Illinois '07-'08

Dormant threads from the high school sections are preserved here.
Locked
JIrving
Lulu
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:15 pm

Illinois '07-'08

Post by JIrving » Sat Jun 02, 2007 1:58 pm

I see that other threads have been created, so I thought that Illinois shouldn't be left out.


As for next year, I think that Illinois Scholastic Bowl is going to be very active and fun and I look forward to facing many of the great teams in our state.

User avatar
rjaguar3
Rikku
Posts: 278
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:39 am

Post by rjaguar3 » Sat Jun 02, 2007 6:58 pm

Gees, Jonathan, I didn't think you'd be the one to start this thread. :grin:

I do agree that next year will be very interesting. I can't wait until July to hear the preprognostications.

<---Greg from WN

leapfrog314
Wakka
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:49 am
Contact:

Post by leapfrog314 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 12:27 am

I think Richard Montgomery is going to win the IHSA State Championship.

Seriously, though, a lot of great players will be graduating this year, but there are quite a few excellent juniors in Illinois this year who will be even better next year. Besides that, there are always a few surprises...

As far as initial pre-prognostications go, I will make the possibly controversial observation that the bloodbath sectional (New Trier's) will be much, much less of a bloodbath next year. There were many amazing teams in it this year, but they are all going to suffer tremendously from this year's graduation. At least the bloodbath will be no more. (I could actually prognosticate, but I'll hold off until later.)

JIrving
Lulu
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:15 pm

Post by JIrving » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:41 pm

Which state is RM in?

ieppler
Rikku
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD/Providence, RI
Contact:

Post by ieppler » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:48 pm

Maryland
Ian Eppler from Brown University

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:30 pm

I think every team from Michigan will win IHSA state next year. As with MSHSAA state.
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs

"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:42 am

leapfrog314 wrote:I will make the possibly controversial observation that the bloodbath sectional (New Trier's) will be much, much less of a bloodbath next year.
I don't think this is at all controversial. Loyola is certainly looking to rebound over the next few years, and New Trier will be New Trier. Deerfield may do its usual run through the CSL and do something. Outside of that, I'm not sure what this sectional will produce.



I think there will be three place to "watch" over the coming two years:

1. Wheaton (North v. Warrenville South) ...WWS has had a monster fr-soph team over the past few years, and when they did (rarely) play up on occasion, they made noise. This will be a great match up, adding spice wo what has been essentially a walkover for a great Wheaton north program for the better part of a decade.

2. Stevenson v. Fremd v. Carmel: Both have had great fr-soph programs in recent years (not to mention great varsity programs), though this was a down year for both at the varsity level. Two years ago, this was a bloodbath sectional, and it looks to be again. Carmel has also had a far better than average frosh-soph team, and was the runner-up in that sectional two years running. If they get it together, it could be a three horse race.

3. Auburn/Moline/Bloomington: If these three teams have to hook up in the same sectional (they have on occasion, but not last year), there is the look of a good rivalry. Otherwise, these teams may have relatively easy runs to state in different sectionals

edit: include the obvious exclusion which I should have included and not excluded, as per DaGeneral's input ..... verrrry bad on my part!
Last edited by Tegan on Tue Jun 05, 2007 2:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by dtaylor4 » Tue Jun 05, 2007 1:48 pm

Tegan wrote:3. Auburn/Moline: If these two teams have to hook up in the same sectional (they have on occasion, but not last year), there is the look of a good rivalry. Otherwise, both teams may have relatively easy runs to state in different sectionals
I still think you have to throw Bloomington in here. They did lose Kristina Warren, but Hunter Fast is only going to get better, and I'd be willing to bet Deb Voorhees is going to groom some more talent to keep them up with the top-tier teams.

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

IESA Advisory Board Minutes 6/1/07

Post by the return of AHAN » Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:39 pm

Here are the results of this year's IESA Advisory Committee Meeting:

Recommendation: To add the following change to the Terms and Conditions Section X. Tournament Policies - The tournament host will retain the questions provided at regional and sectional state series play.
Rationale: This is a perk of hosting a regional or sectional tournament site helps prevent the reproduction of questions for winners and others. State Series questions are copyrighted.
Price's 2 cents: Apparently, some tournament hosts were being pressured to make copies of the questions for the other participants, even when the host thought it wasn't right. Since the IESA has to twist arms to get people to host in the first place, we're institutionalizing/protecting this perk of hosting.

Rec: Matches may begin the Monday of Week 30 in the IESA standardized calendar.
Rationale: To better define a scholastic bowl season for when coaches may start matches. The committee felt it important to leave practices and tryouts without a start date as the scholastic bowl team in many schools is their only gifted program and the committee didn't want to stifle these programs.
Price's 2 cents: The new start date is, in effect, MLK's brithday. No one felt that anyone's season would be cut short. On the contrary, setting an official first date would hopefully motivate some of the half-assed programs to start playing matches, oh, let's say, some time before St. Patrick's Day. Some coaches in the state asked that we move the state series back to March, as it was 8 years ago. This wasn't given any serious play.

IESA RULE CHANGES:
Rec: Rule 3-2 Art. 2a1 - All toss-up and bonus questions must be read in the numerical order on the page.
Rationale: This was added to insure that the questions are asked in the designed order and to ensure impartiality.
Price's 2 cents: A "duh" rule, but there was no such rule in print anywhere in our book, and someone, somewhere obviously pulled a fast one this year.

Rec: Rule 5-2-Art 1d1 - Following the calling of time, teams wil have 3-seconds to pass papers to the captain.
Rationale: Clarifying the completion of passing the papers. This is the current practice, but no rules in place to support it.
Price's 2 cents: Again, some jagbag of a coach somewhere insisted that no papers be allowed to change hands the instant time was called (sigh).

Rec: Rule 6-1-Art.3 - Substitutions
a. Substitution is the exchange of at least one player in the match by a teammate who is listed on the roster.
b. Substitutions can only be made during a team timeout.
6-1-Art. 1 b. During a team time-out, both teams may confer with their coaches.
Rationale: This gives a clear definition of what a substitution is and when it can take place. No clear definition currently exists in the rules.
Price's 2 cents: Apparently, some new coaches had the idea you could run players in between questions like at a hockey game. :roll:

Rec: Rule 1 -7-Art1a. - The score of a forfeited match is 301-0.
Rationale: to help determine the runner up in pool play and regular season tournaments.
Price's 2 cents: An upstart Bolingbrook Brooks MS team was completely hosed at the Streator Northlawn Tournament when Bloomington JHS showed up late and forfeited their first match to Brooks. Brooks finished in a 3-way tie for 2nd which was broken by point totals. That put them in 4th place due to the "zero point" win over BJHS. I really felt they deserved a better fate given the ass-whoopings they handed out in their wins.

Rec: Rule 1-5-Art.2a. After the 30th toss-up question is answered correctly, if neither team has scored 301 points the accompanying bonus shall be given.
Rationale: This clarifies the intent of the existing rule.
Price's 2 cents: Originally, the rule said the next bonus gets read after toss-up 30. We talked and talked about why this rule was even in the book until it occurred to yours truly that ages ago someone must have insisted that the match was over after toss-up 30 and that no accompanying bonus should be asked, since our rules state that a match ends after 30 toss-ups OR 20 bonuses OR a team scores 301 or more points. In any event, some coaches misinterpreted the old rule as meaning a bonus gets asked after T/U 30, even if it wasn't answered. :shock:

Rec: Reword current Rule 5-1-Art 1f - Blurt Rule
(The old rule excluded the offending team from even answering the rebounded bonus) It will now read, "If a player on either team answers before being recognized by the moderator, that team forfeits the right to answer the toss-up question. The toss-up would then be rebounded to the opponent."
Rationale: The committee felt the existing blurt rule was too harsh.
Reword 5-1-Art 1e. If a player on either team who has not buzzed in, that team forfeits the right to answer the toss-up question. The toss-up question would then be rebounded to the opponent.
Rationale: Clarifies procedure.
Price's 2 cents: Oh, where to begin??? Those who know me know of my crusade to adopt the IHSA's 'blurt' rule of a simple 5-point penalty for blurting out the answer. Unfortunately, I went in to this meeting assuming that the new members of the committee would be amenable to changing this rule, too. However, they bought the bill of goods being sold by a certain coach of a suburban Springfield school (sounds like "Rod's Chest Hurt" and has a team nickname that rhymes with sprockets) who insists that punishing a child's exuberance by creating a possible 60-point swing is somehow a good thing. But the capper had to be her insistence that teams would "blurt" before being called on as a ploy to psyche-out other teams. At this point, I was so utterly flabbergasted that my debating skills completely escaped me and I could only ask "How do you know THAT would happen?" This stopped her cold, but she stuck by her guns. I went on to compare it to saying the off-sides penalty in football encourages teams to jump offsides since it's ONLY a 5-yard penalty. I was shot down in my push to adopt the IHSA rule, 4-2, with only Art Mattson of Beecher siding with me. The other 2 coaches who will be on for two more years include Linda Walgamott of St. Jacob Triad, and Like Bonomo of Princeville, while the admin was Jack Small of Logan. So if anyone can talk some sense to these folks where I failed....

Rec: Add Rule 8: UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT
Section 1 - Definition
Art. 1 Unsportsmanlike conduct includes actions which are unbecoming to an ethical, fair, honorable individual. It consists of acts of deceit, disrespect, or vulgarity and includes taunting.
Note: The IESA disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule, or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender, or national origin.
Rec: Rule 3-2-5 Penalties
d. If a mdoerator determines a player is guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct the moderator shall have the authority to eject that player from the match. All additional penalties are in accordance with IESA bl-law 5.120 (Any player or coach ejected from a contest shall be ineligible for the next interscholastic contest.)
Rationale: Rising incidents of unsportsmanlike conduct as the activity grows in popularity have forced the committee to examine and add a conduct rule.
Price's 2 cents: Mark it down. This rule shall be called the "Streator St. Anthony Rule"! The IESA got an earful from a LOT of people regarding the conduct of the SAS team at the class A state finals. Their coach, a former moderator in the state series herself, lost a ton of respect from her peers when she failed to sub out her single best player in the last 3 games which were all blowouts, even letting her team slaughter Effingham St. Anthony 320-0 in a mere 11 questions, just because said player wanted to. Many people were turned off by the smugness of the SAS team, and their captain in particular, and felt that the ridiculous point totals were uncalled for when they were clearly so much more superior than their opponents. Again, this all comes back to the fact that SAS refused to remove their top player and let her run roughshod over the pack. It'd be like Siva playing for Rockford Holy Family and running over the field in the Class A finals with 10 TUPG. Siva won 2 state championships, but played in Class AA where, if he hesitated, someone else was ready to buzz. This isn't the case against most IESA Class A schools.
This SAS player is really good and has a bright future playing for Streator HS, Streator Woodland, or Ottawa Marquette, but she needs a coach that will give her some guidance.

Anyways, we AdCo members are to come up with some case book examples to cover this new rule 8. Anyone care to help me write some???

[EDITED To more clearly outline what the IESA blurt rule is...]
Last edited by the return of AHAN on Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Post by Deviant Insider » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:12 pm

Most of the changes make sense.

On forfeits, the team that wins the forfeit should be given a score equal to its average score for its other matches at that level. If one team played five actual matches and another played four actual matches, then the team with the highest average should advance.

Our blurt rule gives you five points and the bonus if the right student gives the answer before being recognized. (Students need to be recognized by name before giving an answer.) If one student buzzes in but another answers the question, then it's a wrong answer and the other team gets an open shot at the tossup. Based on my reading, maybe we do have the same rule at the high school and junior high levels.

If you're going to have a slaughter rule, then you shouldn't penalize a team for getting to the slaughter point quickly. I don't see why you want teams to get close to the slaughter point and then pull back so that they maintain a 200-point lead for the next half hour. At the high school level, we have no slaughter rule, and teams generally play their subs once the match is mathematically over, but they go full throttle until victory has been proven. If you're at State because you won your Sectional, then you have little reason to complain about running up the score no matter what your opponent does--I think the only schools that should complain about such behavior are programs that have never been competitive. If there was trash talking or something similar going on, then that's a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, but it's a different problem.

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Post by the return of AHAN » Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:41 pm

Take a 2nd look at what I edited...

BTW, the same coach was expressing support to have a rule put in that restricted kids from asking the moderator questions after a prompt for a rebounded bonus answer such as, "What parts are open?" It may be instructive for you IHSA folks to know that IESA guidelines have the moderator rule correct or incorrect with the reading of each part of a bonus answer, AND no kid can have a pencil in hand at this time, not even the captain. Most experienced moderators will recap what happened, e.g. "Parts 1, 2, and 5 are correct for 12 points, parts 3 and 4 are open, Team B." But many moderators don't know to do this or simply forget. I've never known a game to be disrupted just because the rebounding captain asked what parts were still open.

Anyway, once again, she cited gamesmanship as a reason for it... As if kids will incessantly ask for the moderator to repeat what parts remain available in an effort to stall. :roll:
She even said, and I quote directly, "They should be paying attention!"
Fortunately, I was ready this time for such asinine reasoning and was able to stop the madness by responding, "Then I want to re-open discussion regarding the rules regarding pencil usage and let the captain hold a pencil to check off his/her answers." No one else wanted to go there and her ridiculous suggestion died.
Just thought you oughta know what I'm up against!!!!! :mad:
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Post by Deviant Insider » Wed Jun 06, 2007 6:30 am

Got it.

Your current blurt rule is like our old one, which was horrible. We got the same arguments when we changed ours about gamesmanship and chaos. Now that people have seen the new rule, all the old arguments against it have been proven baseless. It was difficult to take people seriously who said that kids would willingly give up the extra five points so that they could inflict the intense psychological warfare against their opponents that comes with a blurt, but people said it.

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Wed Jun 06, 2007 9:32 pm

If I'm reading this correctly:

Team A leads Team B 250-0 after 10 questions. Team B has not made any substitutions. I am the moderator, and I have the obligation to call Coach A over and basically say "substitute, or face ejection?" .... which given IESA policy of requiring an adult to be present means that if this is the only coach, the team is now out for the entire tournament?

I don't mean this to sound sarcastic in anyway, because as I read this, you have given modertors one HUGE dose of power, that as a moderator I'm not sure I should have. I really need to know if this is some kind of loophole that exists because it seems that it is very open to subjective opinion as to what constitutes "unsportsmanlike conduct". Smugness, while unappreciated, is one thing, and full out taunting is another.

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Post by the return of AHAN » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:11 pm

Tegan wrote:If I'm reading this correctly:

Team A leads Team B 250-0 after 10 questions. Team B has not made any substitutions. I am the moderator, and I have the obligation to call Coach A over and basically say "substitute, or face ejection?" .... which given IESA policy of requiring an adult to be present means that if this is the only coach, the team is now out for the entire tournament?

I don't mean this to sound sarcastic in anyway, because as I read this, you have given modertors one HUGE dose of power, that as a moderator I'm not sure I should have. I really need to know if this is some kind of loophole that exists because it seems that it is very open to subjective opinion as to what constitutes "unsportsmanlike conduct". Smugness, while unappreciated, is one thing, and full out taunting is another.
Interesting observation. The new rule 8 has no particular specifics at this time. However, the AdCo is to come up with instances for the Moderator's Case Book where we describe situations that would fall under the new rule 8, and what the appropriate action would be. The addition of rule 8 was to essentially give grounds for coaches to file complaints about unsportsmanlike coaches to the IESA and administrators, and was a reaction to St. Anthony shutting out teams at state while subs sat on the bench.
To be sure, it's a work in progress, but the intent of the ejection power was to provide punishment for players or coaches that get out of control.
For my part, I want to include a guide that outlines when a game is out of reach. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the moderator given the authority to grant a "mercy" timeout when a game is out of reach and the teams have used their timeouts already. This gives me the chance to play even more of my bench when we're playing say, Grayslake (who never fields a B team while I have 20+ players), and we're up 250-50 and there are only 6 bonuses remaining. In a similarly mismatched basketball game, teams can sub more than once in the 2nd half, after all. Ass-kickings happen, but teams with subs available should be playing them in such games. IMHO, It was unsporting and downright loathsome for St Anthony to do what they did just to see if they could set some new records. Winning wasn't good enough? Please.
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Post by dtaylor4 » Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:19 pm

BarringtonJP wrote:
Tegan wrote:If I'm reading this correctly:

Team A leads Team B 250-0 after 10 questions. Team B has not made any substitutions. I am the moderator, and I have the obligation to call Coach A over and basically say "substitute, or face ejection?" .... which given IESA policy of requiring an adult to be present means that if this is the only coach, the team is now out for the entire tournament?

I don't mean this to sound sarcastic in anyway, because as I read this, you have given modertors one HUGE dose of power, that as a moderator I'm not sure I should have. I really need to know if this is some kind of loophole that exists because it seems that it is very open to subjective opinion as to what constitutes "unsportsmanlike conduct". Smugness, while unappreciated, is one thing, and full out taunting is another.
Interesting observation. The new rule 8 has no particular specifics at this time. However, the AdCo is to come up with instances for the Moderator's Case Book where we describe situations that would fall under the new rule 8, and what the appropriate action would be. The addition of rule 8 was to essentially give grounds for coaches to file complaints about unsportsmanlike coaches to the IESA and administrators, and was a reaction to St. Anthony shutting out teams at state while subs sat on the bench.
To be sure, it's a work in progress, but the intent of the ejection power was to provide punishment for players or coaches that get out of control.
For my part, I want to include a guide that outlines when a game is out of reach. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing the moderator given the authority to grant a "mercy" timeout when a game is out of reach and the teams have used their timeouts already. This gives me the chance to play even more of my bench when we're playing say, Grayslake (who never fields a B team while I have 20+ players), and we're up 250-50 and there are only 6 bonuses remaining. In a similarly mismatched basketball game, teams can sub more than once in the 2nd half, after all. Ass-kickings happen, but teams with subs available should be playing them in such games. IMHO, It was unsporting and downright loathsome for St Anthony to do what they did just to see if they could set some new records. Winning wasn't good enough? Please.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't total points a tiebreaker in determining the pool winner? In this case, or in the prelims of a tournament where seeding is done by total points, I see no reason to not run it up. If the score can potentally have an effect later on outside of the game itself, then subbing in players could backfire.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:13 am

BarringtonJP wrote:IMHO, It was unsporting and downright loathsome for St Anthony to do what they did just to see if they could set some new records. Winning wasn't good enough? Please.
I really don't see what you mean. It seems foolhardy for a coach to sub out good players before a game is mathematically decided (which, given your rules, a "perfect game" win never is until it's decided by the rules.)
You can certainly say it's really unlikely that a team being beaten badly will be able to come back after a certain point. You'd be right to say that. However, I argue that it's impossible for either of us to say exactly how unlikely at any point and, as long as the likelihood isn't exactly 0, it's really not fair to try to force a team to sub out. After all, what if this is just that one match in 1000 (or 100 or 10) where that dominant team loses after being forced to sub? Also, that's laying to one side the issues Donald just raised about statistical tiebreakers, which are by no means negligible.
Anyway, my two cents is that that rule looks rather vague and seems to equip moderators with an undue amount of power and little guidance about how to use it. There are a dozen other situations like this where this rule runs you into trouble in my eyes. Specifically, if you're classing "continuing to play your best team when some people think you should sub out" as an "[act] of deceit, disrespect, or vulgarity," then you've got a really slippery slope that will bite you later. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
theMoMA
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5686
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:00 am

Post by theMoMA » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:55 am

So wait. There's a mercy rule....and a don't-get-to-the-mercy-rule-limit-too-fast rule? I don't understand how using subs as human victory cigars is more sportsmanlike than getting a win quickly and clinically.

User avatar
Stephen Colbert
Wakka
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by Stephen Colbert » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:17 am

I must address some of the misinformation being provided by Mr. Price, and the organization which he has seemingly appointed himself the official spokesperson of, the IESA advisory committee. Firstly, and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, I don’t believe he or any member of the committee attended the state series matches played in by Streator St. Anthony. I can’t directly address the complaints sent in about St. Anthony’s conduct at the state tournament, as I have no clue as to their numbers or details. Unlike all of the advisory committee members, I did attend the state tournament (and each of St. Anthony’s matches), so I’ll do my best to set the record straight.

I don’t entirely disagree with Mr. Price. Unless total points matter for seeding or breaking ties, there are very few practical reasons to run up the score against a considerably weaker (or for that matter, any) opponent. When the match is mathematically out of reach, it’s usually time to bring in the subs. I probably would’ve done just that, at least during the most lopsided of matches.

However, a few of Mr. Price’s statements are factually inaccurate and need to be corrected. And, legislating (based on those inaccuracies or not) in a manner that considers the score of a match to be unsportsmanlike or worthy of ejection is completely subjective and gives new meaning to the phrase “slippery slopeâ€

User avatar
Stephen Colbert
Wakka
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by Stephen Colbert » Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:18 am

On a much nicer note, how do the IESA coaches feel about the new competition start date for the upcoming season? Are there any less publicized tournaments that occur before this date (or even before winter break)?

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:02 pm

BarringtonJP wrote:Interesting observation. The new rule 8 has no particular specifics at this time. However, the AdCo is to come up with instances for the Moderator's Case Book where we describe situations that would fall under the new rule 8, and what the appropriate action would be. The addition of rule 8 was to essentially give grounds for coaches to file complaints about unsportsmanlike coaches to the IESA and administrators, and was a reaction to St. Anthony shutting out teams at state while subs sat on the bench.
This is a very dangerous situation, and given some very nightmarish horror stories I have heard from multiple sources regarding Elementary School Moderators, this has the potential to turn into a nightmare.

As the Case Manual originator for the IHSA, its important to remember: the case manual is not the rule book. It is a guide. Moderators are free to ignore it (though if they do, they are doing a poor job). This coupled with the IESA (and IHSA) Term and Condition saying that they will not review moderator decisions, has put coaches in a delicate situation: if a moderator sees the score getting too high (in their opinion), they can legally force a substitution of the best player(s), and then eject the coach if they don't activating an automatic one game suspension. Imagine if you are playing at Tournament Y, and you are in one semifinal, and Team Y is in the other, and the home moderator decides to make sure that Team Y wins the championship by monkey wrenching your team.... if there is no coach in the final, the other team wins by default.

In the IHSA, the Tournament Director can override a moderator on this point. If a moderator threw someone out, and hte TD felt it was overreaction, they can override that. Frankly, it has never been an issue, but then again, most moderators I have run into have been pretty good about this.

I understand that no one wants blow outs ...... but IESA has a somewhat sensible slaughter rule in place (300 points ends the match). I would say keep this in place, and focus on genuinely poor sportsmanship, if that has become an issue.

Just my 2 bits.

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Post by the return of AHAN » Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:37 pm

Mr. Colbert (aka N.H.),
If I truly spoke for the IESA, I'd be done with the goofy blurt rule as constituted :sad: . Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Colbert is correct. I haven't been at any IESA State Finals since 2002, but I haven't coached my current team to the finals yet, leaving me stuck at 2 finals appearances. Anyway, you e-mailed me with your version of events a few days after the finals, and certain IESA officials shared their version of events, along with the littany of complaints received regarding your coach, last Friday. Yeah, even one of the moderators expressed disappointment that your coach never took out you-know-who in the games against Tri-Point and Effingham, and he was the one who relayed the comments regarding you-know-who not wanting to come out of a game, ergo she stayed in the game. I saw the scoresheet and saw with my own eyes that, according to the IESA, SAS won in 11 toss-ups vs Effingham. Don't get me wrong, I wish people would applaud what SAS did in winning their state title in convincing fashion, but the fact that you-know-who never came out of rounds 2 and 3 against obviously inferior opponents left a bad taste in the mouths of fans of the opposing teams, and really is the "poster child" for the new rule 8 as it pertains to running up a score. I admit, this rule is going to take years of tweaking and fixing the unintended consequences of it, but the IESA admin wanted something in the book and no one raised any objections. After all, who SUPPORTS unsportsmanlike conduct? At this time, I don't think anyone believes a coach should be ejected for running up a score, but having a specific rule that bans unsportsmanlike conduct in general gives back-up to anyone who wants to complain to a principal or the IESA, whether it's because they felt a coach ran up the score unnecessarily or because a team practiced with the match questions before-hand (an issue the IESA has heard complaints about, too, regarding a few schools south of Springfield). In other words, had SAS's tourney run happened next year, Sister Carol would've received a letter of reprimand from the IESA regarding the huge margin of victory and not removing the top player (10 T/U per match) when the score was such a blow-out.
Funny thing about you calling for an apology to you-know-who... At the all-star tournament, the mother of one of my players (admittedly 4th best of the 4 I sent) complained to me afterwards about how you-know-who never listened to her son and was dismissive of everything he offered on bonuses, even when he was right and she was wrong. But again, I don't mean to make this about her, it's more about the coach. Speaking of which, who takes over now that she's leaving next year? Any chance you'll be back in the saddle?
Last edited by the return of AHAN on Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Post by Deviant Insider » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:15 pm

We're talking about the State Finals. My team won a match by over 400 points at the State Finals this year, and we have no regrets. Like SAS, we played everybody we had. If the IHSA sent a letter to our Principal complaining, I would try to avoid apologizing--I would point out that we were playing against a team that won its Sectional and its first match at State and therefore has no right to fragile egos.

You can't have a slaughter rule and simultaneously a rule against running up the score. Even if you do, you can't treat teams that win their Sectionals like teams that are trying to figure out how the buzzers work.

My team played the 2nd best team in the country a few weeks ago, and they slaughtered us by 400 points. The idea that they were unsportsmanlike never entered our minds--we have a lot of pride, and we would be insulted if anybody ever went easy on us. We'll play the best team in the country tomorrow, and we hope they try to answer every single question against us.

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3079
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques » Fri Jun 08, 2007 1:28 pm

Admittedly I don't really feel like reading this thread, but are your really talking about forcing someone out of a game because they're too good? Seriously? Aside from the fact that you seem to be under the impression that this person is Lord Voldemort, why would that be, exactly? It's a competitive activity, right? This isn't like Mr. Johnson's history class study review trivia session. Since when do we force teams to take people out to be nice? If someone could explain the overall justification/parameters on this to me, I'd appreciate it. I can't understand how having the good players on another team taken out so I could do better against there bad players would be a boon to my self-esteem, or to anyone else's. It's one thing if a coach sees a game is decided and wants to give younger players some playing time, but the idea that any action should be taken regarding another team's lineup because of the ego of the opposing team is ludicrous, whether its middle school or high school or anything else. I don't seem to recall the refs forcing out future D1 players when they were killing my pee wee football team 56-0. I can't help but think the negative perception of the self-esteem of "the kind of kids who play quizbowl" (and perhaps some parental meddling) is behind this.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:18 pm

BarringtonJP wrote:After all, who SUPPORTS unsportsmanlike conduct?
Hah, well, if you define it in the way you are, it looks like a lot of people?

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Post by the return of AHAN » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:48 pm

ImmaculateDeception wrote: I really don't see what you mean. It seems foolhardy for a coach to sub out good players before a game is mathematically decided (which, given your rules, a "perfect game" win never is until it's decided by the rules.)
You can certainly say it's really unlikely that a team being beaten badly will be able to come back after a certain point. You'd be right to say that. However, I argue that it's impossible for either of us to say exactly how unlikely at any point and, as long as the likelihood isn't exactly 0, it's really not fair to try to force a team to sub out. After all, what if this is just that one match in 1000 (or 100 or 10) where that dominant team loses after being forced to sub? Also, that's laying to one side the issues Donald just raised about statistical tiebreakers, which are by no means negligible.
Anyway, my two cents is that that rule looks rather vague and seems to equip moderators with an undue amount of power and little guidance about how to use it. There are a dozen other situations like this where this rule runs you into trouble in my eyes. Specifically, if you're classing "continuing to play your best team when some people think you should sub out" as an "[act] of deceit, disrespect, or vulgarity," then you've got a really slippery slope that will bite you later. That doesn't seem like a good thing to me.
MaS
Well, I think an IESA coach who says, "Oh, gee, I can't sub out my best players yet" when they're up 200+ late in the first freaking half is being disingenuous. Any team that is that much in charge can afford to pull back the reins and not embarass the opponent. The funny thing is, I'm not the one who is at the forefront of this change, but I admit to being a little steamed at our sectional final, when, up by 170 with 5 bonuses to go, LDW did not call timeout to sub out :kenj: Jr, while 10 subs on each side would have gladly mopped up. The only thing different about the same situation one year earlier was that I DID call timeout, ran 5 6th graders into the match, while LDW stood pat with their A squad to finish the slaughter. :mad: Now, would I ever file a complaint against said coach? No. I just look forward to our NEXT meeting every time they wallop us. Perhaps I've erroneously linked the issue of "over"slaughtering and ejection-worthy unsportsmanlike conduct. Members of the committee stated they wanted a clear sanction against kids who might swear at or argue with a moderator, thus the ejection empowerment "of a player guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct". This is the first forum where anyone (ahem, Mr. Egan? :wink: ) has suggested tossing a coach for running up a score.
Stephen Colbert wrote: During the 2005 Class A state tournament, the previously undefeated & eventual state champs Columbia ICS were upset by previously winless Avon in the third round.
True, but ICS entered that match 2-0, and Avon was 0-2. ICS had already clinched a berth in the championship game and MAY (but I don't know for sure) have played that match accordingly.
Stephen Colbert wrote: At the 2002 Class AA state tournament, Streator Northlawn lost their third round match to Shorewood Troy before going on to win the tournament.
See above... If I know Pam Riss, she used her subs liberally in that game, knowing her previous win over Barrington :cry: had clinched her team a spot in the finals.
So, going in to round 3 in 2007, Streator SAS had a 2-0 record, and Effingham St. Anthony was 0-2, meaning SAS was in the final regardless. Why, exactly, the need to go for the jugular? In 11 questions? The argument for "needing" to run up a 320-0 score with inarguably one of the state's two best players in for the whole match is pretty shaky.

Stephen Colbert wrote: At the 2000 Class A state tournament, three teams finished with identical records and total points were used to determine the pool’s runner-up.
False. As a timer at this tournament, I can confidently report that Dallas City, Fieldcrest West, and Decatur OLL played tiebreaker rounds after they each finished 2-1.
Stephen Colbert wrote: This was the case again in the 1999 Class AA state tournament,
False. Though not in attendance, the IESA web site reports that Coal City, Dunlap, and Illini Bluffs finished 2-1 and tiebreaker rounds were played.
Stephen Colbert wrote: the 1998 Class AA state tournament,
TRUE! Wheeler West was sent on to the 3rd place game with a 1-2 record based on their point total.
Stephen Colbert wrote: and the 1994 state tournament (before class divisions).
Now THIS IS INTERESTING, because three teams had a 1-2 record in a pool at this tourney. Toldeo Cumberland = 575 points, Dallas City = 677, Danville North Ridge = 618... So why did Cumberland play in the 3rd place game??? Clearly, tiebreaker rounds were employed. I wasn't even teaching yet when this tournament was played, so I can only guess that the rule regarding tiebreakers was changed at some point between 94 and 98. Perhaps we need to revisit how pool runners-up at state are determined if we are going to concern ourselves with teams scoring "too much" there.
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
Stephen Colbert
Wakka
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by Stephen Colbert » Fri Jun 08, 2007 2:57 pm

BarringtonJP wrote:Mr. Colbert (aka N.H.),
If I truly spoke for the IESA, I'd be done with the goofy blurt rule as constituted :sad: . Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Colbert is correct. I haven't been at any IESA State Finals since 2002, but I haven't coached my current team to the finals yet, leaving me stuck at 2 finals appearances. Anyway, you e-mailed me with your version of events a few days after the finals, and certain IESA officials shared their version of events, along with the littany of complaints received regarding your coach, last Friday. Yeah, even one of the moderators expressed disappointment that your coach never took out you-know-who in the games against Tri-Point and Effingham, and he was the one who relayed the comments regarding you-know-who not wanting to come out of a game, ergo she stayed in the game. I saw the scoresheet and saw with my own eyes that, according to the IESA, SAS won in 11 toss-ups vs Effingham. Don't get me wrong, I wish people would applaud what SAS did in winning their state title in convincing fashion, but the fact that you-know-who never came out of rounds 2 and 3 against obviously inferior opponents left a bad taste in the mouths of fans of the opposing teams, and really is the "poster child" for the new rule 8 as it pertains to running up a score. I admit, this rule is going to take years of tweaking and fixing the unintended consequences of it, but the IESA admin wanted something in the book and no one raised any objections. After all, who SUPPORTS unsportsmanlike conduct? At this time, I don't think anyone believes a coach should be ejected for running up a score, but having a specific rule that bans unsportsmanlike conduct in general gives back-up to anyone who wants to complain to a principal or the IESA, whether it's because they felt a coach ran up the score unnecessarily or because a team practiced with the match questions before-hand (an issue the IESA has heard complaints about, too, regarding a few schools south of Springfield). In other words, had SAS's tourney run happened next year, Sister Carol would've received a letter of reprimand from the IESA regarding the huge margin of victory and not removing the top player (10 T/U per match) when the score was such a blow-out.
Funny thing about you calling for an apology to you-know-who... At the all-star tournament, the mother of one of my players (admittedly 4th best of the 4 I sent) complained to me afterwards about how you-know-who never listened to her son and was dismissive of everything he offered on bonuses, even when he was right and she was wrong. But again, I don't mean to make this about her, it's more about the coach. Speaking of which, who takes over now that she's leaving next year? Any chance you'll be back in the saddle?
As far as “you-know-whoâ€

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:00 pm

BarringtonJP wrote:Well, I think an IESA coach who says, "Oh, gee, I can't sub out my best players yet" when they're up 200+ late in the first freaking half is being disingenuous.
Okay. I disagree and I've said why. Also, "can't" there isn't really meaningful. Subbing out with a big lead means you very probably will still win, you might score about the same number of points, and you almost certainly will not win by the same margin.
BarringtonJP wrote:Perhaps I've erroneously linked the issue of "over"slaughtering and ejection-worthy unsportsmanlike conduct.
If you're saying that winning by too much is not ejection-worthy under this rule then, yeah, I'd say so. You said the rule was made in response to the conduct of a team whose objectionable behaviors were allegedly winning by too much, not sitting good players when winning by a lot, and smugness. From what you're saying now, it seems like this new rule has nothing to do with any of those behaviors. Is this right?

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:22 pm

BarringtonJP wrote:This is the first forum where anyone (ahem, Mr. Egan? :wink: ) has suggested tossing a coach for running up a score.
My experience in the IESA is pretty limited .... and has always been very positive. However, I have heard stories from many different people that seems to indicate that "where there's a loophole, there's a way". It just seems that from what I'm seeing, I see a major loophole here that permits homer moderators to cause a lot of havock if they choose to.

Plus there's this:

Suppose I'm moderating, and the score quickly gets to (example) 180-0. The losing coach stops the match, and states that to go any further would be unsportsmanlike, and that the other team must sub out its stars. I as a moderator can refuse, while the moderator next door accepts. Can I now get in trouble as a moderator for refusing to do what acoach wanted? What if I did force the substitution over he other coach's protests? Can I get in trouble from them?

OR ..... the score get s to 180-0, and the losing coach gets up, and tells me to force the other team to substitute. I suspect that this coach is tryingto slow the game, and that IMO 180-0 does not qualify as being ahead in an unsportsmanlike manner yet. Can I warn the coach that further attempts to make a moderator decision will result in ejection for unsportsmanlike conduct, because they are unnecessarily delaying hte match?

I have not read the rule, and obviously the interpretations are not yet written, but this is a rule that, IMO, puts the moderator in a really bad situation. It asks the moderator to subjectively decide when enough is enough. As a moderator, I would almost have to decide in advance and verbally tell the teams what my threshold is .... and that threshold is ery game situation dependent ..... 180-0 after six questions vs. A game that just reaches 180-0 on question 20. Also ..... is this round 1 where no one knows what the outcome of a pool is going to be .... or is it round 3 when everything is essentially wrapped up.

I think if there is going to be a sportmanship rule, it needs to focus on how the players and coaches are acting. If a player does something that might be unconscious, and might be interpreted as unsportsmanlike, you call the coach over, warn them and move on. If it is flagrant, you impose a penalty, and move on.

I've been moderating for 13 years, and only twice did I see blatant unsportsmanlike conduct ..... one was a player mouthing off to me after I called a teammate for illegally talking. His coach pulled him immediately. The second was a player who started taunting the other team. I asked the coach to pull him, and it was done.

As a coach, the only obvious unsportsmanlike issue I ever saw was when one of my own players flipped out after being beat to the buzzer seven times in a row by a certain player from a certain school from the town of Decatur. I was moderating, and I yanked him immediately.

I have been accused of unsportsmanlike conduct three times ... all this year: once when my team (I was not in the room, and there were no subs to be made) scored high against a team that was not really very good), the second was when my team beat a two-time state champion team bad, and one player was in the middle of breaking a team record. I subbed everyone out except that player, and was then accused of running up the score. I apologized to both teams, telling them honestly that we respected them, and there was no attempt to "show them up".
The third time was when I asked for a substitute moderator. We had a state caliber moderator waiting to read, and the one that was assigned was average at best. The host scolded me as "unprofessional".

Purpose of lengthy exemplars: Unsportsmanlike conduct is often in the eye of the beholder .... it is not universal. I would say that none of the situations this year were as bad as the people said they were....but in the IESA, I might have been ejected from two matches for what I did. I'm not sure I see the justice in that.

User avatar
Stephen Colbert
Wakka
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by Stephen Colbert » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:34 pm

BarringtonJP wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote: During the 2005 Class A state tournament, the previously undefeated & eventual state champs Columbia ICS were upset by previously winless Avon in the third round.
True, but ICS entered that match 2-0, and Avon was 0-2. ICS had already clinched a berth in the championship game and MAY (but I don't know for sure) have played that match accordingly.
This instance aside, I think we have all run into a funky round or even patch of questions that has helped an inferior team upend a superior one. I'm really only trying to say that total points currently affect who may or may not advance, and not knowing what will happen in future matches, teams must play to maximize their point totals.
BarringtonJP wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote: At the 2002 Class AA state tournament, Streator Northlawn lost their third round match to Shorewood Troy before going on to win the tournament.
See above... If I know Pam Riss, she used her subs liberally in that game, knowing her previous win over Barrington :cry: had clinched her team a spot in the finals.
So, going in to round 3 in 2007, Streator SAS had a 2-0 record, and Effingham St. Anthony was 0-2, meaning SAS was in the final regardless. Why, exactly, the need to go for the jugular? In 11 questions? The argument for "needing" to run up a 320-0 score with inarguably one of the state's two best players in for the whole match is pretty shaky.
All I know from my many discussions with Mrs. Riss is that anything can and will happen at the state tournament. If I was coaching, I'm not sure I would've gone for the jugular in this match, especially with one shutout already on the board. But, I can assure you that SAS had no evil intentions in mind. As far as claims by a state tournament moderator that SAS's star-player demanded to stay in and shutout the other team, that's completely untrue. And, I know you saw the scoresheet, but I'm still pretty sure this round went to at least toss-up 13 (though that doesn't make much of a difference). I would need to see the round of questions to refresh my memory. Has Questions Galore put up this year's state series for sale yet?
BarringtonJP wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote: At the 2000 Class A state tournament, three teams finished with identical records and total points were used to determine the pool’s runner-up.
False. As a timer at this tournament, I can confidently report that Dallas City, Fieldcrest West, and Decatur OLL played tiebreaker rounds after they each finished 2-1.
This would be inconsistent with current IESA rules. Do you know when or why this change went into effect?
BarringtonJP wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote: This was the case again in the 1999 Class AA state tournament,
False. Though not in attendance, the IESA web site reports that Coal City, Dunlap, and Illini Bluffs finished 2-1 and tiebreaker rounds were played.
Same question as above.
BarringtonJP wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote: the 1998 Class AA state tournament,
TRUE! Wheeler West was sent on to the 3rd place game with a 1-2 record based on their point total.
So this was in line with current rules, but then was changed by 1999, and then changed back somewhere before 2007? All this craziness argues for score as many points as possible as almost any tie-breaker could be employed.
BarringtonJP wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote: and the 1994 state tournament (before class divisions).
Now THIS IS INTERESTING, because three teams had a 1-2 record in a pool at this tourney. Toldeo Cumberland = 575 points, Dallas City = 677, Danville North Ridge = 618... So why did Cumberland play in the 3rd place game??? Clearly, tiebreaker rounds were employed. I wasn't even teaching yet when this tournament was played, so I can only guess that the rule regarding tiebreakers was changed at some point between 94 and 98. Perhaps we need to revisit how pool runners-up at state are determined if we are going to concern ourselves with teams scoring "too much" there.
I believe this would mean that we went from tied pool runner-up winners being determined by tie-breaker (1994), to total points (1998), to tie-breaker (1999/2000) to toal points (as the rule currently is). I can sort of see how this happens. Coach A's team doesn't advance because of the tie-breakers, he complains to the IESA, the rule is changed. Next year, Coach B's team didn't advance because of the new tie-breaker rule, he complains to the IESA, and the rule is reversed. Said procedure repeats ad infinitum.

User avatar
Stephen Colbert
Wakka
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 4:12 am

Post by Stephen Colbert » Fri Jun 08, 2007 3:41 pm

Tegan wrote: I think if there is going to be a sportmanship rule, it needs to focus on how the players and coaches are acting. If a player does something that might be unconscious, and might be interpreted as unsportsmanlike, you call the coach over, warn them and move on. If it is flagrant, you impose a penalty, and move on.
What he said! :grin:

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:09 pm

I for one am disappointed that there is no word on Carbonale or New Trier's advancement from PACE ..... it cannot be due to lack of technology.

ieppler
Rikku
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 7:38 pm
Location: Bethesda, MD/Providence, RI
Contact:

Post by ieppler » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:18 pm

I think that like NAQT, games don't begin until Saturday morning and Friday night is used for scrimmages, etc.

Edited for typo
Last edited by ieppler on Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ian Eppler from Brown University

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

Post by First Chairman » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:24 pm

Tom, we start Saturday morning instead of Friday night. There are no scheduled events on Friday here. On the other hand, there are lots of free wi-fi opportunities around the campus and in hotels. I'm sure there will be many updates.
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
Deviant Insider
Auron
Posts: 4614
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2004 6:08 am
Location: Chicagoland
Contact:

Post by Deviant Insider » Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:49 pm

It is a lack of technology. If Dr. Chuck could build a time machine, he could return to this point in time and give us the results now.

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Post by the return of AHAN » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:16 pm

Stephen Colbert wrote:I believe this would mean that we went from tied pool runner-up winners being determined by tie-breaker (1994), to total points (1998), to tie-breaker (1999/2000) to toal points (as the rule currently is). I can sort of see how this happens. Coach A's team doesn't advance because of the tie-breakers, he complains to the IESA, the rule is changed. Next year, Coach B's team didn't advance because of the new tie-breaker rule, he complains to the IESA, and the rule is reversed. Said procedure repeats ad infinitum.
Well, actually the tie-breaker procedures for three 2-1 teams tied for 1st have remained consistent (though with tweaks in recent years to include bonus questions as part of it). That is, the mini-matches are played between the 3 teams. The inconsistency occurs when there are 3 1-2 teams tied for 2nd place. As I read the current incarnation of the rules, three 1-2 teams would have their tie broken by total points, though that clearly wasn't the case in 1994.
Tegan wrote: I think if there is going to be a sportmanship rule, it needs to focus on how the players and coaches are acting. If a player does something that might be unconscious, and might be interpreted as unsportsmanlike, you call the coach over, warn them and move on. If it is flagrant, you impose a penalty, and move on.
I need to reiterate that the new rule 8 will say:
Unsportsmanlike conduct includes actions which are unbecoming to an ethical, fair, honorable individual. It consists of acts of deceit, disrespect, or vulgarity and includes taunting.
Note: The IESA disapproves of any form of taunting which is intended or designed to embarrass, ridicule, or demean others under any circumstances including on the basis of race, religion, gender, or national origin.

Then... in rule 3 of the rule book:
Rec: Rule 3-2-5 Penalties
d. If a moderator determines a player is guilty of unsportsmanlike conduct the moderator shall have the authority to eject that player from the match. All additional penalties are in accordance with IESA by-law 5.120 (Any player or coach ejected from a contest shall be ineligible for the next interscholastic contest.)

Again, if you disregard my editorializing, is the new rule open to interpretation for someone, say a coach, to be booted simply for being on the right side of a lopsided score?? If so, how about this secenario for the case manual?
8-1 SITUATION
Team A is winning their match by over 200 points and shows no interest in using substitutes despite it being mathematically impossible for team B to catch up. The coach of Team B begins to grumble that Team A is displaying unsportsmanlike conduct by running up the score.
COMMENT
It is not the moderator's place to judge whether a team is winning by "too much." As long as the winning team is displaying good sportsmanship otherwise, there is no need to stop the match. However, coaches are encouraged to be aware of when a game is mathematically out of reach(more than 30 points per bonus remaining), and use substitutes in such situations, if available.

Seriously, oh peanut gallery, tell me what you think of throwing THAT in the case book? Would that help insure mods won't bring a match to a screeching halt just because someone is getting humiliated?

By the way, Stephen Colbert (N.H.), I'm glad to see you've found the board. I was beginning to believe I was a lone, middle school, voice in the wilderness! For those who don't know (which I'm guessing is everyone else), Mr. Colbert coached the SAS squad up until this year, but is the reason they won it all in Class A. As for your star player, I personally never saw her do anything that I would consider out of line, and can only report what two adults reported to me, unsolicited. But I can empathize with you as just last year, I received complaints from a few opposing parents that my star player (you know him... name ends with -orman -uc) was being arrogant, in general, and disrespectful towards his teammates, in particular. I was floored by the charge, but fortunately my principal was supportive. Nonetheless, when we faced off against that team in the conference championship AND the regional tournament, I told my kids to be like robots, and display no emotion. I told them, hell, I want you to look DISAPPOINTED when you score. :twisted:
We won both matches handily, but at least no one complained! :grin:
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3079
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques » Fri Jun 08, 2007 9:56 pm

I told them, hell, I want you to look DISAPPOINTED when you score
This is, I think, one of the numerous ramifications of the disappointing sentiment that being really, really good at something is somehow wrong because of the other mediocre people. Personally, I think the idea of subbing people out for "mercy" is demeaning to the opposition and damaging to the activity. It breeds the kind of attitude that leads people to go into matches expecting a certain outcome, which in my opinion is the key to consistently never improving a team.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2840
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico » Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:15 pm

I continue to believe that the rule as written basically gives moderators far too much power. This is because you're leaving too much of the definition of unsportsmanlike conduct up to the moderator.
In fact, since you've explicitly said that running up the score shouldn't be ejection-worthy, I'll use that as an example again. I'll guarantee you that there are at least some moderators who will consider trying to win by a lot to be disrespectful or dishonorable and, therefore, to be unsportsmanlike conduct by your rule. Therefore, your rule as written allows that moderator to eject (an arbitrary number of) members of a team for a reason that you've explicitly said isn't ejection-worthy.
Now you can try to cover such issues by entries in a case book, but this is a less-than-ideal approach for a variety of reasons. First, as Coach Egan noted, a case book isn't a rule book and may not be binding. Secondly, even if it is binding, it's possible that some of the relevant parties will be ignorant of the entire contents of it and only know the rules as written. Knowing the rules alone should be sufficient to run a match properly, but, in the set of rules you've created, it isn't. Thirdly, there's pretty much no way you can cover all the cases of behavior that isn't unsportsmanlike by the spirit of the rule but is by the letter of it, which means you will always face the prospect of unjust ejections. That's bad.
A better approach would be to clearly define exactly which behaviors are unsportsmanlike. Tying ejection authority to vague, highly subjective criteria like disrespect seems like it will inevitably lead to problems.

MaS
Mike Sorice
Coach, Centennial High School of Champaign, IL (2014-) & Team Illinois (2016-2018)
Alumnus, Illinois ABT (2000-2002; 2003-2009) & Fenwick Scholastic Bowl (1999-2000)
ACF
IHSSBCA
PACE

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Post by the return of AHAN » Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:50 pm

DumbJaques wrote:
I told them, hell, I want you to look DISAPPOINTED when you score
This is, I think, one of the numerous ramifications of the disappointing sentiment that being really, really good at something is somehow wrong because of the other mediocre people. Personally, I think the idea of subbing people out for "mercy" is demeaning to the opposition and damaging to the activity. It breeds the kind of attitude that leads people to go into matches expecting a certain outcome, which in my opinion is the key to consistently never improving a team.
Welcome to coaching at the middle school level!

But, according to your logic, if a high school basketball team is far better than their opponent, it's OK for them to go for a 100 point win, just becuse they can? This topic has been discussed in regards to other competitive arenas before:

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stori ... 29679.html

http://archive.recordonline.com/archive ... myview.htm

I'm interested (seriously) to hear your perception of these articles and how they relate, or don't relate, to the issue at hand.
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3079
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques » Sat Jun 09, 2007 12:42 am

But, according to your logic, if a high school basketball team is far better than their opponent, it's OK for them to go for a 100 point win, just becuse they can? This topic has been discussed in regards to other competitive arenas before:
I'd say it's ok for them to not bench their players for a regular season game that may serve a number of purposes. If they take sadistic pleasure in smashing the East Coopersville Dwarfism Institute 100-0, yeah, that's wrong. But it's also still demeaning to opposing players to see a team come out, dominate you, and then demonstrate a complete and total disregard for your ability by continuing to beat you with all five starters sitting down.
Waaaaaaaahh my son's team got owned bad so I'm going to write a crybaby letter to my local paper
That's pretty much what I thought of that article. Again, if the coach is on the sideline chanting "kill, kill, kill" and having his players to globetrotters moves, that's not sportsmanlike. But I don't think playing the game in a uniform way that also happens to be the standard freaking way of playing basketball all the way through warrants a complaint. If the defending coach wants to call the game because his players are getting really demoralized, then he probably should, but should do so with the knowledge that it is his failure as a leader that's at fault, not his counterpart's. There are teams that will sit down and take a 100-0 beating and cry about it after (in much the manner that parent had), and there are teams that will fight no matter what. That's on the coach whose losing, not the one who's winning. Also, there are lots of practical reasons why a coach might play his starts for half of three quarters - not wanting to disrupt season rhythm, wanting to build chemistry, confidence, get more game time in, not wanting to waste game experience on backups when the game might be at a pivotal point in the season - all of these are also valid in quizbowl. Conversely, there are several reasons why a team might want to rest its starters - season-long physical fatigue, injuries, improving subs who have to come in to relieve fatigue in tougher games - that are simply absent in quizbowl and thus not a motivator to bench your players.
Some article about an idiot who thinks 49-0 is some travesty of high school football.
First of all, those scores don't even meet the NFL record for margin of victory. Scores like that happen all the time in high school sports, and nobody (except this guy, evidently) cries about it. I mean, people do cry about it, but I think they make up about the same percentage of parents that curse at referees. I think it's worth pointing out that winning by 300 is hardly the most massive victory quizbowl has ever seen, too. Teams have and will continue to survive such thrashings all over the country, and I suspect the outcry associated with this whole sportsmanship-mercy rule debacle has a substantial amount to do with your league being accustomed to that kind of environment. Anyway, that's not really the point. The analogy between football and quizbowl doesn't even work, for a number of reasons. First, again, there's the whole fatigue/injury thing. Particularly, you might really want to take your star running back out of the game for fear of injuring him if the situation clearly doesn't require him to be in the game. With quizbowl, playing time always helps any player, and the risks of acute tendonitis in the buzzer hand are low. Second, in football you can run it up the middle 3 times and punt when the score becomes ridiculous, and given the real possibility of injuries and the fact that there are so many more slots on a starting football team's lineup than a quizbowl teams, substitutions are simply more commonplace. As the article mentioned, you CAN'T tell a player not to score if he breaks free, or to miss a tackle, or anything like that, and you shouldn't ever tell a player not to buzz. True, you can sub people out in both cases, but most football teams have marginally capable backups (you would never put someone in the game who sucked so much they could get hurt), and there are hosts of other things that make the situation different. The primary difference is that, in football, you can do a number of things (like not running double reverses, throwing deep posts, or onside kicking it when you're up by 50) that teams do to naturally not run up the score. But it happens, high school football, I imagine, is similar to middle school and high school quizbowl in how disproportionate talent can be. I think there is a very real difference, as I said before, with how the average football player's self-esteem is perceived versus the average quizbowler's (there's also probably a SUBSTANTIAL difference in how involved/anal the average parent is). I played high school football, and I played high school quizbowl. I was mediocre at best at one and pretty good at the other, but it never changed the way I approached the game or the competitive attitude I had, and in that respect the way I was coached wasn't different either. I still don't understand how a mercy rule is less demeaning than being smashed, fair and square, after both teams have put everything they have on the table. In summation, I do not see anything close to a 1 to 1 correlation between not wanting to bench your players in a given blowout and being a dick (although there are plenty of reasons to substitute, and those tend to be the optimum times), nor do I believe that players need or should want to be coddled (and in my opinion, embarrassed) by having to lose to the benchwarmers.

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Sun Jun 10, 2007 2:46 pm

E.T. Chuck wrote:Tom, we start Saturday morning instead of Friday night. There are no scheduled events on Friday here. On the other hand, there are lots of free wi-fi opportunities around the campus and in hotels. I'm sure there will be many updates.

This was no knock on the PACE folks ..... I was waiting for the New Trier technoratti to get caught up.

:wink:

User avatar
millionwaves
Auron
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Urbana, Illinois
Contact:

Post by millionwaves » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:07 pm

To return to this, quickly -
ImmaculateDeception wrote: A better approach would be to clearly define exactly which behaviors are unsportsmanlike.

MaS
I completely agree. To that end, I humbly submit the following as a list of behaviors that could be considered unsportsmanlike.
  • - Behavior exhibited for the intentional purpose of demeaning another team, such as verbal taunts or gestures, before or during a game.

    - The same, but after a game, which couldn't result in an ejection, of course, but would show that player/team/coach to be a jerk.

    - In timed play, intentionally running down the clock in order to increase one's chance of winning.

    - Showing up more than 5 minutes late for a match without prior communication.

    - Talking while questions are being read or answered.

    - Cheating of any sort.
Due to ties that are broken by score differential, intentionally running up a score should not be considered unsportsmanlike - especially because the IESA and IHSA protect against ridiculous landslide scores already with the 301 point limits. Also, it strikes me, like DumbJacques, that having players subbed in just to finish up the game is quite demeaning anyway.
Trygve Meade
Illinois, ACF

Above the Star-Apple Kingdom

User avatar
ecks
Wakka
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:03 am
Location: Springfield, IL / Kirksville, MO

Post by ecks » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:34 pm

millionwaves wrote:- In timed play, intentionally running down the clock in order to increase one's chance of winning.
I generally agree that all the others are unsportsmanlike, but I disagree with this one. I know a lot of coaches have a problem with it, but it's just part of playing the game and using timing to your advantage. It's a way to control the pace of a game, which (even though I generally cringe when people compare scholastic bowl to other sports) is used in sports like basketball and football -- holding the ball to run down the clock, deliberately making fouls to extend the time, etc.
millionwaves wrote:- Talking while questions are being read or answered.
We talked about this briefly on the Missouri boards, and I think that discussion is at least partially relevant to this. You can read it here. There is a difference, I think, between talking out of blatant disrespect for the other team or moderator and talking because of being familiar or comfortable with themselves or with the other team.
Last edited by ecks on Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Christopher Stone
Truman State University '09

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3079
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques » Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:35 pm

In timed play, intentionally running down the clock in order to increase one's chance of winning.
How is using the clock in a competition run with a timer unsportsmanlike? I believe pretty much every sport in the world that uses a clock is a counterexample. Assuming clocks are used, playing with them in mind is a valid part of the game. If there's a problem with this, don't use the clocks.

User avatar
the return of AHAN
Auron
Posts: 1933
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:40 pm

Post by the return of AHAN » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:28 pm

millionwaves wrote:Also, it strikes me, like DumbJacques, that having players subbed in just to finish up the game is quite demeaning anyway.
All righty then, coach a team with 15-20 kids on it and keep the parents of said children happy when they take off work early to watch their child play. Yes, when my team gets a big lead, you bet I sub in the 2nd and 3rd tier kids. My 8th graders may not be thrilled to play what amounts to 7-15 questions, but they understand what's going on.
And I'd like to know which part is demeaning; is it the part about they get to play against kids whose lesser skills allow them to score more? Or is it because it sucks when you find out we have 6th graders that know more than you, too? :razz:
Jeff Price
Barrington High School Coach
Barrington Station Middle School Coach (2013 MSNCT Champions, 2013 & 2017 Illinois Class AA State Champions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

User avatar
millionwaves
Auron
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Urbana, Illinois
Contact:

Post by millionwaves » Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:36 pm

Yeah, I guess both of you are correct about the timing thing. Intentionally running down the clock is, I suppose, as much a part of the strategy of the game as running up the score to break possible ties.

I stand corrected, and thank you for pointing that out.

Now, as far as talking goes, I guess I stand by what I said, especially if you're playing in a more formal atmosphere - say, a sectional, or whatever. If it's in a relatively informal environment, it probably doesn't matter as much, unless it delays stuff for other people, and I can't think of a situation off-hand that would produce that outcome.
Trygve Meade
Illinois, ACF

Above the Star-Apple Kingdom

User avatar
millionwaves
Auron
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:35 pm
Location: Urbana, Illinois
Contact:

Post by millionwaves » Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:12 pm

BarringtonJP wrote: All righty then, coach a team with 15-20 kids on it and keep the parents of said children happy when they take off work early to watch their child play. Yes, when my team gets a big lead, you bet I sub in the 2nd and 3rd tier kids. My 8th graders may not be thrilled to play what amounts to 7-15 questions, but they understand what's going on.
I think it's somewhat admirable, sir, that you're making an effort to include the players who wouldn't necessarily otherwise have a chance to play. However, I would never consider making a rule that mandated that you do so, or face having some of your players ejected, on the subjective judgment of a moderator who may or may not know what they're doing.
BarringtonJP wrote: And I'd like to know which part is demeaning; is it the part about they get to play against kids whose lesser skills allow them to score more? Or is it because it sucks when you find out we have 6th graders that know more than you, too? :razz:
Well, I suppose I'll give an example from my own experience. At one of the two (respectable) national tournaments in the college game, I was playing on a B team made up entirely of freshmen. My team played against Chicago A, the team that went on to win that tournament, as well as the other national tournament. We scored exactly one question against them (my buzz at the giveaway on Sheena Easton, of all things), and the final score was like 500-5. If they had chosen to sub in less talented players, which wasn't an option for a variety of reasons, but still, I would have felt that they were patronizing me, and that I was having the fact that I was lightyears behind them shoved forcibly into my face. Any points that I scored as a result of the absence of their most highly skilled players would not have meant as much. Getting fairly smashed into the ground was actually a lot of fun, because I got to play against some of the best, which gives me a goal to shoot for.

Now, I don't know exactly how much of that translates down to the middle school level, but I'll bet feelings of patronization, etc., do.
Trygve Meade
Illinois, ACF

Above the Star-Apple Kingdom

User avatar
ecks
Wakka
Posts: 248
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:03 am
Location: Springfield, IL / Kirksville, MO

Post by ecks » Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:20 pm

millionwaves wrote:Now, as far as talking goes, I guess I stand by what I said, especially if you're playing in a more formal atmosphere - say, a sectional, or whatever. If it's in a relatively informal environment, it probably doesn't matter as much, unless it delays stuff for other people, and I can't think of a situation off-hand that would produce that outcome.
I'll agree with that. State series games should be treated differently than other tournaments throughout the year. Like that whole 'the whole team must look the same or lose a million points before the game starts' rule that IHSA has that is never followed except in the state series.
Christopher Stone
Truman State University '09

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Wed Jun 13, 2007 6:44 pm

Meanwhile, on a less controversial note ...... <<subtle segway>>

Next weekend, Team Illinois will be off to the land of oranges, senior citizens, and thunderstorms .....I can report that they have all been putting in the time to get a little better, and have gelled as a team. We know that are opener will be an uphill struggle. If you get a chance to see one of our players, go up to them and give them a big anonymous hug and wish them good luck!

Then shake your fist at them and tell them they had better not screw up because Coach Egan has placed hefty sums of money on them with a local guy from the neighborhood in Alsip where Coach grew up....and that Coach doesn't want both of his legs broken if they don't do well....so that if they don't do well, I will be forced to live out my life on a beach in Florida selling seashells to complaining tourists.

On second thought, just stick with the hug...

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15269
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE » Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:00 pm

Tom, did you get my phone message from about a month ago?

Tegan
Coach of AHAN Jr.
Posts: 1975
Joined: Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 pm

Post by Tegan » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:58 am

leftsaidfred wrote:Tom, did you get my phone message from about a month ago?
I did not ..... fell free to drop me an e-mail (which I just updated) ....

Locked