. TJ B
6. Robinson

Congratulations to Gov A; their performance today was very impressive. Also, thanks to UVa for another well-run tournament; this was probably the 8th or 9th UVa tournament I've been to, and they are always run extremely smoothly.

West Branch · Post by **West Branch** » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:24 pm

Those results sound correct to me. As dshafer said, this was once again a very well-run tournament. The food was on time and the questions were generally good and often interesting.

I am very pleased by the recent showings of the Maggie Walker A team. After their victory at the Feb. 18 UVA tournament Dr. Barnes wrote "Only time will tell if this is a turning point for [the A team], or just a flash in the pan." In light of their victory at Gonzaga last March coupled with today's tournament, I think we can confidently now say that it was definately more than just a flash in the pan.

yangsta · Post by **yangsta** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:51 am

Thanks to everyone for coming. Sorry about the storm; we'll plan ahead better next time

Open Division
1. Maggie Walker A
2. Thomas Jefferson A
3. Maggie Walker B
4. Langley
5. Thomas Jefferson B
6. Robinson
7. Osbourn
8. Freeman

Small Schools Division
1. Cave Spring A
2. Eastern Montgomery
3. Parry McCluer
4. St. Christopher's

All playoff brackets and individual statistics for preliminary rounds can be found at:
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~quizbowl/naqt2006

We don't seem to have all the scores for the last couple of rounds, and scoresheets were expunged, so if you'd like to add to the record, that'd be fine.

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:28 am

West Branch wrote:Those results sound correct to me. As dshafer said, this was once again a very well-run tournament. The food was on time and the questions were generally good and often interesting.

I am very pleased by the recent showings of the Maggie Walker A team. After their victory at the Feb. 18 UVA tournament Dr. Barnes wrote "Only time will tell if this is a turning point for [the A team], or just a flash in the pan." In light of their victory at Gonzaga last March coupled with today's tournament, I think we can confidently now say that it was definately more than just a flash in the pan.

I echo your sentiments concerning the well-run tournament.

And yes, that was a most impressive performance by the A-team. It was as dominant a performance as I have seen from a MLWGS team in at least two years. It rivaled the kind of play we might have expected from our legendary team of two years ago. Excellent! Hopefully, we can keep playing this well at nationals.

Yes, the earlier performance was definitely more than a flash in the pan.

Hats off to TJ A. After losing to us soundly in the first game of the finals, they fought back gallantly in our next meeting, leading at halftime and extending the lead into the second half. We needed a strong finish to pull out the victory. TJ is an awesome team, capable of beating any team out there. I don't believe they were using their usual line-ups yesterday. They did have key players missing from their usual teams. We were also missing some key players from our various teams.

We will have to settle with splitting state championships with TJ this year (VHSL & NAQT). So, the friendly rivalry continues...

tj b boy · Post by **tj b boy** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:54 am

Haven't posted in months if not years, but I've got a few thoughts about this tournament.

The TJ-Gov rivalry continues, I see. Hopefully this one can last through more than a few generations of high schoolers. I think both programs have the infrastructure to maintain an elevated quality of play, so I am optimistic. Gov might have the upper hand this year but the most important matches at nationals remain to be played.

I was impressed with Osbourn, who told me this was their first NAQT tournament or some such thing. They worked their way from a 12 seed to being 15 points away from a berth among the top four teams. They ended up finishing seventh, I believe. If they go to nationals I think they've got a shot at doing really well, assuming the Virginia circuit is as strong as it has been in recent years.

Hopefully plenty of the players at the tournament end up going to UVa and feel like doing college quiz bowl, it was a quality tournament.

Encyclopedia Brown · Post by **Encyclopedia Brown** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:17 pm

A tip of the cap can go to Freeman as well. This showing is the best they have ever done at NAQT State. As a grad, I am pleased with their run to eighth place.

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:51 pm

dsfquizbowl wrote:A tip of the cap can go to Freeman as well. This showing is the best they have ever done at NAQT State. As a grad, I am pleased with their run to eighth place.

I agree. They gave our A-team their strongest competition in the prelims, actually winning more toss-ups than we did. Their bonus conversion was not so good in that game, however. They also came back from a big deficit to knock off our C-team in the playoffs who were having a pretty good day up to that point. Freeman did get a little shell-shocked against our A-team in the playoffs, but came back with a strong showing against Robinson before going home. I understand that the Freeman players will all be back next year. So, with hard work, they should improve nicely from here. You should be rightly proud of your Rebels.

It was good to see Hermitage there. Their team also seems to be improving this year. St. Chris was there, but we did not see them as they were playing with the"small" schools. Clover Hill was having a bad day; they may have been missing some people. I'm sorry there were not more Richmond area schools in attendance. Where was Godwin? Henrico? or others with teams that go to tournaments from time to time. I know Collegiate could not come because they were giving some early exams in AP classes this weekend. If teams from our area would get out more and work harder, there is no reason we could not be just as good as our sister schools from the NoVa region.

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:03 pm

I am also curious why St. Anne's-Belfield was not there. MamaFlanagan already "explained" C'ville's absence. Spotswood and Robert E. Lee were also notable absences. Why were there not more teams from the east? e.g., Princess Anne. Even with all the AWOL team, it was a decently strong field. The tournament was run well and the questions were of excellent quality, possibly the best NAQT questions we have heard this year. The teams that were not there missed a quality quizbowl experience.

West Branch · Post by **West Branch** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:40 pm

EDIT

If I misportrayed what happened (which it now appears that I did) I would just like to thoroughly apologize for any harm I may have caused. I can assure you that I have never had any intent on damaging the reputation of Freeman with unfounded accusations. Freeman is a good school (I considered going there myself) and I hold nothing against them. What I previously wrote was based on a firsthand report that I (unwisely) trusted. In the future I promise to look further into matters before making posts.

Again, I'm sorry for the my misunderstanding and apologize for any confusion I have caused.

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:07 pm

I did not witness this game first hand, so I can not personally confirm this behavior. But, if true, then this is disappointing. They seemed well-behaved in the games that I saw them.

Frater Taciturnus · Post by **Frater Taciturnus** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:29 am

I WAS there, and I did not see this. I can neither confirm nor deny these reports, but IF my team DID act inappropriatly, I personally must apologize for their behavior.

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:56 pm

dsfcaptains2005 wrote:I WAS there, and I did not see this. I can neither confirm nor deny these reports, but IF my team DID act inappropriatly, I personally must apologize for their behavior.

After further investigation, I have determined that the situation was not nearly as bad as West Branch had portayed it in his original unedited post. West Branch was basing his comments on hearsay. Apparently, one player did make a gratuitous comment or two about one of our players. It may have not been intended for anyone other than his teammate to hear. But, several of our players and parents heard it. This was an isolated and self-contained incident. I am certain the comment was made in jest and with no malice intended. Our player is not bothered at all by the situation.

After the two games I witnessed Freeman, I came away with a positive impression of Freeman, their coaches, and their players. That positive impression remains. I appreciate your concern for your former team. We look forward to many friendly matches in the future. I like how Freeman's program is developing. It is good to get more teams from our area to become more serious and competitive in quiz bowl. You were instrumental in your team's earlier successes, and I'm sure your continuing support is helping the team to progress further.

West Branch · Post by **West Branch** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 6:41 pm

Really? I'm really sorry then

I've edited my original post

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:29 pm

West Branch wrote:Really? I'm really sorry then

Not a problem, W. B. You were merely reporting how some were perceiving the situation. Sometimes perception IS reality. Hopefully, all is forgiven on both sides for whatever transgressions might have taken place, and we can now return to discussion of quiz bowl.

The Quizbowl Resource Center