Page 1 of 7

2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:25 pm
by btressler
Not to steal their thunder, but while enjoying the statistics and records section, I stumbled into this:

http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2009/details.html

Probably not finalized.

edit: wow! no overflow hotel and 192 teams.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:36 pm
by Sir Thopas
Wow! Stealing PACE's date!

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:38 pm
by Down and out in Quintana Roo
Oh boy... let the griping begin.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:39 pm
by Sir Thopas
Caesar Rodney HS wrote:Oh boy... let the griping begin.
it already has d00d

it only works if you say it before it starts

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:42 pm
by Down and out in Quintana Roo
Nevermind. That was fast.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:44 pm
by Sir Thopas
Just because the date was changed doesn't mean it wasn't stolen.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:44 pm
by ... and the chaos of Mexican modernity
If this is the case then my team will go to HSNCT so my teammates won't feel completely stupid. Overall I am the only player that is good on PACE questions and all I know is PACE history and trash, but anyway I wonder if this maybe was coincidence.

Edit: Never mind we'll shoot for both then

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:46 pm
by Matt Weiner
Bakery, State, and Utopia wrote:If this is the case then my team will go to HSNCT so my teammates won't feel completely stupid. Overall I am the only player that is good on PACE questions and all I know is PACE history and trash, but anyway I wonder if this maybe was coincidence.
Hey:

1) NSC questions are twice as easy as HSNCT questions.
2) If you are going to be a serious national-level team as you have so often proclaimed your intent to be, then you need to go to both the NSC and HSNCT every year, period.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 11:49 pm
by First Chairman
Funn-Dimensional Man wrote:Just because the date was changed doesn't mean it wasn't stolen.
Well, it also could be a hotel booking situation. All I can say is we're swapping weekends so it shouldn't affect anything except now you can spend more time in DC. I just need to be sure something weird doesn't happen that weekend. It is DC, and it would be Memorial Day weekend.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:05 am
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
The bad news is that this now makes it literally impossible for many Missouri teams like NKC to attend the NSC.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:47 am
by rhentzel
NAQT is pleased to formally announce that the 2009 High School National Championship Tournament will take place the weekend of May 29-31 at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago.

More information is available here:

http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2009/details.html

This has already been repeatedly noted, but please remember this is not Memorial Day weekend, but the weekend after that. In addition, this is not the same hotel as last year, but it is near it.

Short numbers: 192-team base field, 10 guaranteed rounds on Saturday, double-elimination playoffs, no overflow hotel required.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:52 am
by rhentzel
NAQT typically makes its announcements with "pleasure," but, in this case, it's really nothing but embarrassment.

I wanted to take this opportunity to apologize to PACE and the high school quiz bowl community at large for the confusion with dates that surrounded the initial announcement and to thank them for understanding the problems we faced in moving our tournament and being willing to shift their own. All of us at NAQT appreciate the flexibility and sense of community that was shown.

I hope nobody would think otherwise, but this was an honest mistake on NAQT's part, not an attempt to steal somebody else's date. We are very glad that teams will not have to make a choice in 2009.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:58 am
by rhentzel
The biggest question that we got asked last year was why we changed hotels away from the Crowne Plaza to the Wyndham, so I wanted to address the analogous question here.

The basic answer is that, even at the Wyndham, our increasing field size made it necessary to play a lot of games in converted hotel rooms that, while serviceable, really didn't reflect our sense of what was an appropriate venue for a national championship. They also made it difficult to accommodate audiences.

The Hyatt Regency O'Hare can offer us 34 real game rooms and 30 additional suites or parlors (large rooms without beds or dressers normally used for meetings), which will mean that no game will have to be played in a converted, regular hotel room. It is also large enough to accommodate the entire tournament and every sleeping room associated with it under one roof, which will be nice.

If anybody has any other questions about the change, please don't hesitate to ask us at [email protected].

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:35 am
by JackGlerum
we have graduation booooooo

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:51 am
by BuzzerZen
rhentzel wrote:The Hyatt Regency O'Hare can offer us 34 real game rooms and 30 additional suites or parlors (large rooms without beds or dressers normally used for meetings), which will mean that no game will have to be played in a converted, regular hotel room.
Huzzah!

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:08 pm
by Mechanical Beasts
rhentzel wrote:The Hyatt Regency O'Hare can offer us 34 real game rooms and 30 additional suites or parlors (large rooms without beds or dressers normally used for meetings), which will mean that no game will have to be played in a converted, regular hotel room.
So if 64 games happen at once, and you need 1920/2 = 960 total games, so there'll be five byes this year? Not bad for being able to avoid the sweaty hell that is those hallways. I approve heartily.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 2:25 pm
by Auroni
man this is going to be infinitely better.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:26 pm
by naturalistic phallacy
Zune Mythology wrote:
rhentzel wrote:The Hyatt Regency O'Hare can offer us 34 real game rooms and 30 additional suites or parlors (large rooms without beds or dressers normally used for meetings), which will mean that no game will have to be played in a converted, regular hotel room.
Huzzah!
Thank you, R. This will make situations infinitely less awkward for all involved.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:52 pm
by btressler
rhentzel wrote:Short numbers: 192-team base field, 10 guaranteed rounds on Saturday, double-elimination playoffs, no overflow hotel required.
Will this be the format used last year where you have to go 7-3 to be able to take two losses on Sunday?

Also, is there any way to reduce the number of byes on Sunday? We byed twice in early playoff rounds (15 and 18), which didn't feel right considering some teams only got to actually play one.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 3:59 pm
by rhentzel
everyday847 wrote:
rhentzel wrote:The Hyatt Regency O'Hare can offer us 34 real game rooms and 30 additional suites or parlors (large rooms without beds or dressers normally used for meetings), which will mean that no game will have to be played in a converted, regular hotel room.
So if 64 games happen at once, and you need 1920/2 = 960 total games, so there'll be five byes this year? Not bad for being able to avoid the sweaty hell that is those hallways. I approve heartily.
Yes, that is correct.

The hotel still has hallways, of course, but there are *very* large, central areas where teams can gather during their byes and the hallways by the rooms that we are using are actually open on one side (looking out over a central atrium) so there will be lots of air flow.

I'm looking forward to the new site; I'm sure that it won't be perfect in every respect, but I think it will help with the "cramped room and funky hallway" syndrome of the past.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 4:08 pm
by rhentzel
Bad Boy Bill wrote:
rhentzel wrote:Short numbers: 192-team base field, 10 guaranteed rounds on Saturday, double-elimination playoffs, no overflow hotel required.
Will this be the format used last year where you have to go 7-3 to be able to take two losses on Sunday?

Also, is there any way to reduce the number of byes on Sunday? We byed twice in early playoff rounds (15 and 18), which didn't feel right considering some teams only got to actually play one.
NAQT hasn't specifically chosen a format, but we were happy with how last year's worked, so that's probably what will happen. We welcome suggestions from the community as to ways in which it could be improved.

The number and structure of the byes last year was necessary to be able to use a card system; we decided that the speed and convenience of the card system outweighed the fact that slightly fewer games were played overall (though that wasn't an easy decision). I think we would revisit that given enough feedback preferring the opposite choice, but I was very pleased with the smoothness of this year's playoffs and I credit the use of the card system with much of that.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:02 pm
by Ike
NAQT hasn't specifically chosen a format, but we were happy with how last year's worked, so that's probably what will happen. We welcome suggestions from the community as to ways in which it could be improved.
I think some of the qualifications for things into the playoffs can be changed a bit. Namely, that all 5-5 schools should be allowed into the playoffs if they have a higher average pp20tuh and/or points per a bonus then the lowest scoring 6-4 team, or something similar to this, because it appears to be a "luck of the draw" for that lowest scoring 6-4 team, while the other 5-5 teams get hosed. The same can also apply 6-4 teams against the lowest scoring 7-3 teams, in terms of starting out with a single loss. This might call for the addition of more rounds, but it is less i think then just having pure double elimination, andit does make things more fair in terms of starting out with a single loss, and in some ways even more fair then the old system by giving 5-5 teams that would be in the playoffs a shot.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 8:06 pm
by Tegan
rhentzel wrote:NAQT is pleased to formally announce that the 2009 High School National Championship Tournament will take place <sic> at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare in Chicago.
So .... the entrance fee would have to be about ..... the GNP of Malaysia to enter.
Seriously, that is one sweet facility.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:11 pm
by btressler
Ike wrote:I think some of the qualifications for things into the playoffs can be changed a bit. Namely, that all 5-5 schools should be allowed into the playoffs if they have a higher average pp20tuh and/or points per a bonus then the lowest scoring 6-4 team, or something similar to this, because it appears to be a "luck of the draw" for that lowest scoring 6-4 team, while the other 5-5 teams get hosed. The same can also apply 6-4 teams against the lowest scoring 7-3 teams, in terms of starting out with a single loss. This might call for the addition of more rounds, but it is less i think then just having pure double elimination, andit does make things more fair in terms of starting out with a single loss, and in some ways even more fair then the old system by giving 5-5 teams that would be in the playoffs a shot.
With the field expanding to 192, I suspect extending the playoffs to include 5-5 teams is going to make the tournament too long. (Maybe down the road we could have a 3-day event?)

But this point is well taken. I felt that Charter B was the victim of the "winning too early" syndrome. They started 5-2, and then played three decent teams, lost them all, and didn't clear the field. (Disclaimer: they also did not play well in the one of those three I saw.) After taking Dorman A to the last tossup, this was a tragic end to their tournament. And like the 8 above them, they had plenty more points than some 6-4s, including Charter C who made it by starting 4-4 and then winning the last two.

Compare against this: http://www.naqt.com/hsnct/2005/results/stats.html

2005 was the last year in which rounds 9 and 10 were manually paired on the fly. Yes, this took an extra 20-30 minutes between rounds. But in the end the difference between the lowest 6-4 and top 5-5 is not as drastic.

I don't think we can go back to that due to the doubling of the tournament size since then. So almost every year we are going to have very strong 5-5s that could have beaten the lowest 6-4s.

The same is also somewhat true at the next jump: two different years Charter was a high 6-4 and beat a 7-3 in the first playoff.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 9:45 pm
by Mechanical Beasts
Ike wrote:
NAQT hasn't specifically chosen a format, but we were happy with how last year's worked, so that's probably what will happen. We welcome suggestions from the community as to ways in which it could be improved.
I think some of the qualifications for things into the playoffs can be changed a bit. Namely, that all 5-5 schools should be allowed into the playoffs if they have a higher average pp20tuh and/or points per a bonus then the lowest scoring 6-4 team, or something similar to this, because it appears to be a "luck of the draw" for that lowest scoring 6-4 team, while the other 5-5 teams get hosed. The same can also apply 6-4 teams against the lowest scoring 7-3 teams, in terms of starting out with a single loss. This might call for the addition of more rounds, but it is less i think then just having pure double elimination, andit does make things more fair in terms of starting out with a single loss, and in some ways even more fair then the old system by giving 5-5 teams that would be in the playoffs a shot.
You (and Bill combined) make a good point, that there are 5-5 teams that are better than the 6-4 teams that make the playoffs. But pp20h is not the way to solve the problem. If both teams went, say, WLWLWLWLW for their first nine games, then their ability to beat a fellow 5-4 team in game nine should be taken as good enough evidence to distinguish. If one team went LLLLLWWWW and another went WWWWWWLLLL, then the first team, at 5-5, might very well have higher pp20h because it got to play weaker teams. So though it's likely (inevitable!) that some 5-5s and probably 4-6s deserve the playoffs above some 6-4s and maybe 7-3s, there's no way to use pp20h to solve it.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:16 pm
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
I don't think such a thing is required. The main goal of the playoffs in the tournament is to use them to crown the best team in the nation, and by NAQT taking all the 6-4 teams they are taking every possible team in contention for the title, and then a whole lot more to ensure a buffer (because let's face it, usually 10 teams at most have a real shot of winning nationals, and it's more often something like 2). If you were unable to have a winning record in the prelims, while I do sympathize that many of those teams might be as good as teams who make the playoffs, that still doesn't mean any of those teams are contending for the title, and their not making hte playoffs doesn't matter as much. So no, I don't see any reason to expand the playoffs further, and thing going 6-4 is a perfectly fine cutoff point.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 10:31 pm
by Ike
Point taken Charlie, but I think a lot of teams also want to see how deep they can go into the playoffs.

Now, not to point them out or anything, but Kellenberg went pretty deep into the tournament given their 6-4 record. Who knows what could have happened had they been given another a token for a loss; now we could spend the day speculating, but if a 6-4 team made it that deep...with one loss, and there are teams that made it that far from the 6-4 swath, and we have conceded some 5-5 teams should be in the playoffs, then I think some of those 5-5 teams need to be in there.

Watkins, you do bring up a good point and I have not thought about that. Would points per a bonus be more fair? Its independent of the teams that you are playing against.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:39 pm
by AKKOLADE
What about the teams that go 4-6 and outscore 5-5 teams?!?

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:20 am
by Stained Diviner
For one thing, if you are going to base advancement on PPG rather than wins and losses, then you need to allow teams to challenge everything that they thought went wrong in a match regardless of whether or not it affected who won and who lost, since those ten or twenty points could decide who goes on and who doesn't.

For another thing, a 6-4 team could win a few playoff games last year because they started off in the loser bracket. If it had been last year's (to clarify, last year's=2007's) system, Kellenberg would have played very strong teams until it lost its first match rather than other 6-4 teams and teams that lost their first or second matches on Sunday. In other words, it is unlikely that they would have gone farther than they did.

Deesy and everyday also gave good reasons why advancing 5-5 teams is a bad idea. The fact that a couple of 5-5 teams could make an argument that they are really among the top 60 teams, and possibly with a little imagination among the top 50 teams, just isn't that compelling. Losing has consequences, and the most obvious consequence is that it prevents you from winning the tournament in which the losses occur.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:34 am
by The Atom Strikes!
Perhaps an improvement of the card system would be more valuable than creation of a longer playoff round?

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:49 am
by ... and the chaos of Mexican modernity
I agree with Henry on the card system an improvement should be made. Overall i'm sure the system was confusing to some people and I was really confused by it.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:59 am
by ClemsonQB
Bakery, State, and Utopia wrote:I agree with Henry on the card system an improvement should be made. Overall i'm sure the system was confusing to some people and I was really confused by it.
You were confused by it when you attended which HSNCT? Like none of them?

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:05 am
by ... and the chaos of Mexican modernity
No the whole who played who confuses me like Card #2 vs Card#5 the winner gets card #2? I really don't understand this system used.

Edit: I know I hae never been to HSNCT and will be my first this year, but during the live coverage od HSNCT I looked at the scoreboard and saw the card system for future matches.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:19 am
by cdcarter
Bakery, State, and Utopia wrote:No the whole who played who confuses me like Card #2 vs Card#5 the winner gets card #2? I really don't understand this system used.

Edit: I know I hae never been to HSNCT and will be my first this year, but during the live coverage od HSNCT I looked at the scoreboard and saw the card system for future matches.
The card system is simple. You figured it out, which means it had to have been pretty simple. It has had issues in the past, and NAQT works to fix them, and NAQT will be working to fix them for next year as well.

The Minnesota tournament TOMCAT is generally run with a very large field, large enough for the system to be used and tested. It's a good system, and I would love to see all the kinks worked out of it.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:07 am
by Stained Diviner
Mr. Freeman wrote:Perhaps an improvement of the card system would be more valuable than creation of a longer playoff round?
What's the problem with it?

I thought there were a few minor quirks with it last year that could have been a little better, but there were not major problems. It was better last year than the year before, and 176 teams is not a great number to work with. 192 is a significantly better number, allowing teams to play somebody with the exact same record for the first six matches and a guarantee of no repeats for the first seven matches. Also, people should keep in mind that a change in the number of teams requires the details of the card system to be changed pretty much from scratch.

By my estimation, 192 teams would lead to expected values of 1 10-0 team, 1 9-1 team, 9 8-2 teams, 22 7-3 teams, and 39 6-4 teams. There would be 14 18 matches scheduled between teams with different records, and these numbers would change if the team with the lower record beat the team with the higher record in any of those matches. (Last year, there were a lot more than 14 18 such matches, because 176 teams does not work out as well.)

The trade-off with 6-4 teams starting without any losses is that it would add an extra round Sunday, which would mean that the tournament would end about a half hour later. Because the tournament will not be Memorial Day weekend, the end time will be more important.

Two things I would change from last year--make sure teams find out about the 6-4 teams starting with one loss earlier, since last year it wasn't announced until teams arrived at the tournament. Also, if you are going to use the NAQT rankings to determine matchups, then you should post team results and encourage teams to check their records--the Elo data currently on the NAQT website has errors and is incomplete--I sent an email with better data a couple of days ago, but that obviously was long after the data had been used to seed HSNCT. These problems are not major. With a 176-team tournament, it's amazing that there were as few problems as there were.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2008 9:29 am
by Mechanical Beasts
Ike wrote:Watkins, you do bring up a good point and I have not thought about that. Would points per a bonus be more fair? Its independent of the teams that you are playing against.
Potentially, but the worst teams (on tossups) have the most variable ppb. Realistically, I'm with Charlie: if you lose to five teams that are hypothetically your peers in the prelims, they're probably not all losses to the three or four strongest teams in the nation. You're probably not winning the championship. So, while if we had infinite time and endurance and questions, it'd be best to play a full round robin of best-of-three matches with a twenty-one game final, you just can't. So you make cuts, and I think this is a reasonable place to make them.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 8:52 am
by btressler
rhentzel wrote: NAQT hasn't specifically chosen a (playoff) format, but we were happy with how last year's worked, so that's probably what will happen. We welcome suggestions from the community as to ways in which it could be improved.
I have a suggestion and am interested in what people think:

The magic number to make it is now seven wins. All teams 7-3+ advance. However, if you go 6-4, you get one more chance in the first round on Sunday. Then all the 7-3+ and 7-4 teams play a double elimination tournament exactly as was done in 2006. This would only be one more round than was needed in 2005-2006. (And potentially no more than was needed in 2006 if the final doesn't go two games.)

Now everyone who made it to seven wins can take a loss on Sunday and not be out.

Using David's numbers, 33 teams will qualify on Saturday, and another 20 will make it through Sunday's first round. (If there are exactly 39 6-4s I guess the highest P20TH would bye in.) Though the top 11 teams won't even play until round 3 on Sunday, in future years if the tournament grows the number of byes would diminish.

Your thoughts?

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 11:37 am
by Stained Diviner
Two things working against that idea:
The numbers I gave are expectations. It's possible for both categories (7-3+ and 6-4) to have an even number of teams, or for one to be odd and the other to be even. In the last two years, NAQT has worked out its brackets based on the maximum number of teams making the playoffs, since it's very easy to turn teams into byes and very difficult to add extra matches, so their brackets will not be based on 33 & 39--they'll be based on numbers a little bit higher.

Another issue is the use of PPTH or PPB to determine something more important than seeding. Because protests affecting PPTH and PPB are not heard, you don't want to use those statistics any more than you have to.

If NAQT planned for 33 & 39 teams using cards, then they would only need to give first round byes to two teams, and they could continue giving at most two byes in each round for the entire day. After one round, they would have 17 & 36, so they could run the second playoff round with only bye.

Here's another option NAQT could consider for Sunday, or even for the last few rounds Saturday, if they trust the technology: They could put a computer in each room and have the results of each match submitted on the computer by the moderator. An algorithm could be used to figure out the next round's matches, and a message would be sent to each room telling each team where to go next. When NAQT used the results of each round to figure out matchups for the next round a few years ago, the process was slow because each scoresheet had to be walked to headquarters and typed into one computer there, match rooms were assigned manually because large contingents could not fit into many of the rooms, and pieces of paper had to be walked to a few central locations to be posted. Using a good algorithm, byes could be reduced (even the first round byes in the 33 & 39 scenario could be eliminated, because a computer algorithm, unlike the card system, could handle either scenario in the 7-3+ vs 6-4 team match, so there would only be byes when the total number of teams remaining was odd), and repeat matches could also be reduced if their algorithm checked for them and made adjustments. If the moderators entered the score and # of questions used, the algorithm could even reseed teams based on updated PPTHs.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 12:38 pm
by The Logic of Scientific Disco
Lime, Self and Society wrote: Here's another option NAQT could consider for Sunday, or even for the last few rounds Saturday, if they trust the technology: They could put a computer in each room and have the results of each match submitted on the computer by the moderator. An algorithm could be used to figure out the next round's matches, and a message would be sent to each room telling each team where to go next. When NAQT used the results of each round to figure out matchups for the next round a few years ago, the process was slow because each scoresheet had to be walked to headquarters and typed into one computer there, match rooms were assigned manually because large contingents could not fit into many of the rooms, and pieces of paper had to be walked to a few central locations to be posted. Using a good algorithm, byes could be reduced (even the first round byes in the 33 & 39 scenario could be eliminated, because a computer algorithm, unlike the card system, could handle either scenario in the 7-3+ vs 6-4 team match, so there would only be byes when the total number of teams remaining was odd), and repeat matches could also be reduced if their algorithm checked for them and made adjustments. If the moderators entered the score and # of questions used, the algorithm could even reseed teams based on updated PPTHs.
I've always wondered whether this is possible on such a grand scale as HSNCT, since it works great for MITBAT every year (we run real-time Swiss pairs with a computer in each room with exactly the system you describe). MITBAT has had about 24 teams each year, so it's probably not out of the question that that could work for NAQT, though getting a computer in each room would be hard...

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Sun Aug 24, 2008 2:02 pm
by btressler
Lime, Self and Society wrote:Two things working against that idea:
The numbers I gave are expectations. It's possible for both categories (7-3+ and 6-4) to have an even number of teams, or for one to be odd and the other to be even. In the last two years, NAQT has worked out its brackets based on the maximum number of teams making the playoffs, since it's very easy to turn teams into byes and very difficult to add extra matches, so their brackets will not be based on 33 & 39--they'll be based on numbers a little bit higher.

Another issue is the use of PPTH or PPB to determine something more important than seeding. Because protests affecting PPTH and PPB are not heard, you don't want to use those statistics any more than you have to.

If NAQT planned for 33 & 39 teams using cards, then they would only need to give first round byes to two teams, and they could continue giving at most two byes in each round for the entire day. After one round, they would have 17 & 36, so they could run the second playoff round with only bye.
I think I need these criticisms clarified. My suggestion works for just about any number of teams finishing in each category. I can't imagine that with 192 teams that 1 * (7-3+ teams) + 0.5 * (6-4 teams) would be greater than 64.

I also am not advocating use of PPTH any more than for seeding, with the exception of when there is an odd number of 6-4 teams. And that's only one team maximum.

Also, how you are thinking about brackets and how NAQT implemented them are different. I think 30 teams had 7+ wins last year. I too thought they'd give two byes to get the winners bracket to 16. Instead they gave like ten byes, because Charter was the 5 seed and we didn't play round 15.

I'm with you on there being less byes than more. But since there seems to be a lot under the current system, my suggestion's intent is to give the second loss back to everyone who makes the playoff.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:25 am
by Stained Diviner
My bad, BBB. I initially critiqued your proposal without reading it carefully, which was foolish on my part.

Now that I've looked at it, I think that it takes the same number of playoff rounds that would be used by the 2007 system with the increased number of teams. In other words, having more than 64 playoff teams creates the following choices:
1) Keep the old system, which involves everybody being allowed to lose one match, and play an extra round
2) Keep the basic format of the old system but take away the margin for error of the 6-4 teams, keeping the number of rounds the same
3) Your system, which has the extra round like Option #1 (counting your extra chance round as a round), a lot of early-round byes (which is just teams sitting out the extra chance round, since the second round byes you assume are actually unnecessary), and high-stakes play-in matches

While your proposal is logical, I don't think it's an ideal system. For one thing, it double weights the first round--one loss in the first round is as bad as two losses in other rounds. For another thing, lots of byes is a bad thing. I think that, if NAQT wants to add an extra round, it would be better for them to just go back to the old system than to go with the play-in round.
Also, how you are thinking about brackets and how NAQT implemented them are different. I think 30 teams had 7+ wins last year. I too thought they'd give two byes to get the winners bracket to 16. Instead they gave like ten byes, because Charter was the 5 seed and we didn't play round 15.
Keep in mind that the extra byes they gave were because they didn't know how many teams were going to go 7-3+ and 6-4. They prepared for the maximum number and then used byes to account for the difference between the maximum and reality. In other words, if you were scheduled to play the 31st best 7-3+ team, and there were only 30 7-3+ teams, then you got a bye. If they knew there were going to be 30 teams, then they could have played the first round without any byes and given one bye in the second round.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:29 pm
by Terrible Shorts Depot
I love Mr. Tressler's idea to give everyone two losses, because, basically, playing is better than not playing. However, I think it could end up being a little bit unwieldy, but that would only be a worst case scenario and it would require some gross human error. Would that be feasible, Mr. Hentzel?

The idea of real-timing the Swiss pairs is, in theory, fantastic. The only problem is that technology is very fickle, but there have to be enough CS majors floating around NAQT to figure it out. You would have to be absolutely certain that it would work before you tried it on 192 teams, though.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 8:41 pm
by ... and the chaos of Mexican modernity
Just out of curiosity. According to the field update, State College has not registered for the HSNCT. I was hoping Ben or Graham can answer why they have'nt?

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:11 pm
by Tower Monarch
Bakery, State, and Utopia wrote:Just out of curiosity. According to the field update, State College has not registered for the HSNCT. I was hoping Ben or Graham can answer why they have'nt?
A quick scan also reveals the absence of Maggie Walker and Walter Johnson. Maybe these teams have not heard that Zach Foster, "Noted Video Gamer" of noted other school not registered yet, has assigned a schedule they must follow. Also, they are likely busy with Weekend of Quizbowl, that tournament you asked about way in advance then initially scheduled your own tournament for...

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:28 pm
by Mechanical Beasts
Bakery, State, and Utopia wrote:Just out of curiosity. According to the field update, State College has not registered for the HSNCT. I was hoping Ben or Graham can answer why they have'nt?
They will be plotting insurrection against Tyrant Rendell with me and Barry Liu.

Duh.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:36 pm
by ... and the chaos of Mexican modernity
Tower Monarch wrote:
Bakery, State, and Utopia wrote:Just out of curiosity. According to the field update, State College has not registered for the HSNCT. I was hoping Ben or Graham can answer why they have'nt?
A quick scan also reveals the absence of Maggie Walker and Walter Johnson. Maybe these teams have not heard that Zach Foster, "Noted Video Gamer" of noted other school not registered yet /

I don't know if you mean to say my team is not registered but according to the field update, North Myrtle Beach is registered.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:41 pm
by Terrible Shorts Depot
everyday847 wrote:
Bakery, State, and Utopia wrote:Just out of curiosity. According to the field update, State College has not registered for the HSNCT. I was hoping Ben or Graham can answer why they have'nt?
They will be plotting insurrection against Tyrant Rendell with me and Barry Liu.

Duh.
Can I get in on this?

Content: We've got 3 months to the tournament. No need to go nuts over the absence of anyone.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:47 pm
by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Yeah, posting wondering why some teams aren't registered is really silly.

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:49 pm
by Ondes Martenot
A little off topic, but last year some teams said they were considering not returning to HSNCT. Is there any truth to this?

Re: 2009 NAQT HSNCT

Posted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:03 pm
by at your pleasure
A little off topic, but last year some teams said they were considering not returning to HSNCT. Is there any truth to this?
I have no clue, but my best guess is that there was a conflict with prom( I know that's our biggest problem HSNCT-wise).