The Quizbowl Resource Center

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:59 pm**

Oh, they have a team this year. Apparently, they've made a conscious and/or financial decision to disconnect from the IESA. Given that's a program with 3 state final appearances and 2 state titles, that should be a conversation starter.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:15 pm**

In addition to Buffalo Grove, Wheaton North has also decided to drop out of masonic for math team. I realized i'd rather go to our 1 math team meet than a tournament hosted by the masons.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:40 pm**

I was under the impression that Masonic was actually a decently written event. Is this wrong?

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:43 pm**

Masonics are being written by Aegis this year.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:50 pm**

Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:I was under the impression that Masonic was actually a decently written event. Is this wrong?

Aegis is writing it this year and did last year. Before that, it was Great Auk, which sucked.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:53 pm**

t is well written, hence our frustration in that coach still insists on practicing avery questions when we put 5 sets of HSAPQ in front of him. And now he is essentially forcing me to go to math team...yay freedom of choice.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 6:53 pm**

BGSO wrote:t is well written, hence our frustration in that coach still insists on practicing avery questions when we put 5 sets of HSAPQ in front of him. And now he is essentially forcing me to go to math team...yay freedom of choice.

Though I suppose he can prevent you from going to quizbowl, he can't make you go to math team. Don't show up.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:02 pm**

BGSO wrote:And now he is essentially forcing me to go to math team...yay freedom of choice.

Wear a Che shirt and play under "Loyola Academy A".

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:05 pm**

rockinzeppelin wrote:In addition to Buffalo Grove, Wheaton North has also decided to drop out of masonic for math team. I realized i'd rather go to our 1 math team meet than a tournament hosted by the masons.

The Masons do a good job of hosting a tournament - cash prizes are nice, even if the rounds are a bit far apart. It's the questions that have traditionally sucked, and they're not like that anymore.

Posted: **Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:08 pm**

BGSO wrote:t is well written, hence our frustration in that coach still insists on practicing avery questions when we put 5 sets of HSAPQ in front of him. And now he is essentially forcing me to go to math team...yay freedom of choice.

David, you and Nick should inform your coach (politely) that you will not play the math team, period, even if you don't go to Masonic. Then see what happens.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:16 am**

I didn't mean to say the tournament sucked it was just that I'd rather go to Math Team. I'll join you David and we'll make Loyola Team A

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:29 am**

The problem now is that I have to make a choice. I was very content wit missing one match of Masonics and getting to do oralist and mindividual, but after talking with my math team coach today I don't think he quite understands what I intend to do...gah I hate conflict!!!!!!

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2009 12:43 am**

BGSO wrote:The problem now is that I have to make a choice. I was very content wit missing one match of Masonics and getting to do oralist and mindividual, but after talking with my math team coach today I don't think he quite understands what I intend to do...gah I hate conflict!!!!!!

That's life man. My advice would be to just enjoy Math team and don't worry about masonic.

Posted: **Wed Jan 28, 2009 11:47 am**

For any coaches or area college or high school players not attending Masonics or the math competition (or area college players or former players), I am in need of a few readers and/or scorekeepers for Northwestern's Junior Wildcat middle school tournament on 2/21. It might be a good chance to scout out young up-and-comers as well as witness an interesting experiment regarding the use of mACF format and question style on very young quizbowl players. I know that Mr. Riley and perhaps a couple of Loyola Academy players will be helping out, and I am very appreciative. I can offer a delicious pizza lunch, and an opportunity brighten the lives of a bunch of middle school students whose only dream is to play on pyramidal questions.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:37 am**

I Spent a good. Hour and a half talking to two sophomores from meadows about things ranging from an introduction to the Canon to Ace camp (which they seemed really interested in) I will attempt to continue more conversations like this at our first MSL season confrence meet. They also agreed that math has no place...yay quizbowl progress.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:13 am**

In addition to all of the issues re liability, etc., that have been mentioned here, another point is that many coaches in Illinois are just that--coaches-- not simply sponsors. They work with their teams, take care of logistics and spend a lot of time with them.

As far as the above, it can also differ from school to school. In our case, students may drive other students (with parental permission), parents may drive students, teachers may NOT drive students. Outside of that, the Archdiocese and the local Office of Catholic Education simply asks that we be "prudent". In any case, for better or worse, liability issues cannot be ignored.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:38 pm**

First MSL meet of the year:
Fremd went 3-0 at both varsity and frosh/soph levels. Barrington, after downing Conant and Palatine without much of a challenge at the frosh-soph level, fell 205-125 to Fremd, which really puts our team behind the 8-ball as now we'll have to beat Fremd by 80 points in the return matchup in only 7 days if we hope to make good on the promise we showed in the 'pre-season' tournament and make an appearance in the MSL Championship (Frankly, Fremd & Barrington are pretty far ahead of the other 4 @ F/S, even more so than last year). But the worse part was, at the conclusion of that match, when we went to watch our varsity. One of our varsity players, not an ace by any means, had to leave due to another commitment. Despite being short-handed, BHS was locked in a tight battle with Fremd, leading 120-110 after 12 toss-ups. I got our varsity coach to ask KP if we could sub in one of our sophomores, but alas, he cited the following rule on the books:

MSL Scholastic Bowl Code wrote:2. A member of the Varsity team may not play on the Frosh-Soph team. Frosh-Soph team members may play on the Varsity team for any particular meet; they may not participate in the Frosh-Soph contest during that meet.

SO, my players watched helplessly as the match came down to the 20th toss-up on diagonals of an octagon, which would've been totally nailed by the soph I wanted Mr. Connell to insert. Nearly 3 seconds passed before Arjun buzzed in for the clincher. After getting 15 points on the bonus, the score finished at 195-155, I think.

Can anyone think of a good reason our team had to play short-handed? Other than as punishment for not planning better? The questions were not the same, which strikes me as the only reason to have such a rule in place.

On another note, the coaches meeting did see the issue of new question writers come up, The room seemed to dismiss the idea of BG players providing the re-writes for frosh-soph questions right away. The consensus seemed to be that, if NAQT will provide a set of sample questions so the coaches can see for themselves what they'll look like, we'd be amenable to a switch. I mentioned that the Loyola Frosh-Soph Tournament was run on NAQT A Series and that it seemed to go well. KP, however, corrected me and said some of the toss-ups were re-written by the Loyola varsity. Is that true? I knew the bonuses were house-written, but I thought the toss-ups were all NAQT A Series....
[edited my poor grammar]

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:46 pm**

For Davey and Goliath III, tossups were provided by NAQT (IS-78A), bonuses were provided by the varsity team. Mr. Riley did however, cross out tossups that he didn't like (in an attempt to make NAQT less "NAQT"; cutting pop culture and geography) so as to trim rounds down to 20 tossups and 20 bonuses.

Thus, we didn't change the tossups, we changed the number of tossups.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:55 pm**

I'm excited to see that Mr. Palmer brought it up on your end, when I told Mr. Park the same thing he mentioned that he would "try"...needless to say, I didn't see him talking it up with any other coaches...so much for getting them to allow us to write the questions...maybe if Aegis proposed and then Nick and I just wrote the questions for Aegis that would work? I just hate to see freshman that I work with be frustrated because they lose a close match due to a spelling question coming up on question 20.

Also, the deal I proposed to KP was using the Illinois sets that NAQT provides for varsity questions, unless Illinois sees the switch to 3 part bonuses soon, to get an A-set for Illinois format would cost a but load of money, as it would be considered a "custom" set.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:22 pm**

The Aegis arrangement you proposed won't work out. What about HSAPQ?

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:26 pm**

That MSL rule is reasonable to keep teams from gaming the system. You shouldn't be able to play somebody in the first half of a Frosh/Soph match to run up that score, then run to the Varsity match to contribute to that. You especially don't want some team calling time-outs and stalling in whatever way possible so some kid can finish one match and run to another. The point of having Frosh/Soph is to give students a chance to play against their peers, and if you have a student who is an essential part of your Varsity Team, then he doesn't need to play Frosh/Soph too.

As to the MSL Frosh/Soph, the Aegis idea won't work because Aegis is dead. (Masonics is their last stand.) HSAPQ won't write in Illinois format, which will make it very difficult to convince coaches to use it. If possible, encourage a few coaches to try the sample IS packet on the NAQT website on their Frosh/Soph teams. If the teams can handle it, then just use the NAQT IHSA questions for Varsity and Frosh/Soph. The sample packet is not in Illinois format, but the difficulty and question length is about the same.

Posted: **Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:48 pm**

Shcool wrote:That MSL rule is reasonable to keep teams from gaming the system. You shouldn't be able to play somebody in the first half of a Frosh/Soph match to run up that score, then run to the Varsity match to contribute to that. You especially don't want some team calling time-outs and stalling in whatever way possible so some kid can finish one match and run to another. The point of having Frosh/Soph is to give students a chance to play against their peers, and if you have a student who is an essential part of your Varsity Team, then he doesn't need to play Frosh/Soph too.

It didn't occur to me as gaming the system, but that would make sense. Clearly someone must have done something like you described at one time. I just saw an instance where our varsity was locked in a close battle, depsite being short-handed, and it didn't seem unreasonable to me when I asked. But given the imposing hill faced by our frosh/soph and the fact that Fremd looked really vulnerable at the varsity level, I think I'm going to lobby our varsity coach to promote Kyle to varsity for the rest of the season. Had he been playing varsity today, I know they would've won, and our outcome (2-1) at frosh/soph wouldn't have changed.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:10 am**

MSL West Meet 2... Fremd's varsity went 3-0 with no sweat, while Barrington went 2-1, losing again to Fremd, but beating Hoffman and Schaumburg to secure a solid grip on 2nd place in the MSL West and improve to 12-8 for next week's seeding meeting. Meantime, my frosh/soph beat Hoffman and Schaumburg, too, AND defeated Fremd by 80. Too bad, because Fremd defeated us by 85 last week, so they'll hold the tie-breaker by 5 stinking points if we both finish 9-1 in conference play, as I expect.

The worst part is, Fremd's big edge on us has been in math (60-15 today, and our lone TU was one where their girl failed to give an x-intercept as an ordered pair, as the question had asked). When we went to a tourney that minimized math, the D&GT, we took 4th and they didn't qualify for afternoon rounds. When we played a tourney on Question Bank with their 20-25% math distro, Fremd played like world-beaters, even knocking down the future state champions, Stevenson, while we settled for... 4th again. My point is I feel like we're well-balanced and consistent, but don't know if we'll ever find that missing math link to compete against the Napervilles and Fremds in scholastic bowl.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:54 am**

Woody Paige wrote:the future state champions, Stevenson

Stevenson is pretty good, and Zach is great...But that's a bold prediction.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 8:42 am**

Oh, I didn't mean this year, but for 2010-2011, it's going to be Stevenson's world and we're just living in it. Unless ZB gets bored and decides to graduate SHS early.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:33 pm**

I'm obviously a touch biased, but I wouldn't count out Maine South in the next few years.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:35 pm**

adeveau wrote:I'm obviously a touch biased, but I wouldn't count out Maine South in the next few years.

For sure...Same for Auburn. And Loyola. And Lisle (he said WHAT?!).

My point is, it's way too early to predict a state championship 2 years from now when the current one hasn't even been decided. And I consider Maine South to be better, if only by a touch, than Stevenson.

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 4:42 pm**

And you just never know. When Peterson-Svetlichnaya-Ware and company were f/s, I would have never figured them for a championship team, and look how they fared!

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:47 pm**

Aub-ZH wrote:
adeveau wrote:I'm obviously a touch biased, but I wouldn't count out Maine South in the next few years.
For sure...Same for Auburn. And Loyola. And Lisle (he said WHAT?!).

My point is, it's way too early to predict a state championship 2 years from now when the current one hasn't even been decided. And I consider Maine South to be better, if only by a touch, than Stevenson.

In two years, Lisle laugh at you!

Posted: **Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:55 pm**

Aub-ZH wrote:
adeveau wrote:I'm obviously a touch biased, but I wouldn't count out Maine South in the next few years.
For sure...Same for Auburn. And Loyola. And Lisle (he said WHAT?!).

My point is, it's way too early to predict a state championship 2 years from now when the current one hasn't even been decided. And I consider Maine South to be better, if only by a touch, than Stevenson.

Lisle is Class A, which makes it very likely that they will win state.

Also, I will say that saying that Stevenson will win state in two years is not a bold prediction. They have not lost a single F/S game with Zach there. That said, Duveau is really good.

On a seperate note, good luck to everyone tomorrow at Huskie Bowl.

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:15 pm**

Siva, put up 195 against us...that's all that really needs to be said.

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 9:36 pm**

David Riley wrote:And you just never know. When Peterson-Svetlichnaya-Wear and company were f/s, I would have never figured them for a championship team, and look how they fared!

Partly 'cause Peterson wasn't playing.

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:17 pm**

Results from junior high "Just Solve It" tournament at Wallace on 2/7:
1. Wallace (Ottawa, IL)
2. Northlawn (Streator, IL)
3. Waltham (Utica, IL)
4. Shepherd (Ottawa, IL)

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:20 pm**

BGSO wrote:Siva, put up 195 against us...that's all that really needs to be said.

Ouch sounds painful. Though i heard New Trier won (for anyone else that wants to know).

Posted: **Sat Feb 07, 2009 11:42 pm**

Stephen Colbert wrote:Results from junior high "Just Solve It" tournament at Wallace on 2/7:
1. Wallace (Ottawa, IL)
2. Northlawn (Streator, IL)
3. Waltham (Utica, IL)
4. Shepherd (Ottawa, IL)

Waltham? Never heard of them. New program?
What questions did Wallace use?

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:26 am**

Woody Paige wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote:Results from junior high "Just Solve It" tournament at Wallace on 2/7:
1. Wallace (Ottawa, IL)
2. Northlawn (Streator, IL)
3. Waltham (Utica, IL)
4. Shepherd (Ottawa, IL)
Waltham? Never heard of them. New program?
What questions did Wallace use?

Waltham is a really small school just north of Utica, which is a really small town in the Starved Rock area. The town made some news in 2004 when a tornado killed 8 people there. Their program has been around for as long as I've been coaching, but has had relatively little success prior to today. I do not believe they play in the state series. The tournament used Questions Galore, which apparently didn't get the memo about the new IESA distribution or the fact that answers should be given in terms of pi. The tournament format was equally whacked out. They insisted on using the old, old blurt rule (lose the toss-up & bonus). There were only ten teams, and each team was randomly assigned to play 5 matches. Wallace was fortunate to play five pretty inferior teams (none finished with a record better than 2-3) while going 5-0 to win first (they put up around 700 total points). Northlawn went 4-1, but played both Shepherd & Waltham. So, putting up over 1,000 points on the day was a small victory. I thought it would've been a little fairer if they played one play-off round with 1 v 2, 3 v 4, etc. But, with no Brain Strain last weekend, I suppose any tournament will do. No team seemed particularly impressive. I won't be there, but I think the Metcalf Sweetheart tournament will give the first real glimpse of where teams stand.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:40 am**

In regards to the NIU thing New Trier beat Auburn in two straight matches to take first in an advantaged best of 3 thing or what not. Also, for individual it was 1. Ben (NT), 2. Siva (RA), 3. Andrew (MS), and that is all that I know/remember

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:03 am**

Stephen Colbert wrote:
Woody Paige wrote:
Stephen Colbert wrote:Results from junior high "Just Solve It" tournament at Wallace on 2/7:
1. Wallace (Ottawa, IL)
2. Northlawn (Streator, IL)
3. Waltham (Utica, IL)
4. Shepherd (Ottawa, IL)
Waltham? Never heard of them. New program?
What questions did Wallace use?
Waltham is a really small school just north of Utica, which is a really small town in the Starved Rock area. The town made some news in 2004 when a tornado killed 8 people there. Their program has been around for as long as I've been coaching, but has had relatively little success prior to today. I do not believe they play in the state series. The tournament used Questions Galore, which apparently didn't get the memo about the new IESA distribution or the fact that answers should be given in terms of pi. The tournament format was equally whacked out. They insisted on using the old, old blurt rule (lose the toss-up & bonus). There were only ten teams, and each team was randomly assigned to play 5 matches. Wallace was fortunate to play five pretty inferior teams (none finished with a record better than 2-3) while going 5-0 to win first (they put up around 700 total points). Northlawn went 4-1, but played both Shepherd & Waltham. So, putting up over 1,000 points on the day was a small victory. I thought it would've been a little fairer if they played one play-off round with 1 v 2, 3 v 4, etc. But, with no Brain Strain last weekend, I suppose any tournament will do. No team seemed particularly impressive. I won't be there, but I think the Metcalf Sweetheart tournament will give the first real glimpse of where teams stand.

You know, I ordered the QG study packets this year, figuring I should keep my team's ear to the ground with regards to what's on their mind, canonically-speaking, but for crying out loud, their packets don't have things in terms of pi and they still have health &fitness in the general info. I was hoping it was just one of those things where they were recycling old questions and this year's packets would adhere to the standard we handed down. So much for that theory.
As for Wallace, they're IESA and have no excuse, unless they specifically said they're not adhering to that IESA rule, much as I've done the last three years with the Barrington Invitational Tournament for Educacated Minds of Excellence, but in the OTHER direction.
Sounds like the Wallace people were hell-bent on giving themselves a trophy. Mission accomplished.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:20 am**

Woody Paige wrote: You know, I ordered the QG study packets this year,

no dont

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 11:15 am**

So why is it that every bad rule in Illinois gets enforced diligently, but every good rule, such as requiring pyramidal questions from vendors, can be ignored with no consequences?

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:15 pm**

Matt Weiner wrote:So why is it that every bad rule in Illinois gets enforced diligently, but every good rule, such as requiring pyramidal questions from vendors, can be ignored with no consequences?

That's the supposed twisted logic of illinois quiz bowl. I agree with you completely, i want there to be pyramidal questions wherever i go to tournaments at.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 1:54 pm**

Matt Weiner wrote:So why is it that every bad rule in Illinois gets enforced diligently, but every good rule, such as requiring pyramidal questions from vendors, can be ignored with no consequences?

Serious answer to non-serious question: my guess is that bad rules are often phrased as "are you all wearing the same shirt please" whereas good rules have terms like pyramidal that need to be defined. At that point, "pyramidal" can mean "contains at least one clue."

That said, I've not read the IL bylaws; perhaps they define pyramidal in a good way and then flaunt it.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:18 pm**

everyday847 wrote:flaunt

You mean "flout". This is a common error.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 2:28 pm**

BuzzerZen wrote:
everyday847 wrote:flaunt
You mean "flout". This is a common error.

Indeed.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:41 pm**

everyday847 wrote:That said, I...flaunt it.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 5:28 pm**

Matt Weiner wrote:So why is it that every bad rule in Illinois gets enforced diligently, but every good rule, such as requiring pyramidal questions from vendors, can be ignored with no consequences?

It's all about the state series when it comes down to IHSA or IESA rules. Most tournaments, in an effort to make things standardized, simply say "We're using IESA or IHSA rules to givern match play." If I want to run an invitational tournament where kids have to SING their answers, there's nothing IESA or IHSA have to say about it.
As I've grown comfortable in my role as a TD, I've branched out and tried to lead the charge to get rid of our asinine blurt rule by running my tournament with a different rule. Mission accomplished on that front. Next year, if things go well at the Junior Wildcat with mACF bonuses & middle school kids, I'm thinking about doing the same at my own tournament. If the high school coaches don't want to change up above, I'll change them from below!!

I haven't coached a game with the ACF style yet, but we've been practicing for 2 weeks and my kids get really excited when I say, "we're going to practice these bonuses ACF-style." These 11-14 year olds think it's the cat's meow. Still waiting for a kid to complain about it vis a vis any of the issues raised in the petition.

Posted: **Sun Feb 08, 2009 6:34 pm**

Change from below is, really, the way to go. I agree that it's very tempting to conform to a certain extent with what coaches expect from tournaments they might value more, as that can be a profitable road. I'm glad that you see room for positive experimentation.

Also, ACF Nationals '09: The Cat's Meow.

Posted: **Tue Feb 10, 2009 8:53 pm**

Update on the field for "the Loyburn Classic" (HSAPQ--PACE) this Saturday is

Auburn A
Auburn B
Carbondale
Lisle
Loyola A
Loyola B
Loyola C
Maine South
New Trier
Richmond-Burton
St. Viator
Stevenson

Posted: **Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:04 pm**

JackGlerum wrote:Update on the field for "the Loyburn Classic" (HSAPQ--PACE) this Saturday is

Auburn A
Auburn B
Carbondale
Lisle
Loyola A
Loyola B
Loyola C
Maine South
New Trier
Richmond-Burton
St. Viator
Stevenson

Wow....that's quite a field. With only 12 teams, how will the morning rounds be played? Group play? Power pairing? ...?

Posted: **Tue Feb 10, 2009 11:11 pm**

A twevle-team RR could possibly be workable.

The Quizbowl Resource Center

Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09

Re: Illinois '08-'09