Restricting NAQT HSNCT in 2007 and beyond

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
jbarnes112358
Tidus
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 5:58 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by jbarnes112358 »

bjb87 wrote:... but they never qualified more than one team at any given tournament.
hmmm.... It was my understanding that all teams from the same school would have to qualify at the SAME tournament.

It is very difficult to qualify three teams in the same tournament, so I don't see that it is, or will be, a major problem. Perhaps, NAQT should do a more thorough investigation of registered teams to ensure that they really did qualify correctly. Maybe there were other teams that were not correctly qualified that were in Chicago.

Does NAQT keep a record of the teams that qualify from their tournaments? Perhaps tournament hosts should be required to send the names of the top 15% to NAQT.

brownboy79
Rikku
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:22 pm

Post by brownboy79 »

I did not know that qualifying all three teams at one tournament was a requirement, but if it isn't it definitely should be. This would ensure players participate in the team that best suits him/her.

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

Post by First Chairman »

Well, I'm not exactly sure how one could do that without specifically designated regional tournaments. NAQT's business goal should be to have as many opportunities for teams to play on its questions as possible. A team in the DC area has multiple opportunities (practically one tournament every two weeks), and if a team qualifies in all of those events with different personnel, that team should not be penalized.

PACE's policy has been that a school cannot qualify for more than two slots in a single year, but schools must continue to do well for the purposes of seeding. A school can qualify no more than two teams at any one event. Any school can petition for a third slot and be granted one at the sole discretion of the TO (me) or TD (Dan). This also allows us to remain flexible and open the field to those teams that would normally not have qualified during the year (say they were semi or quarterfinalists that always had to compete against a "powerhouse").

I won't tell NAQT how to do its business; they should probably leave well enough alone.
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)

jagluski
Wakka
Posts: 124
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 1:59 am

Post by jagluski »

brownboy79 wrote:I did not know that qualifying all three teams at one tournament was a requirement, but if it isn't it definitely should be. This would ensure players participate in the team that best suits him/her.
From the NAQT website on qualification:

"In order to qualify multiple teams from the same school for the HS NCT, they must attend the same tournament and qualify independently. Teams that qualify at different tournaments, even if composed of entirely different students, do not qualify more than one team from their school for the HS NCT. Wildcard consideration will be given to additional teams from the same school that have demonstrated a high quality of play throughout the year."

User avatar
Howard
Yuna
Posts: 967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 5:42 pm
Location: Ellicott City, MD

Post by Howard »

jbarnes112358 wrote:Does NAQT keep a record of the teams that qualify from their tournaments? Perhaps tournament hosts should be required to send the names of the top 15% to NAQT.
Tournament organizers are required to send complete results to NAQT within a specific time period following the tournament.
John Gilbert
Coach, Howard High School Academic Team
Ellicott City, MD

"John Gilbert is a quiz bowl god" -- leftsaidfred

Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

Howard wrote:Tournament organizers are required to send complete results to NAQT within a specific time period following the tournament.
Can we encourage those tournament organizers also to publicly give the full results from their tournament? There were at least a dozen events that I would at least like to have seen the results from, but those results were never shown to the general quizbowl public.
Dave Bykowski
Furman '00
Michigan '02
PACE 1998-2009
Director, JROTC National Academic Bowl Championship

jbarnes112358
Tidus
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 5:58 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by jbarnes112358 »

jagluski wrote:
"In order to qualify multiple teams from the same school for the HS NCT, they must attend the same tournament and qualify independently. Teams that qualify at different tournaments, even if composed of entirely different students, do not qualify more than one team from their school for the HS NCT. Wildcard consideration will be given to additional teams from the same school that have demonstrated a high quality of play throughout the year."
So, were teams that qualified as wild cards allowed to enter at the expense of teams that qualified normally? Not to be judgmental...just curious. There probably should be alternative ways to proving ones worthiness other than how one finishes in an actual NAQT tournament.

I think it would be interesting if NAQT disclosed how each team qualified. I know there is the complicating factor of which personnel played on which team in which tournament. Regardless of whether a team qualifies at an NAQT tournament or in some other quality tournament, if they kept the clause that reads .."they must attend the same tournament and qualify independently" then I believe that you would have a negligible number of C teams qualifying.

Perhaps if NAQT only allowed teams to register that met this higher standard, and only allowed teams to register that did not meet this standard after a certain date, and only when needed to fill up the field, then maybe we would not have the problem.

jbarnes112358
Tidus
Posts: 664
Joined: Mon May 03, 2004 5:58 am
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by jbarnes112358 »

Byko wrote:
Howard wrote:Tournament organizers are required to send complete results to NAQT within a specific time period following the tournament.
Can we encourage those tournament organizers also to publicly give the full results from their tournament?
If NAQT receives the results of their sanctioned tournaments, why can't they simply post the results on the NAQT website? That would be interesting data to peruse, would it not?
Last edited by jbarnes112358 on Sat Jun 10, 2006 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by First Chairman »

jbarnes112358 wrote:
jagluski wrote: "In order to qualify multiple teams from the same school for the HS NCT, they must attend the same tournament and qualify independently. Teams that qualify at different tournaments, even if composed of entirely different students, do not qualify more than one team from their school for the HS NCT. Wildcard consideration will be given to additional teams from the same school that have demonstrated a high quality of play throughout the year."
So, were teams that qualified as wild cards allowed to enter at the expense of teams that qualified normally? Not to be judgmental...just curious. There probably should be alternative ways to proving ones worthiness other than how one finishes in an actual NAQT tournament.
It would make much more sense for NAQT to qualify teams that competed on its questions and its tournaments. Unlike PACE which does welcome all formats, NAQT should uphold its branded format and reward teams who do well in its own format. To that effect, I don't see any motion for NAQT to accept a team that won a tournament that ran on QU questions.

That said, I am curious whether NAQT basically allowed teams that did not normally qualify according to dictated NAQT policy. As Bykowski noted earlier, we do not have publicly posted results for many tournaments that ran NAQT events. It is thus hard for any outside observer to know how each team specifically qualified. NAQT ought to post results, but even the individual TD's should be posting results. Teams that attended these events should be encouraged to post results. Winning a tournament is not proprietary; it should be good news that is celebrated and shared.
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
marcokobe
Kimahri
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: iRly

Re: Restricting NAQT HSNCT in 2007 and beyond

Post by marcokobe »

ekwartler wrote:
jrbarry wrote:It is tough enough to compete against the magnet schools without having to compete against multiple teams from magnet schools.
Honestly, Mr. Barry, what are you talking about? It is tough enough to compete against the magnet schools? Are you implying that their players are inherently better than yours, "smarter" than yours? For what it's worth, Texas A&M, a school that draws its students almost exclusively from Texas and Louisiana (hell their two leading scorers were from Louisiana), beat schools like Princeton, UChicago and Michigan to win the collegiate ACF Nationals title this year, and it's pretty tough to compete against those schools. Yes, I know, you hate it when we impose college quizbowl analogies on HS situations, but regardless of whether that's apt, you're insulting your players and yourself by saying you can't compete.
Right, that's all good and well... but that one example doesn't deal with the fact that the student populace at a magnet school is probably going to have a higher proportion of students willing and able to do the things a quiz bowler needs to do. Like drawing a poker hand from a deck of half face cards when other players have to use the standard.

About this:
ekwartler wrote:
jrbarry wrote:It is tough enough to compete against the magnet schools without having to compete against multiple teams from magnet schools.
Honestly, Mr. Barry, what are you talking about?
TJ B aught-five. That's only the most obvious example.

Oh, and, good looking out for the Brookwood players, I just can't believe Mr Barry said things that bad.
...
...
Last edited by marcokobe on Mon Jun 12, 2006 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Restricting NAQT HSNCT in 2007 and beyond

Post by First Chairman »

ekwartler wrote:
jrbarry wrote:It is tough enough to compete against the magnet schools without having to compete against multiple teams from magnet schools.
Honestly, Mr. Barry, what are you talking about? It is tough enough to compete against the magnet schools?
As Rick knows, I come from one of those Louisiana magnet schools (Caddo Magnet) that does well in quiz bowl, but by no means would I have said we were dominant except in Decathlon (and even so, we don't really dominate like we used to). But I also think that the assumption is the same for magnets as it is for competing against small selective schools (Catholic schools or similar). At the local level, there is certainly a level of dominance that a magnet school has, but at nationals, that does not parlay into wins necessarily. I don't think State College is a magnet (at last time I checked), and neither is RMo.

I also won't disregard the "atmosphere" of a selective or magnet school. Because these schools in general encourage and reward "academic excellence" (and it may even be good PR by the school district), they are more encouraged to compete.

Is one solution to have separate national championships for public large, public medium, public small, and selective/private? Where would you put homeschoolers anyway in this context? I go back to Decathlon; we do this (although the implementation is extremely subjective). You can also cite the KMO for doing this.

In the end, yes there are resource issues, but knowledge should be blind to those issues. The acquisition of that knowledge is an important factor that transcends this game and is a discussion point for political activism.
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)

mhanna
Wakka
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: Aiken, SC

Post by mhanna »

Not to take anything away from RM, and I applaud their excellence not only in quiz bowl, but also in academics. I believe they are technically a magnet school because they are an IB magnet school for teh county.

Mac Hanna

Bugsy
Lulu
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 9:02 pm
Location: RMHS, Rockville, MD

Post by Bugsy »

We have an IB program, but not the only one in Montgomery County. We're becoming less and less of the county magnet, and more of just a magnet program within the county.

With regards to the overall issue, if teams qualify to go, and if they can afford to, then they should be allowed to go; on the other hand, it might be better if B (and especially C) teams were given lower priority than other schools' A teams.

User avatar
Kechara
Wakka
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:28 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Post by Kechara »

jbarnes112358 wrote:
Byko wrote:
Howard wrote:Tournament organizers are required to send complete results to NAQT within a specific time period following the tournament.
Can we encourage those tournament organizers also to publicly give the full results from their tournament?
If NAQT receives the results of their sanctioned tournaments, why can't they simply post the results on the NAQT website? That would be interesting data to peruse, would it not?
Yes, it would, if NAQT were interested in sharing that data with interested parties.
Jessie Francis

User avatar
pblessman
Tidus
Posts: 500
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:38 am
Location: Culver, Indiana

Re: Restricting NAQT HSNCT in 2007 and beyond

Post by pblessman »

E.T. Chuck wrote: Is one solution to have separate national championships for public large, public medium, public small, and selective/private? Where would you put homeschoolers anyway in this context? I go back to Decathlon; we do this (although the implementation is extremely subjective). You can also cite the KMO for doing this.
I see the pros and cons of this... I kind of like the way we handle things right now, as splitting things up often creates some unfairness... is the Latin School of Chicago REALLY a small school in Illinois Quiz Bowl? Over the years, they have been the 300lb gorilla in Class A, and have often been one of the better overall programs in the State (Top Ten, maybe).

So once you start splitting up by size, people will start talking about boosting private and other selective admission schools up in class. But this is often unfair to some private and selective admission schools, as not all of these schools necessarily have a significantly stronger student body. Indiana is going through this process currently concerning their sports teams... and it is not pretty.

The other argument I would have is that evidence does not necessarily support currently that all of quiz bowl is dominated by large selective admission programs. TJ dominated the scence for quite a while, but this can also be attributed to coaching, tradition, etc.

Quiz Bowl is also unusual in that a small number of good players can make a HUGE difference. A good example is Jason Loy from Cutter Morning Star in 2003 and 2004. Jason was an incredidible high school player, and his presence alone made Cutter Morning Star a national contender, even though the school was "small." Who would have been served by having them play in a different division? They would have crushed all their opposition, as they did with Kent in the 2004 Small School final.

All that being said, Illinois quiz bowl does give an opportunity to smaller programs to compete for a state championship, which in a one-class set-up would always be dominated by the upstate (Chicago and Rockford) powerhouses... Hmmm.... Pros and cons...

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

Post by First Chairman »

Louisiana also has a similar setup in which there are (I believe) four classes based on size only. However, to determine the overall championship and Panasonic representative, those four champions play off against each other at the state finals.

Latin has done fairly well at the NSC when they have appeared, and I'm sure if they wanted to continue playing against other 300-lb. gorillas, that would only make them better. In addition, smaller teams shouldn't be afraid to play the big boys either.

The only thing I have issues with size is that the bar always seems rather arbitrary. Texas for example has a division for medium-sized Decathlon schools that I think is any school with a population of 1,000 to 4,999 students. In other states, that's a "large school." Alternatively, a "small school" of fewer than 1000 students is a fairly large school by other standards. I'm not sure if there is an ideal way to deal with this discrepancy at a national tournament aside from what Decathlon does: sort the field by size and arbitrarily divide them into three divisions.
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
thepowerofche
Lulu
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: Etlanna, Jawjah
Contact:

Re: Restricting NAQT HSNCT in 2007 and beyond

Post by thepowerofche »

marcokobe wrote: I just don't believe Mr Barry would say insulting things like that about us.
You're kidding, right?

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

NAQT's wait list and standby list

Post by rhentzel »

Byko wrote:Several teams were there as waitlist entries, including (I think) Hardee, Dobyns-Bennett, Solon, and Greeley County. When Pennridge didn't show up, they went to the next highest team on the list. Unfortunately, it was none of those teams. Instead, it was Minnetonka C.
I wanted to expand on this briefly since David glossed over some of the details.

NAQT maintains both a "wait list" and a "standby list" for its national championships (both collegiate and high school). The wait list is for qualified teams and is used to fill spots until 48 hours before the close of registration. Teams get on the wait list in the order that they register after the field fills up. There is no obligation entailed by being on the wait list and a team can drop off at any time.

The standby list is composed of teams that may or may not have qualified but have guaranteed NAQT that they will attend the tournament (with no promise of being able to play). These teams replace those that drop with 48 hours of the close of registration. The idea behind the standby list is that it would be populated by local teams for whom the travel was not much of a burden; NAQT was surprised to have six teams on it this year, none of whom were from Illinois.

Months before the tournament, Minnetonka C joined the standby list by committing to bring an extra team to the HS NCT with no guarantee of playing. This was what had them first in line when Pennridge didn't show up, not their position on the wait list (since they didn't ever qualify). Had a spot opened up on or before Wednesday night, the top team on the wait list would have gotten it, not Minnetonka C.

-- R. Robert Hentzel
President and Chief Technical Officer,
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Minnetonka and the HSNCT

Post by rhentzel »

bjb87 wrote:I am from Minnesota so I can explain the Minnetonka thing. Minnetonka usually sends about three teams to meets that they got to. They went to all the NAQT quiz bowl meets in the metro area and they also hosted an NAQT meet. There were at least two tournaments where their A team qualified and their B team was one win away from qualifying but they never qualified more than one team at any given tournament. I am guessing that their participation and strong showings at local NAQT meets got them three teams at the HSNCT. We only went 1-3 against their A team this season and their A team was 5-1 before dropping 4 straight.
Brendan --

Minnetonka qualified two teams by finishing 1st and 2nd at the Lake Classic Conference Tournament (which used NAQT questions) in January 2006. Their C team requested a wildcard, which was denied, after which they signed up as the first standby team.

It is true that Minnetonka has been a strong supporter of NAQT-style quiz bowl in the Twin Cities, but participation, enthusiasm, and buying our questions are not factors in the awarding of Nationals bids.

-- R. Robert Hentzel
President and Chief Technical Officer,
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Waitlist length

Post by rhentzel »

ReinsteinD wrote:I was told that the largest the waitlist ever got was 17 teams, and in the end 16 teams were turned away.
This is correct. The waitlist reached 17 teams. One team (Bob Jones) dropped before the tournament and replaced with the first team on the waitlist, North Allegheny (A).

However, not everybody who tried to register actually joined the formal waitlist; once it got to around 10 teams, we'd offer teams a spot, they'd ask our honest opinion of whether they'd get into the field, receive it, and then decline to be listed.

Approximately 30 qualified teams requested spots after the field filled along with several additional wildcards.

-- R. Robert Hentzel
President and Chief Technical Officer,
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Wildcard spots at the 2006 HSNCT

Post by rhentzel »

jbarnes112358 wrote:So, were teams that qualified as wild cards allowed to enter at the expense of teams that qualified normally? Not to be judgmental...just curious.
Yes. Bluntly speaking, wildcard teams took spots that could potentially have gone to teams that qualified normally (but registered later). However, there were very few wildcard teams in this year's field.
jbarnes112358 wrote:There probably should be alternative ways to proving ones worthiness other than how one finishes in an actual NAQT tournament.
Absolutely. Teams can qualify through official (non-NAQT) state championships and the wildcard system exists to recognize the fact that there are tournaments with great fields that don't use NAQT questions as well as regions of the country with stronger traditions than others.

We dislike qualification systems (like wildcarding) that involve our subjective evaluation of teams, but, at present, it seems like that system, or one like it, is necessary to ensure that invitations have a chance of reaching all nationals-caliber teams.

-- R. Robert Hentzel
President and Chief Technical Officer,
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC

Locked