Page 2 of 3

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:25 pm
by Melonman64
Do we have any idea who's in quarter finals right now? The schedule says that's where they would be right now, but nothing is on time at any quiz bowl tournament, ever.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 1:47 pm
by First Chairman
They're probably more on-time than you think. Rounds only take 20 minutes long, and unless there is a protracted overtime, there shouldn't be delays.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:44 pm
by cvdwightw
quizbowllee wrote:It is VERY obvious to me now that losing an early round makes it much easier to make the playoffs.
There would be two reasons why I can think this might be the case: first, you duck many of the "better" teams; and second, you start playing with a sense of urgency earlier. From my admittedly limited and somewhat irrelevant experience, I think both of these are partially valid.

First: "ducking better teams": It is true that losing an early round to an inferior opponent allows you to avoid playing against better ones. If you then dominate an even weaker opponent in the next round, you probably bump yourself to the top of the list of teams with your record, which means you get a weaker team in the next round, etc. However, beating an inferior opponent in a low-scoring affair puts you at the mercy of some team that absolutely creamed some other poor team, putting you near the bottom of the list of teams with your record.

Most early rounds work by placing teams into "brackets" and having a set power match schedule from there. There is no clear-cut advantage to losing here, except to duck a better team and set yourself up for a higher seed when inter-bracket power matching starts.

However, from my experience the quality of teams you play is not significantly affected by dropping early games. For instance in 2003 we ducked DCC in Round 1, but had to play 3 of the teams that tied for 8th with us by the time the prelims had ended. Unless NAQT does something weird like they did last year where it is virtually guaranteed that some poor team starts out 5-2 and misses the playoffs, these should balance out eventually. You may duck the tougher teams early, but that won't mean you won't have to play them later.

Second is the issue of urgency. In 2002 (back when you needed 7 wins to have a chance of making the playoffs) we started 1-2, caught a weaker team, recovered, and got to 3-3. At this point the sense of urgency (i.e. lose another game and you're out of the playoffs) kicked in while we were still playing arguably weaker teams. The earlier this starts (against teams that arguably shouldn't be, for instance, 3-4), the easier it is to start picking up some momentum. If you're going the other way (e.g. from 4-1 to 4-4), it's a lot harder to kick into that next gear when it really counts. And what happens if you run into an even better team that's been similarly "accidentally sandbagging"?

However, how big is momentum over the grand scheme of the tournament? How much does losing to a good team in rounds 1-3 vs 4-6 vs. 7-10 mean? And now, with teams having several byes over the course of the tournament, it should be harder for teams to reasonably pick up a full head of steam.

So, I can see why each of these is a valid reason why good teams will have an easier time making the playoffs if they lose early than similarly good teams who win early, but I don't think this is the determining factor.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:45 pm
by Deviant Insider
This info is old by now, but it's more current than anything else here:
5th round pairings
Undefeated:
Walker v Whitman
State College v Montgomery
One Loss:
DCC v Moravian
Santa Monica v Walnut Hills
TJ B v Gonzaga
NKC v Wilmington Charter
Dorman v East Lansing
TJ A v MLK
Eden Prairie v Dorman B
New Trier v Troy

New Trier lost to Troy, and we had lost earlier to Whitman. NKC lost to Wilmington. That's what I know. A dominant showing by the East Coast.

The top individuals from yesterday were somebody from MLK and then Charlie from NKC.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 2:53 pm
by Deviant Insider
Dr. Chuck wrote:I'm sure there are high schools in Illinois that could hold that many games at once, but I'm not sure if the auditoriums would be big enough.
The room for the opening meeting yesterday morning was not big enough (though that could have been solved by opening up some temporary walls, which was not done), and there are some high school auditoriums that would be big enough.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:19 pm
by aestheteboy

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 3:24 pm
by jhn31
do they have preliminary standings on the site too?

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:04 pm
by theMoMA
Congrats to Maggie Walker A. I just refreshed and it appears they defeated State College A in the first game to go undefeated in the playoffs.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:13 pm
by Deviant Insider
1. Maggie Walker
2. State College
3. Dorman & TJ
5. Whitman, Wilmington Charter, and Montgomery
8. Troy, Dorman B, DCC, Santa Monica, Gonzaga
13. Moravian, Walnut Hills, TJ B, NKC, East Lansing, MLK, Eden Prairie, New Trier
21. Eden Prairie B, Pingry, James Island, Chattahoochee, Georgetown, Shady Side, Cave Spring, Stuyvesant, State College B, Brindlee Mountain B, Aiken, Minnetonka
33. Wayzata, Lisgar, Livingston, Montgomery B, Hunter, MW B, St Ignatius, Bergen, Rancho Bernardo, MNH, Arcadia, Dunbar, Wheaton North, Maine South, Brookwood, Raleigh Charter
49. Arcadia B, Danville, Wayzata B, East Lansing B, DeLaSalle, Ransom Everglades, Columbus, Bloomington, George Mason, Norcross, Pensacola, Parkview, Garfield Heights

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:33 pm
by Nav
Call me picky but I'm curious... if this is setup as a double-elimination tournament (which it looks like it is), why have a 3rd place game? In double-elims 3rd place is already determined...

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:40 pm
by Zip Zap Rap Pants
Nav wrote:Call me picky but I'm curious... if this is setup as a double-elimination tournament (which it looks like it is), why have a 3rd place game? In double-elims 3rd place is already determined...
Nein

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 4:46 pm
by dschafer
Nav wrote:Call me picky but I'm curious... if this is setup as a double-elimination tournament (which it looks like it is), why have a 3rd place game? In double-elims 3rd place is already determined...
Though I do not know for sure, I believe that the third place game is necessary because of the cross-bracket game in the eighth round. TJ A, at that point, was in the loser's bracket, and Gov A was in the winner's bracket. However, rather than have one of the teams in the loser's bracket and Gov A both have a bye, one of the teams in the loser's bracket was paired with the remaining team in the winner's bracket.

Posted: Sun May 27, 2007 5:42 pm
by BuzzerZen
dschafer wrote:Though I do not know for sure, I believe that the third place game is necessary because of the cross-bracket game in the eighth round. TJ A, at that point, was in the loser's bracket, and Gov A was in the winner's bracket. However, rather than have one of the teams in the loser's bracket and Gov A both have a bye, one of the teams in the loser's bracket was paired with the remaining team in the winner's bracket.
Exactly right, Dan. We ended up beating Dorman in that game, so the top 4 in order are Gov, State College, TJ, and Dorman

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:40 am
by Philip Marschall
The best parts of NAQT were the various jokes made before and during matches by the moderators.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 2:11 am
by Wall of Ham
Congrats to Maggie Walker, who basically crushed everyone on Sunday (if the playoff scores mean anything), especially us in the finals (getting over twice our score). Also, I felt that we had many close games against many teams of great caliber, showing how great the field was this year, but MW was above and beyond anyone else in the field.

Congradulations!

It was a great year for us, but all we ever seemed to managed was 2nd in nearly every tournament. I'll miss high school quizbowl. I'm not looking forward to memorizing the college "canon".

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:50 am
by Bigfoot isn't the pr
Yeah. Maggie pretty much cleaned up. Besides them the next six-to-ten teams were at close skill. A deep field and an enjoyable tournament

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:26 am
by STPickrell
A hearty well done to those teams who represented the Commonwealth of Virginia!

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:16 pm
by Lukey's Boat
Congratulations to everybody that went to Nationals this year, it was a great tournament. A round of applause especially to Maggie Walker, that was brilliant.

Good luck in future tournaments everyone :grin:

Also, does anyone know if they're going to post slightly more reader-friendly stats and such on the NAQT site?

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:26 pm
by Byko
Lukey's Boat wrote:Also, does anyone know if they're going to post slightly more reader-friendly stats and such on the NAQT site?
The playoff results page (with scores) probably won't change from how it is now. The prelim results are up, though they haven't linked it yet:

http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2007/results/standings.html

One thing I'm wondering--did Sand Rock just leave and forfeit the last two matches after losing to Dixie County?

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 12:59 pm
by First Chairman
A developing discussion on early losses in powermatching has been split from this thread. For now, I've kept it in National Tournaments, though it may eventually go to Theory.

Congratulations to the victors and well done all.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 1:18 pm
by JGittings
The Maggie Walker team deserves to be remembered as one of the legendaries. I feel that I have also been privileged to accompany a truly great team this year -- the product of many years of work and growth and no small dedication to excellence. While congratulating MW, I must tell my own team and the quiz bowl community publicly that this State College team of 2007 is also one of the great ones ever. extremely capable, very fast, much improved even over last September, balanced and brave -- and right in there on most questions , just a shade behind MW, whether or not the scores reflected that.

Overall, deep field -- the usual suspects and lots of up and coming programs also. Keep the good questions coming.

My graduating kids, --- don't be strangers... you'll be missed. you are being missed already... - Alums -- good to see you : )) and quiz bowl junkies..... you keep rockin' .. julie :smile:

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:19 pm
by Mike Bentley
So does anyone know what the deal was with the camera crew?

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 6:48 pm
by Lukey's Boat
ikillkenny wrote:So does anyone know what the deal was with the camera crew?
I was sitting around playing cards when someone came over to us and basically said, "I'm making a documentary, can I take you guys' picture?" I have no idea when/how anyone is going to see the thing, but I'd assume that's what the cameras were all about...

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:07 pm
by First Chairman
Technically, producers of a documentary must have a waiver and release form to be able to show the footage. Even if it's a news crew, they need to show credentials and get information from you to get your permission to be on camera.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:07 pm
by Matthew D
They were in our room (306) filming during the State College and Raleigh Chapter match. Micheal Napier (FL) asked them and we were both told that they were filming a documentary that NAQT was either helping with or allowing to be filmed... I think there was a thread on here a few months back about it...

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:35 pm
by BuzzerZen
The camera crews were employees of a media company that NAQT hired to create some sort of video thing that would allow NAQT to promote itself to possible corporate sponsors, TV producers, and filmmakers. None of it is actually going to be used in any sort of publicly distributed thing, or so I was told.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:47 pm
by Deviant Insider
The camera crews were following eight teams more than the rest. Those teams signed waivers, had interviews with the crew Friday night, and had a few matches recorded. We were one of the eight teams--I think we were selected because we are a school that people in the Chicago area have heard of. Many of the teams followed were elite teams, but not all of them. Hentzel selected teams based on what he thought would make interesting stories.

I believe there was a twofold purpose: they were going to produce a video for NAQT to use to attract corporate sponsorship (which NAQT would use to lower entry fees for teams where that is an issue and/or give scholarships to top teams a la PAC), and the company the crew works for was going to try to get somebody to pay for the production and release of a documentary based on the tournament.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 7:55 pm
by QuizBowlRonin
Seemed like there were a lot of kids running around with those headsets, so I didn't know if it was some school-run or student-run operation.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 8:10 pm
by evilmonkey
Lukey's Boat wrote:
ikillkenny wrote:So does anyone know what the deal was with the camera crew?
I was sitting around playing cards when someone came over to us and basically said, "I'm making a documentary, can I take you guys' picture?" I have no idea when/how anyone is going to see the thing, but I'd assume that's what the cameras were all about...
Yea, they interviewed my coach during our lunch break on Saturday, and he mentioned that our team was on a lunch break, and that his captain (me) was sitting behind the camera people playing Magic... and then they swung around right as I had taken a big bite of Chinese, just to get some footage of what "Magic" was.

In each teams packet they included waivers for each team to fill out, and in addition they carried around copies for people being interviewed/filmed to fill out.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 9:07 pm
by Lukey's Boat
3D Lemmings wrote:In each teams packet they included waivers for each team to fill out, and in addition they carried around copies for people being interviewed/filmed to fill out.
Mmhm, I vaguely remember those forms in the folder. Oops, grand timing for them to turn and film you, huh? :oops:

Re: Congratulations to the victors and well done all.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:52 pm
by jbarnes112358
JGittings wrote:The Maggie Walker team deserves to be remembered as one of the legendaries. I feel that I have also been privileged to accompany a truly great team this year -- the product of many years of work and growth and no small dedication to excellence. While congratulating MW, I must tell my own team and the quiz bowl community publicly that this State College team of 2007 is also one of the great ones ever. extremely capable, very fast, much improved even over last September, balanced and brave -- and right in there on most questions , just a shade behind MW, whether or not the scores reflected that.
Thanks for the compliments. Our Maggie Walker team this year probably will be remembered as a great one. I am still in awe of how well they performed down the stretch this year. It was a culmination of four years of passionate quizbowl for four kids who I have been honored to watch develop, not just as players, but as fine young men.

As for State College, what a class act! They too should be remembered as a great team. They always seemed to be in it to the bitter end in every tournament. They beat everyone else they faced in this extremely strong field. The State College program is a model of consistently, probably more than any team out there. I know first hand what it feels like to have a great team that comes so close. Our 2000 and 2004 teams were also amazing teams but were stymied by State College and Thomas Jefferson, respectively. Several other of our former teams got tantalizingly close. This year we were lucky enough to finally break through. I guess it was just our turn to reach the top.

To all those teams who will be attending PACE, remember that you will have another shot at us. Recent history has proven that even the best of teams can win at HSNCT only to come up short at NSC.

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 10:56 pm
by AKKOLADE
Congratulations to all the teams, especially Maggie Walker, for their performances!

Posted: Mon May 28, 2007 11:58 pm
by No Sollositing On Premise
Congrats to all of the participants. I'm sorry I couldn't attend this time, but I haven't quite severed myself from quizbowl yet so I might try to work at one of these eventually.

And a special congratulations to Dr. John and all of the MW people. They've had some incredible teams over the years and have won both PACE and Panasonic in the past, but now that elusive NAQT title is finally theirs. Again, excellent job.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 6:59 am
by Ditzy Blonde
CONGRATULATIONS to all! :grin: Everyone is a winner for just being there. A special congrats to Maggie Walker...I am most impressed by just looking at the stats. Unfortunately, I was not there to enjoy, but my husband and daughter had a great time and said it was a very well run tournament. To have 160 teams, it appears there were few, if any, major glitches!

I look forward to hopefully bringing our team(s) next year and getting to see a lot of these teams in action.

Good luck to all graduating seniors. And, good luck and best wishes to all teams for the 2007-2008 academic year.

Mrs. D.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 12:58 pm
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
As everyone has said, congratulations to everyone, especially Maggie Walker and State College! You guys are both amazing, and I can only hope to be half as good as you all. We had to play Maggie Walker in round 4 of the playoffs, and they gave us the nastiest thrashing NKC's ever had with a good team. WOW!

I will post more about our schedule in the losing early forum, because we had a problem where we got knocked out earlier than I thought we should in the playoffs because we won our first 3 games. And I think we did get an easier ride for losing early on Saturday.

It was really cool to actually meet a lot of the users here, and next year I plan on actually staying in the hotel so I'll probably meet more of you.

My proudest achievement is tying Douglas Yetman for most negs (although his negs/correct tossup ratio is vastly superior to mine :grin: )

I am certainly looking forward to next year, when Missouri won't be restricting our attendance at NAQT and PACE, and when there should be a lot of monster teams if the number of returning players that dominate top 20 teams is any indication. Unfortunately, there's no PACE for NKC this year.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 3:14 pm
by Trevkeeper
What, no in depth discussion of the questions yet? I'm disappointed. :cool:

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 3:31 pm
by grapesmoker
Wall of Ham wrote:It was a great year for us, but all we ever seemed to managed was 2nd in nearly every tournament. I'll miss high school quizbowl. I'm not looking forward to memorizing the college "canon".
This may be a little off-topic, but I just want to encourage you to keep playing at the collegiate level. I don't know what school you're going to next year, but given that you were part of the second-place team at NCT this year, I would say that you probably have a strong background in the high school canon (no scare quotes) and have the opportunity to become a very good college player as well.

Congrats to Maggie Walker, who were quite impressive. I hope to see this year's seniors on the circuit next year.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 3:46 pm
by BuzzerZen
Well, I had oodles of fun, anyway. I'm thrilled with our third place finish, considering the teams who finished ahead of us. I'm excited for our team's prospects next year. I really can't believe I've got only one high school quiz bowl tournament to go.

If we're going to discuss questions, we'll need to put a spoiler warning in the thread title, since some events plan on using the questions in the coming month or so.

(PS: thx Allison!)

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 4:15 pm
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
I'm curious, is there a reason our team is not listed as playing a full 10 games on the stats, along with many others?

-EDIT-
By my own informal calculation I now have me at about 82 pts/20 and Dallas at 85.77.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:36 pm
by Strongside
charlieDfromNKC wrote:I'm curious, is there a reason our team is not listed as playing a full 10 games on the stats, along with many others?

-EDIT-
By my own informal calculation I now have me at about 82 pts/20 and Dallas at 85.77.
My guess to why that happened was an error by either a scorekeeper or the person entering the stats writing the wrong number of tossups heard for that team in a certain round.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 5:43 pm
by ieppler
I was wondering the same thing. I think that it might be because some games had less than 20 tossups.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 6:23 pm
by Matthew D
I did hear that there were a couple of games that only 19 tossups were heard.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 8:09 pm
by Mike Bentley
grapesmoker wrote:
Wall of Ham wrote:It was a great year for us, but all we ever seemed to managed was 2nd in nearly every tournament. I'll miss high school quizbowl. I'm not looking forward to memorizing the college "canon".
This may be a little off-topic, but I just want to encourage you to keep playing at the collegiate level. I don't know what school you're going to next year, but given that you were part of the second-place team at NCT this year, I would say that you probably have a strong background in the high school canon (no scare quotes) and have the opportunity to become a very good college player as well.
From what I heard talking to State College B, at least a few members of the team are looking to establish a program at Penn State again.

Of course, I may have been misinformed. See the "Harvard rumor" in the Sun 'n Fun Mirror post.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 8:24 pm
by nurgles_herald
Yup. I'm trying to get a Penn State knowledge masters team back together, although it'll be in a larval phase, so don't expect Penn State Quizbowl to be something scary next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after that.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 8:25 pm
by swwFCqb
As everyone has already said, congrats to all the top finishers and especially Maggie Walker. It was a pleasure to watch them and the rest of the great teams there in the final rounds play. It was pretty remarkable to see the teams power most of the questions in the final few rounds. Had I played against them, I don't think I would have got any questions in the finals (and I'm no slouch....I was the 48th highest scorer), which is a testament to their greatness. It was a pleasure to see, and I was glad that I had the opportunity to do so.

Posted: Tue May 29, 2007 10:53 pm
by Kechara
nurgles_herald wrote:Yup. I'm trying to get a Penn State knowledge masters team back together, although it'll be in a larval phase.
<shamelessness> If you want money to go to tournaments with, Academic Initiative has a tournament ready for you to host! </shamelessness>

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:06 am
by Tegan
Trevkeeper wrote:What, no in depth discussion of the questions yet? I'm disappointed. :cool:
As we were getting rady to play Wheaton North in Round 15 (first playoff round), I kept thinking to myself ...It'll be close unless there's 2 or 3 math computation questions .... but I just laughed that off because NAQT never puts as many as three math computation quesitons in any round .....

Except, of course, Round 15 .... Which by reckoning included an additional two pop culture questions in the first 20, in addition to two more pop culture bonuses.

I hate to bring up the whole "too much pop culture" thing again ..... but especially in the playoffs ......

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 8:09 am
by vcuEvan
Tegan wrote: Except, of course, Round 15 .... Which by reckoning included an additional two pop culture questions in the first 20, in addition to two more pop culture bonuses.
I counted the "Towel" tossup as literature of the highest order.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:33 pm
by evilmonkey
My only gripe was how we lost our second game (third round).

I buzzed in with a name and was prompted. Since it was a name that didn't have any other parts to it, I was confused to how I could be prompted, and got a neg. The other team rang in with an answer that was counted right. At the end we protested. If the other team had won, they win the game. If we win the protest, we win the game. Instead, they threw out the question, saying there wasn't enough evidence to go either way, and had us play another question.

Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 7:46 pm
by vcuEvan
Feel free to discuss question specifics. The mirror attending populace knows not to read this I'm sure.