The Quizbowl Resource Center

For Ohio, Fisher, Garfield Hts, and Walnut Hills all have great shots at advancing. Especially Walnut Hills: I would place them at or above the level of Dunbar, DCC, and State College B, Novi, and East Lansing, all of whom I have all played. Fisher made the finals at Ohio NAQT states and Garfield is very good, although a bit streaky on the negs.

Where's the love for Florida schools? I predict Pensacola and Ransom Everglades to make it to the playoffs.

Last year, no team finished 0-10, but if one does this year, I predict it will be Dixie County High School, who I've never freakin' heard of.

David,

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but you are absolutely killing me. Aiken hasn't played since MIT and hasn't practiced as a team in the last month because of AP and IB exams. I have two guys taking exams this Friday so we can't leave early. But, hopefully we will show up. We gain our social studies guy whom we didn't have at MIT. With the right schedule and questions, we could be a factor in determining who moves on to the playoffs. Or, we could just as easily go into the tank. John is practicing well and Amy seems ready. We'll see. Fatigue could be a problem.

Regarding Byko's list: when we played Pingry on Saturday, they seemed to be really close to our level, so, barring the luck of the draw, it'll probably be both of us in or both out. I'm hoping for the former. :)

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Eleanor Roosevelt is a pretty good team. We were barely able to beat them at UMD. I could see them making the playoffs.

Regarding your list Byko, St. Anthony will not be in attendance (at least according to the field posted on the NAQT website).

I think Simon Kenton could definitely surprise people. And if they get lots of math questions in a round, they will throw down. DJ is unbelievable. Our school is historically solid in math, but DJ is better than anyone I've ever seen.

Reasonably, there will likely be no more than two math questions in any HSCT game, so I don't know what the expectation should be about that.

Even at the NSC, we make it clear one calculation question we KNOW is available during a game, and no tossup will ever require calculation (because calculation tossups are just dumb in my opinion).

This is true. But a math question at a crucial juncture in the game can change a lot. And, being from Kentucky, I must disagree with your dislike of calculation. But to each, his own.

Don't get me wrong, I like calculation. Just that mathematics academically is not about calculation. Plus the way we test for competency in calculation in quiz bowl is completely antithetical with how we should reward mathematical knowledge as opposed to mathematical calculation.

Let Mathcounts have their countdown round, because you have a competition completely set up to do this. But math is not taught to be about memorizing equations without knowing the context of their use.

Calculation is a tool to an answer and errors in calculation commonly penalize people who know the correct answer or concept being asked or tested.

Again, just my opinion, after seeing so many math questions go away silently too many times.

Besides, in the end, "critical junctures" only exist in the context of players and momentum (which I admit is important). But a free throw early in a basketball game doesn't gain value at the end stages of the game, even though the momentum swing of nailing a shot is greater depending on situation. For sure, get the questions in the distribution that you can get. I'm just saying, that you shouldn't expect more than 2 calculation questions in any round at NAQT or PACE nationals... but if you played at Illinois states, you can expect 5-6 of them (I think).

I enjoy mathematical computation, and while it isn't particularly effective in gauging skill well, it can be fun. Also, I agree with your explanation that people know the concept being tested can be penalized, but is knowing the concept enough? I mean, if you think about it as one big problem, if you know how to solve the problem, but you can't figure out the solution, how useful is it? That, I think, is for the writers to decide. Seriously, we need to elect a dictator of quiz bowl. And then he or she can pick things that are important and that we all play. Wouldn't that clear up some of these problems.

And yes, I was referring to momentum. I've lost way too many games because of an ill placed neg (almost always by me), late in a game. All I meant to say was that DJ is very very good at math.

WHS_Mitu wrote:Regarding your list Byko, St. Anthony will not be in attendance (at least according to the field posted on the NAQT website).

Oops--my bad. I must have been thinking about an old list an didn't look closely enough at the new one. On that basis, I'd put Arcadia A (CA) into the field then.

Hopper wrote:Eleanor Roosevelt is a pretty good team. We were barely able to beat them at UMD. I could see them making the playoffs.

They definitely are, and they're going in the right direction, not having any truly bad losses except perhaps losing to TJ C at Walter Johnson's tournament. One thing definitely worth noting is that they defeated both Walter Johnson and Walt Whitman at NAQT Maryland/DC, so in large part, the momentum is in their favor.

metsfan001 wrote:Regarding Byko's list: when we played Pingry on Saturday, they seemed to be really close to our level, so, barring the luck of the draw, it'll probably be both of us in or both out. I'm hoping for the former. :)

I can't figure Pingry out at all this season with them losing to Bergen County Academies B but defeating Hunter, so it'd be interesting to see them. I know they had to string some playoff wins together to come in 4th at Princeton, but I haven't seen a playoff bracket from that tournament. Depending on who they defeated there, that might get them into my projected field or at least in contention.

mhanna wrote:Thanks for the vote of confidence, but you are absolutely killing me. Aiken hasn't played since MIT and hasn't practiced as a team in the last month because of AP and IB exams. I have two guys taking exams this Friday so we can't leave early. But, hopefully we will show up. We gain our social studies guy whom we didn't have at MIT. With the right schedule and questions, we could be a factor in determining who moves on to the playoffs. Or, we could just as easily go into the tank. John is practicing well and Amy seems ready. We'll see. Fatigue could be a problem.

I know you guys haven't had your best four play together as much as you'd like this season, but when they have, they've been very tough. Beating Raleigh Charter A back in November helped you a lot in my rankings. You bring up a good point about fatigue, though--that's definitely a factor, particularly for less experienced teams.

wd4dgz wrote:Where's the love for Florida schools? I predict Pensacola and Ransom Everglades to make it to the playoffs.

Last year, no team finished 0-10, but if one does this year, I predict it will be Dixie County High School, who I've never freakin' heard of.

Unfortunately, I have absolutely zero data on any of the three Florida schools. Pensacola got into the playoffs last year but lost some of their firepower from that team, so even having no data, I could see them having an outside shot. Of course, if you want to e-mail me some data from tournaments in Florida, I'd be very interested!

I'm guessing Dixie County must have qualified from Chipola's tournament--I know Holmes County (FL) did last year, and I talked with them for a while after reading a match for them. I see Dixie County is from around the same area, so that's why I'm saying that. If I recall correctly, Holmes County went 2-8 last year and did not impress me, so I don't really give Dixie County a chance either based on that comparison.

DH THHS wrote:For Ohio, Fisher, Garfield Hts, and Walnut Hills all have great shots at advancing. Especially Walnut Hills: I would place them at or above the level of Dunbar, DCC, and State College B, Novi, and East Lansing, all of whom I have all played. Fisher made the finals at Ohio NAQT states and Garfield is very good, although a bit streaky on the negs.

Does anyone have the full statistics from NAQT Ohio that they'd like to send me? That would help a lot! I have very little data on Fisher Catholic, and the little bit of NAQT data I have is from their performance at Wright State, which isn't bad but doesn't really help their cause. Beating Tippecanoe A at Wayne State helps, though.

jdd2007 wrote:The list looks very well done, although Minnesota looks a little over-represented to me. There aren't many stats out there for Fisher Catholic (OH), but with their best lineup they have a very good chance of making playoffs.

One real difficulty I have right now is that Minnesota (and a few teams from WI, SD, IA, and NE) is completely unconnected to the rest of the country, thus making accurate national assessments very difficult. Having teams like Dorman competing at Gonzaga's tournament and St. Andrew's Episcopal competing in California and Long Island allows some connection between regions so that better comparisons can be made. With Minnesota, honestly, it's more of a guess at this point.

styxman wrote:I don't think every Illinois team in the field is worthy of making the playoffs. I wasn't that impressed with St. Ignatius at NAQT State and Wheaton North is too heavy on math for me to consider them as playoff contenders. I won't attempt to predict which ones it'll be, but I think that no more than four of the six make it into the playoffs.

I was surprised St. Ignatius was as high in my rankings as they were, but one thing that helps is that they have no bad losses at all and have a couple quality wins over Naperville North and Maine South A at Northwestern (an NAQT event). I gave the list a second look when I saw what you noted, but one thing that did help convince me is that the Illinois teams, even in their losses, were all scoring well at NAQT Illinois. Wheaton North, perhaps the weakest of them, was still putting up 290, 265, 300, 345, and 310 in their losses.

DumbJacques wrote:The generally unpredictable lineup configuration/whatever of Charter A/B notwithstanding, that list looks pretty good. I personally think Eleanor Roosevelt could easily put together a 6-4 record, depending on their schedule.

Charter B was mathematically a lot lower than I expected, but some semi-surprising losses to Walt Whitman B and Half Hollow Hills West B aren't helping them. They're hard to predict but have a lot of talent, and it's that basis that gives me reason to make them a contender.

I'd also like to thank you for the vote of confidence.

Eleanor Roosevelt is a pretty good team. We were barely able to beat them at UMD. I could see them making the playoffs.

I also think ER will probably make the playoffs. We (Whitman) went 1-1 against them at the Maryland State Championship, and, though I feel that we shot ourselves in the foot, they're still a very good team (qualifying for the nationals at all in a DC metro area tournament proves this).

brownboy79 wrote:...I mean, if you think about it as one big problem, if you know how to solve the problem, but you can't figure out the solution, how useful is it?

It often very, very useful, as you will increasingly discover if you advance to higher and higher math. For example, almost all the mathematics underlying modern theoretical physics is group theoretical wherein one often winds up saying "This problem is too complicated to solve exactly, but my understanding of the problem allows me to come up with a number of very useful, non-trivial things about its solutions." Also, an understanding of how to solve problems underpins all the numerous approximate methods, which are how more or less every real problem is solved.
Anyway, the long and short is this: when you get into the type of math people do things with nowadays, understanding the problem is almost everything. Doing the arithmetic (or whatever) to actually solve it is very little.

MaS

charlieDfromNKC wrote:I would say I think Liberty can go 6-4. I think they are above Savannah.

I'm in agreement with this. Savannah couldn't pull out a 3A championship, whereas Liberty barely barely lost to NKC, who eventually won the 4A championship. Having seen both Liberty and Savannah play, I'd say that Liberty has more of what you need at this level of competition--balance. Savannah has one very good player, Terrin, and a couple of alright backups. Liberty, on the other hand, has 3 very good players (John, Stephanie, and Shane) with a couple of other backups.

Byko wrote:

DH THHS wrote:
For Ohio, Fisher, Garfield Hts, and Walnut Hills all have great shots at advancing. Especially Walnut Hills: I would place them at or above the level of Dunbar, DCC, and State College B, Novi, and East Lansing, all of whom I have all played. Fisher made the finals at Ohio NAQT states and Garfield is very good, although a bit streaky on the negs.


Does anyone have the full statistics from NAQT Ohio that they'd like to send me? That would help a lot! I have very little data on Fisher Catholic, and the little bit of NAQT data I have is from their performance at Wright State, which isn't bad but doesn't really help their cause. Beating Tippecanoe A at Wayne State helps, though.

I know that excuses are like butt-holes, we all have them and they all stink, but, to be fair, we were missing 2 starters that day, including our Lit girl and our Government guy. If you all remember that set, there were a LOT of government questions in there...a lot more than what are usually found in NAQT sets, and obviously there are a lot of Lit questions, so we were hurting pretty badly that day. I'm not saying that we're great with them, but I wouldn't be surprised if we made the playoffs as a low seed (knock on wood).

I'd also like to add that the only reason we beat Tipp was because they were missing two starters. I know this doesn't make us look any better, but it's the truth.

wd4dgz wrote:Where's the love for Florida schools? I predict Pensacola and Ransom Everglades to make it to the playoffs.

byko wrote:Unfortunately, I have absolutely zero data on any of the three Florida schools. Pensacola got into the playoffs last year but lost some of their firepower from that team, so even having no data, I could see them having an outside shot. Of course, if you want to e-mail me some data from tournaments in Florida, I'd be very interested!

I've coached most of the Pensacola High kids (they're on my county all-star team) and I can honestly say that this year's batch is just as good, if not better, than last year's. I know that they've won three Panhandle-area tournaments; they also won the FSU fall tournament and finished third at the UF fall tournament. I think they've won some others, too.

Anyway, they probably won't be winning the whole thing at nationals, but they will definitely be a playoff team and might even make it well into the second day.

I don't think Dunbar's B team was very impressive when I saw them. Then again, that B team may have been at reduced strength.

DCC B impressed me a lot. I felt that they were very good, comparable to the A team.

New Trier, however, was much, much better than DCC A. It was scary. I look for Illinois teams to do quite well.

3D Lemmings wrote: New Trier, however, was much, much better than DCC A. It was scary. I look for Illinois teams to do quite well.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that one. We may have gone 2-1 against them, but the game we played them in the prelims (final was 450-290) was very tight, we only pulled away at the end. They absolutely smoked us in the first championship match, there was a period of at least 15 consecutive questions where I don't think we got a single tossup. Then, in the second championship match, it was a tight race once again.

I think, overall, us and DCC A are rather similar, actually. Them, NKC, and Bloomington are the best three teams I've seen all year on NAQT format (technically NKC was at WashU, but it's close enough).

Trevkeeper wrote:

3D Lemmings wrote: New Trier, however, was much, much better than DCC A. It was scary. I look for Illinois teams to do quite well.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that one. We may have gone 2-1 against them, but the game we played them in the prelims (final was 450-290) was very tight, we only pulled away at the end. They absolutely smoked us in the first championship match, there was a period of at least 15 consecutive questions where I don't think we got a single tossup. Then, in the second championship match, it was a tight race once again.

I think, overall, us and DCC A are rather similar, actually. Them, NKC, and Bloomington are the best three teams I've seen all year on NAQT format (technically NKC was at WashU, but it's close enough).

Throughout that second match, my feeling was "Wow, DCC is hanging tough". I was honestly shocked that they were winning at the half. When we went into the game against you guys, our goal was to lose by less than 300 points. We thought we might have a slim chance on a favorable question set against DCC. I'd argue that you guys are better.

And you managed to make Mr. Battersby, the British AP US History teacher, completely awed - something that rarely happens.

And this is in no way slighting DCC - they are remarkable as well.

3D Lemmings wrote:I don't think Dunbar's B team was very impressive when I saw them. Then again, that B team may have been at reduced strength.

I have to disagree. PLD B was very strong at Wright State's NAQT tournament. Plus, I hear they were really young (3 freshmen and 1 sophomore).

jdd2007 wrote:

3D Lemmings wrote:I don't think Dunbar's B team was very impressive when I saw them. Then again, that B team may have been at reduced strength.

I have to disagree. PLD B was very strong at Wright State's NAQT tournament. Plus, I hear they were really young (3 freshmen and 1 sophomore).

If that wasn't actually their B team... then I'm scared.

3D Lemmings wrote:I don't think Dunbar's B team was very impressive when I saw them. Then again, that B team may have been at reduced strength.

DCC B impressed me a lot. I felt that they were very good, comparable to the A team.

New Trier, however, was much, much better than DCC A. It was scary. I look for Illinois teams to do quite well.

We(Tipp) lost to Dunbar B at Wright State, then beat Dunbar A, so I would have to say that Dunbar B is quite good, much better than DCC B in fact(who we beat pretty easily on NAQT format). Although I think DCC A sometimes does a split squad thing, which might explain why their B team was so good.

Is Paintsville just another name for Johnson Central? Because they're really good, I thought.

charlieDfromNKC wrote:Is Paintsville just another name for Johnson Central? Because they're really good, I thought.

Nope. Paintsville is listed as a small school, which is accurate since they supposedly have 344 students. Johnson Central has 1024.

Byko wrote:Okay, time to start some more debate.

Last year, 3/8 of the HSNCT field of 128 teams made it into the playoffs with 6-4 records. So, based on that same fraction, here are the 60 teams, based on some quantitative and qualitative analysis, that I am predicting will be in this year's playoffs (listed in alphabetical order):


Hanover (NH)

Close behind and definitely within striking distance are these 20 teams:

Champlain Valley Union (VT)


Okay, fire away--I'll try to defend myself.

Without trying to be too partisan or contentious here, just a note- we defeated Hanover for our state championship here in Vermont on April 7, and our loss to them in the earlier VT NAQT tournament occurred when we had to play without our two best players present.

I don't know how my team will do, and frankly I will be happy with our players just having a fun time at the tournament, but I know we can play with Hanover in an NAQT rules match and that in fact my team does its best when we play in a NAQT format, so I am slightly optimistic that we can make the playoffs the second day.

John Bennett
Head Coach
Champlain Valley Union High School

E.T. Chuck wrote:Don't get me wrong, I like calculation. Just that mathematics academically is not about calculation. Plus the way we test for competency in calculation in quiz bowl is completely antithetical with how we should reward mathematical knowledge as opposed to mathematical calculation.

Let Mathcounts have their countdown round, because you have a competition completely set up to do this. But math is not taught to be about memorizing equations without knowing the context of their use.

Calculation is a tool to an answer and errors in calculation commonly penalize people who know the correct answer or concept being asked or tested.

Again, just my opinion, after seeing so many math questions go away silently too many times.

Besides, in the end, "critical junctures" only exist in the context of players and momentum (which I admit is important). But a free throw early in a basketball game doesn't gain value at the end stages of the game, even though the momentum swing of nailing a shot is greater depending on situation. For sure, get the questions in the distribution that you can get. I'm just saying, that you shouldn't expect more than 2 calculation questions in any round at NAQT or PACE nationals... but if you played at Illinois states, you can expect 5-6 of them (I think).

The same could be argued about other subjects as well.

Literature in an academic setting isn't just about who wrote what work with what characters in what year. It's about analyzing the work, studying the reason it was written, studying its themes, etc.

Political science isn't just about who rules what country or who is running for or holding a particular office. It's about social and economic factors and how those factors influence the decisions of people and nations.

Every subject is more complex and more deep in an academic setting than it is in quiz bowl or trivia competitions. Computation is one of the best ways to test (in a quiz bowl setting) a student's ability in mathematics. Other ways include discussion of theorems or properties (which NAQT does as well).

Just because many people who compete in NAQT are unable to do calculations quickly (resulting in the silence on math questions that you discussed), doesn't mean that they are less worthwhile than other subject areas.

Rob Kremer
Coach - Danville High School

Coach K wrote:

E.T. Chuck wrote:Don't get me wrong, I like calculation. Just that mathematics academically is not about calculation. Plus the way we test for competency in calculation in quiz bowl is completely antithetical with how we should reward mathematical knowledge as opposed to mathematical calculation.

Let Mathcounts have their countdown round, because you have a competition completely set up to do this. But math is not taught to be about memorizing equations without knowing the context of their use.

Calculation is a tool to an answer and errors in calculation commonly penalize people who know the correct answer or concept being asked or tested.

Again, just my opinion, after seeing so many math questions go away silently too many times.

Besides, in the end, "critical junctures" only exist in the context of players and momentum (which I admit is important). But a free throw early in a basketball game doesn't gain value at the end stages of the game, even though the momentum swing of nailing a shot is greater depending on situation. For sure, get the questions in the distribution that you can get. I'm just saying, that you shouldn't expect more than 2 calculation questions in any round at NAQT or PACE nationals... but if you played at Illinois states, you can expect 5-6 of them (I think).

The same could be argued about other subjects as well.

Literature in an academic setting isn't just about who wrote what work with what characters in what year. It's about analyzing the work, studying the reason it was written, studying its themes, etc.

Political science isn't just about who rules what country or who is running for or holding a particular office. It's about social and economic factors and how those factors influence the decisions of people and nations.

Every subject is more complex and more deep in an academic setting than it is in quiz bowl or trivia competitions. Computation is one of the best ways to test (in a quiz bowl setting) a student's ability in mathematics. Other ways include discussion of theorems or properties (which NAQT does as well).

Just because many people who compete in NAQT are unable to do calculations quickly (resulting in the silence on math questions that you discussed), doesn't mean that they are less worthwhile than other subject areas.

Rob Kremer
Coach - Danville High School

The fact that computational math is not the most quizbowl-esque way to judge a student/player/team's ability at mathematics has been discussed quite a lot on these boards. If I didn't have to be at work in half an hour I'd post more reasoning about it, but the prevailing theory seems to be that it is a diversion from the rest of the game. Basically, if computational math questions test your ability to crunch numbers in your head, those questions are different from questions the test your ability to quickly recall facts. It's different enough from the other 75 or whatever percent of the game to make it potentially as distracting as any other considerably different type of tossup (list-based, non-pyramidal formats or trash subjects.)

Coach K wrote: The same could be argued about other subjects as well.

Literature in an academic setting isn't just about who wrote what work with what characters in what year. It's about analyzing the work, studying the reason it was written, studying its themes, etc.

Political science isn't just about who rules what country or who is running for or holding a particular office. It's about social and economic factors and how those factors influence the decisions of people and nations.

Of course, well-written pyramidal academic questions can, and often do, touch on these factors. One frequent complaint about math is that computation cannot often be written to have the hard-middle-easy clues that other questions do. NAQT tries to alleviate this somewhat ("Find such and such, which is easy if you know this method that we're describing right now"-type stuff) but it's still substantially different.

Well, we came in a day early, arrived at about 8:30am Chicago time -- got to tour the city all day... will see everyone tomorrow... good luck to everybody on Saturday.