The Quizbowl Resource Center

leftsaidfred wrote:Right, it's not real quiz bowl

aestheteboy wrote:math/science skills (not knowledge)

This is coming from a lit person on a team with zero math talent, but I'm struggling with this. Why is math (and apparently science) out of the realm of good quiz bowl?

I'm assuming the references are to computational math (the science I'm less sure about).

The science has huge computational distributions, hence why Team Missouri finished so well in the last couple years, we brought along players who were phenomenally quick at both math and science calculations.

I didn't say anything about good or bad quizbowl. What I said was that math and science questions in PAC reward skills, not knowledge.

JohnGlerum wrote:Is there a lot of math at PAC? If so, I wonder if anyone is better than Greg.

Greg didn't even get all (though he did get most) of the math on his own team last year - I got most of the calculus and Justin and Carlo contributed, too. Which brings me to my point - I can't see any team having the kind of math/science DEPTH that Illinois or Missouri had last year. You need two or three quality math people to dominate the computational stuff.

leftsaidfred wrote:Right, it's not real quiz bowl. But there is something of a correlation between real quiz bowl talent and level of performance at PAC - that's why I questioned the statement of 'oh and I doubt South Carolina will do much.'

QFT(with additional comment.) I predict that Dorman will make the finals but not win, and, um, Krum will get the Snitch... quiz bowl skill alone isn't enough to win, but it sure as hell helps. A lot of the literature and history questions are multiple parts, where basically what you get is "Sweep the following bonus." Dorman has experience sweeping bonuses.

JohnGlerum wrote:This is coming from a lit person on a team with zero math talent, but I'm struggling with this. Why is math (and apparently science) out of the realm of good quiz bowl?

Well, my statement wasn't so much just on the math issue as it was the overall WACKY~! PAC format, but the reason math computation is considered not "good" quiz bowl by some is because it tests the ability to apply knowledge, while the rest of quiz bowl deals with the possession and recollection of knowledge. For this reason, some - a group which I count myself amongst - find computational math to be an ill fit for quiz bowl.

By the way, a lot of my points in high school came from math computation and I was probably the best in my state at it my senior year.

aestheteboy wrote:skills, not knowledge

Ah, I see where you are coming from now.

Hopefully we will make the finals, but I certainly don't see us winning, as said earlier.

Okay, my $0.02 worth on this discussion:

1) I wouldn't underestimate Dorman (or any of the other top SC teams)'s knowledge of the humanities. If PAC history is any indicator, they may well sweep a number of humanities and history questions, making up for any dearth in math or the sciences.

2) If you subscribe to the theory of "that's never going to come up" quiz bowl, then the PAC will present problems--especially in the 15-point round where virtually all knowledge (outside of pop culture) is fair game. Likewise in the 15-point round willl be (as someone above said) subtantial math and science problems. True, they aren't pyramidal but the negs can really add up here.

3) One year Pennsylvania had a relatively unknown team that happened to know their math and science and could compute quickly. They did pretty well in this format, so a knowledge of math and science helps.

4) No, it's not "regular" quiz bowl, but again, some of those 15-point questions can be pretty challenging.

5) In short, it's like most competitions--the winners don't take home the gold (or specifically, the scholarship money) by coasting. They have to work for it!

David Riley wrote:1) I wouldn't underestimate Dorman (or any of the other top SC teams)'s knowledge of the humanities. If PAC history is any indicator, they may well sweep a number of humanities and history questions, making up for any dearth in math or the sciences.

Don't forget that a lot of the math and science in the 5 and even the 10 point rounds isn't usually too difficult and can be kind of a crapshoot. And the social studies and English questions are exactly the same in number as the science and math ones. I've studied the distribution for a couple of years now.

David Riley wrote:3) One year Pennsylvania had a relatively unknown team that happened to know their math and science and could compute quickly. They did pretty well in this format, so a knowledge of math and science helps.

Was that Emmaus? I know they had gone a couple of times, and we (South Carolina) faced them about 4 years ago and ended up winning by 2 points because of a rejected protest.

This year, I'm pretty sure it's State College going back for Pennsylvania (for something like the second time in 10 years), having survived their crazy "state tournament." Sometime I should make a trip up to Harrisburg just to see that thing in action.

My biggest thought on Panasonic is that it is NOT quiz bowl, nor does it try to be quiz bowl. Once that fact is truly understood, you can do fine. Sometimes it can even be helpful to have non-quiz bowl people participating in PAC.

Yes, it was Emmaus. And re State College, I thought Pennsylvania's choice for PAC was this "mythology" tournament, rather than a state tournament qualifier. No?

David Riley wrote:Yes, it was Emmaus. And re State College, I thought Pennsylvania's choice for PAC was this "mythology" tournament, rather than a state tournament qualifier. No?

http://www.cciu.org/Departments/LER/Spe ... dcomp.html

mlaird wrote:C'mon guys, we need to talk about something. Only twelve (eleven now!) more posts until we hit 1,000 for this topic!

We need a good transition into the Illinois 08-09 thread:

Who is going to be good next year?

What will Team Illinois do at PAC?

How will the Illinois teams going to Nats do at Nats?

Since the second question was answered extensively, I'll jump into the other two.

In my eyes, "the-team-that-shall-not-be-named-located-in-west-rockford" should be the team to beat, even without John. NT will be back, though I fear it may be a one man show. And I may be wrong, but I believe Carbondale returns nearly their entire starting 4, so they'll be contenders. I also think Stevenson returns some starters too.

As for HSNCT, I think us, Auburn, and NT are going, I feel like there's another one though. We'll probably be rusty, Auburn might make some noise.

I have difficult time discerning sarcasm from text, but WN is going too, right? I also second the fact the Auburn should have quite the season next year with Siva and michael returning.

I have a feeling that both WN and Auburn have a shot to do well at HSNCT, though I have a feeling WN will either boom or bust depending on his mood.

How many teams are sending kids to ACE this year? I know we (BG) are hoping to get at least 3-5 anyone else?

BGSO wrote:I have difficult time discerning sarcasm from text, but WN is going too, right?

Oh, I actually wasn't trying to be sarcastic... I don't believe WN qualified.

http://naqt.com/hsnct/2008/field.html

Maine South was the other team I was thinking of.

The Illinois teams going to PACE are Auburn, Wheaton North, and Carbondale.

Maine South at HSNCT should be interesting - they've got some serious geography and trash knowledge.
Likewise, WN would be dangerous what with the ["Pencil and Paper Rea"(BUZZ.) "24 pi." "Uh, FIFTEEEEEN."]-ness... so why aren't they good?

Overall, I think the Ill teams will do better at HSNCT than PACE, with the possible (likely, actually) exception of Auburn.

But I actually think that Illinois will go 4/4 for playoff qualification at HSNCT, with Auburn going the deepest and New Trier going out first (not having four regulars is tough.)

And I know Matt Bardoe reads this board, so I'm going be directly confrontational: Mr. Bardoe, WHY is your team playing Chip Beall's Nationals?

cornfused wrote:But I actually think that Illinois will go 4/4 for playoff qualification at HSNCT, with Auburn going the deepest and New Trier going out first (not having four regulars is tough.)

No .... yes ......no

But you are close.

Tegan wrote:

cornfused wrote:But I actually think that Illinois will go 4/4 for playoff qualification at HSNCT, with Auburn going the deepest and New Trier going out first (not having four regulars is tough.)

No .... yes ......no

But you are close.

So you'd say, 3/4, Auburn, Maine South? Or 3/4, Auburn, Loyola? I was taking a chance on the 4/4 thing.

For what it's worth, I'd agree on the 4/4 thing. Last year, people thought I was somewhat crazy predicting all the Illinois teams (either 6 or 7) to get into playoffs, and it almost happened (probably would have if Auburn weren't missing a key player).

This year, I'd say about 2-1 odds in favor of 4/4. Auburn makes the deep run, and it's a tough call between Maine South and Loyola as to first one out. For no particular reason, I'll say Maine South.

Coach Reinstein, do you know which players you'll be sending to NAQT? (And this is more a "do you know" than a "who are they"...)

My final picks: four of four in the playoffs, with Auburn aheadofortiedwith Loyola aheadofortiedwith Maine South. New Trier will play at least three games.

Ben and Robert. Then, ?????

Sam Solomon is coming if we can figure out how to get him to the Kanye West concert Saturday night, and he's probably good for 10-15 PPG. Robert's brother is being dragged along. There's also another Sam, who is pretty good on baseball questions. Possibly Akhil, who is good at math but probably won't make it. If you know anybody who attends New Trier and is free this weekend, please email me his/her name.

The only certainty at this point is that we'll outlast Maine South, and the only reason we'll do that is to spite your prediction. Ben probably will buzz in 15 times per match, which isn't necessarily a good thing. Our season will then be over, never to be mentioned again (except for that time we beat Wheaton North and those times many months ago when we beat Auburn).

Note the prediction, Coach R.

cornfused wrote:My final picks: four of four in the playoffs, with Auburn aheadofortiedwith Loyola aheadofortiedwith Maine South. New Trier will play at least three games.

I'm no longer saying NT out first. I just have no idea what you guys are going to do.

By the way, is anyone willing to come out to Lawrence next spring for a tourney? viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5588

We might be willing pending what time of year it is.

Just the kind of answer I want. At this point, I'm trying to figure out what distance people will come from.

Honestly, I could see NT winning a few games in the playoffs or not even lasting til Sunday. I think it all depends on Ben, really. He has the ability to dominate on NAQT format/questions, and if he can get hot, NT will do well.

The Vegas Over/Under Lines have been set.
Illinois Saturday Wins: 25.5
Illinois Sunday Wins: 5.5

ReinsteinD wrote:The Vegas Over/Under Lines have been set.
Illinois Saturday Wins: 25.5
Illinois Sunday Wins: 5.5

Good lines .... I will take the under on both.

Argh... you're playing Over-under instead of Oddsmakers. I'm definitely terrible on Over-under.

ReinsteinD wrote:The Vegas Over/Under Lines have been set.
Illinois Saturday Wins: 25.5
Illinois Sunday Wins: 5.5

I'll take the over ever-so-slightly on Saturday and regrettably take the under on Sunday.

Auburn - 8-2
NT/Loyola/MS - two will be 6-4, one will be 5-5 (but don't make me decide who will do what)

Auburn will win 4 Sunday games, one team from NT/Loy/MS will win 1, the other will go 0-2

So under by a half point on both.

I'll take over by a half point on both. Wish I could watch, folks, but I'm stuck here in Appleton unfailing Russian.

Good luck to everyone.

cornfused wrote: I'm stuck here in Appleton unfailing Russian.

We went 6-4, losing to Stuyvesant, Santa Monica, New Trier, and Grosse Point North. I wasn't there for the NT game, but the other three teams we lost to seemed pretty talented, especially Santa Monica. I heard Auburn got destroyed by Whitman but was playing extremely well, and that New Trier would most likely make the playoffs as well. Didn't hear anything about Maine South, but NAQT.com says they were 3-4 at one point.

According to Robert Sido, NT went 7-3.

I saw Reinstein in an elevator earlier; he says NT has 7 wins, including 1 over Maggie Walker.

[quote=JohnGlerum]I wasn't there for the NT game,[/quote]

What?

Auburn went 7-3. We beat State College, Garfield Heights, Novi, Stuyvesant (shorthanded). We lost to Whitman, Grosse Point N, Bergen.

So does that mean 3/4 in the playoffs?

Yep. NT and Auburn won 7, Loyola 6 and Maine South 5.

We got a tough schedule, with losses to Whitman, TJ, and Walter Johnson, and wins over Wayzata, Brookwood, and Maggie Walker. Our only close match was our 15-point victory over Loyola.

The unders won Saturday, and with the new rule that 6-4 teams start with a loss, I'm glad that I'm not Egan's bookie.

styxman wrote:What?

Lacrosse playoffs

ReinsteinD wrote:wins over Wayzata, Brookwood, and Maggie Walker

Nice.

ReinsteinD wrote:The unders won Saturday, and with the new rule that 6-4 teams start with a loss, I'm glad that I'm not Egan's bookie.

What?

With the additional teams, they changed the rules this year. The system they had last year was designed to handle 64 or fewer teams making the playoffs. In order to have the same number of playoff rounds with more than 64 playoff teams, teams that finished 6-4 Saturday are going into Sunday's double elimination with one loss. So, Loyola's first match will be against another 6-4 team, and they're done if they lose that match or any other.

When the Maine South coach tells me twice that "no one showed up for practice" ...... even with some dedicated teams in there, the under was a no brainer. In the end, it was not a lack of intelligence or coaching, but a lack of overall dedication. Hopefully, this is a lesson that they can learn from.

For what its worth, I read for Maggie Walker A. They were good, but there was one player I could not believe how whiney he was. He is giving an answer of some Congressman and I am 99.9% certain he puts a wring letter in there. I ask him to repeat it, and he clearly changes the letters. I tell him "that's no what I heard", and won't give him the points. He goes into some convulsion. After the match, he goes to his coach and demands a protest (this is after they had won by like 200 points). His coach refuses. The kids gets adamant, that since I asked for a repeat, I clearly hadn't heard him the first time, so how could I know he screwed it up. His teammate says "I heard you add the 'l'". The kid says "but I knew the answer, and demonstrated clear knowledge". I explain that in the officials meeting, we were warned about this, and offered to show him the exact rule. He blew me off and walked off ... "Then its a stupid rule".

I've only seen MW a few times, but that was the first time I had ever seen such LC coming from a player on that team. I asked the scorekeeper, and he said that the answer was definitely wrong, and that he was ready to stop the clock and interject if I hadn't asked for the repeat. So at least three people got it right.

Best two teams in a match I saw was DCC and Dunbar of Kentucky. DCC looked a lot more on top of things today than at the Midwest.

Tegan wrote:I've only seen MW a few times, but that was the first time I had ever seen such LC coming from a player on that team. I asked the scorekeeper, and he said that the answer was definitely wrong, and that he was ready to stop the clock and interject if I hadn't asked for the repeat. So at least three people got it right.

Best two teams in a match I saw was DCC and Dunbar of Kentucky. DCC looked a lot more on top of things today than at the Midwest.

I'm sure Dr. B and the teammates will calm him down over the Saturday intersession. Pressure happens.

If the stats are correct (and believe me, I can't always determine that since SQBS is not actually being used), they are the lowest PP20H 8-2 team in 11th position. That is perhaps a little bit higher than what I had expected. On the other hand, preparing for a national is not like the regular season.

Bad day for Illinois. New Trier beat Auburn in the first round, then we lost our next two and Auburn (after a bye) lost its next match. I don't know how Loyola did. We lost to Santa Monica, who is very good, and Georgetown Day, who I felt was about as good as us when we're playing well.

We lost our first one 165-180 against Kellenberg, and since we were 6-4 on Saturday, our day was over.

Thus, Illinois went "0-fer" against other states today...

Anybody know who won?

TJ over Charter in the second game of a TJ advantaged finals.

IHSSBCA.org says that kickoff will have a new bonus format. 3 part with bounceback? Also does the drastic drop in time that this bonus format would take mean that there will be more than 5 matches a team? Or will it still be 5 and then playoffs?

ACE in less than a month :)

BGSO is correct--three part bonuses one at a time with bounceback worth 10 points each part. Computational bonuses will be done the old way, except they will all be three parts. We don't know whether or not they will save time, because we have not yet decided whether to allow 5 seconds or 10 seconds per part (since most students, coaches, and moderators will be new to the format). So there will still be five morning matches, though we are confident that we will be able to finish five 20/20 matches and still break for lunch at a decent time, which has been a challenge in the past.