I don't think this is completely fair. I will state that I do agree with you, I would rather go to a NAQT tournament than a QU tournament. But isn't this a sort of false dichotomy? I think if you can get a team away from Chip for NAQT, it's not a huge stretch to assume you can get that team to come to a HSAPQ tournament with the same field.etchdulac wrote:Finally returning to the original issue: If you've really played enough NAQT sets to develop a general opinion about their quality, that's fine, though I don't know where Mr. Robinson has taken you that has used NAQT questions. The point is, we're still talking about getting schools like Klein away from tournaments with non-pyramidal questions to TQBA tournaments with pyramidal questions.klebian wrote:Has TQBA considered using HSAPQ questions for next year? Or are NAQT sets going to continue to be used? I ask because, from what I read, NAQT IS Sets generally suffer from a lack of quality, where as HSAPQ sets are pretty much universally lauded. Not sure if cost is an issue, though it does appear that NAQT sets are more expensive than HSAPQ sets; on the other hand, it is true that using NAQT sets would mean qualification to HSNCT whereas using HSAPQ sets would not.
Texas is not at the stage where NAQT vs. HSAPQ is the pressing issue, honestly. It's getting away from Chip format.
If your experience with NAQT and HSAPQ questions is limited to criticisms you read on this board, then please, come try NAQT questions out. They are superior to the main alternative you find in this state.
Again, I have played (a few years old) NAQT questions in practice with my team, and I have read NAQT packets. Simply by pyramidality, they are superior to Chip. But as you ask me to try NAQT, I ask you, in the same vein, to consider HSAPQ. I would assert, with similar confidence, that their questions are superior to most NAQT IS sets (from the questions i have seen and the comments I have read from others).
As to Chip, I think it is fair to say that at least in this part of Texas (El Paso notwithstanding), Chip is indeed dying out. Let's look at the field at the SHSU "championship" in April (which I believe you and I would agree runs QU and is pretty much the vestige of bad quizbowl left in this area, seeing as there are pretty much no other Chip tournaments):
Temple, St. John's, Mayde Creek, Taylor, YES Prep, and Klein Collins attended at least one TQBA tournament last year. Klein has obviously expressed interest to primarily attend TQBA tournaments next year. That leaves three teams who have not visibly responded to TQBA and did attend SHSU. I think this is pretty good evidence that Texas has made some progress away from QU questions. Why not, then, make the same progress away from NAQT questions if these questions are generally poorly-respected (and there are visible instances of complaints about the poor quality of IS packets on the forum, I can bring up some examples if you would like)?
A main problem is that this last year, four TQBA competitions were held before the state championship. Therefore the concept of having a "bunch of" tournaments of any time is overzealous. Though I above did try to indicate that attendance to QU tournaments is lessening here, it does seem that response to TQBA tournaments is similarly (though not as) tepid. Then again, the state championship did have 12 schools (and 16 teams) sign up, which is a reasonably large number. From the limited conversation I have had with my coach on the matter, and my own opinion, Klein would definitely be interested in hosting an HSAPQ tournament, added to the TQBA schedule. Perhaps this is the best solution.Jeremy Gibbs Free Energy wrote:I don't exactly understand why there can't be a bunch of NAQT tournaments that qualify for the HSNCT, and then a bunch of non-NAQT tournaments by HSAPQ to supplement them. The HSAPQ sets will still get teams bids to PACE Nationals, which, given the response from top teams this year, may be an even loftier tournament to win than the HSNCT, so that part of the argument I'm not sure holds up. Pretty much every other competitive circuit besides California seems to have a good number of NAQT sets so that people can get their nationals bids, and a good number of other sets as well. Also, the criticisms I've heard (and personally have) about IS sets from the last couple years are much more problematic than the criticisms I've heard about HSAPQ sets quality wise, so that part of the argument Pulak may have a point on. But, again, holding plenty of both would alleviate this problem. Pulak, would you ever consider having Klein host an HSAPQ tournament to add to the TQBA schedule? Getting that product out there might be a good step if you want to play more non-NAQT sets.
OK I agree that playing NAQT sets for at least a few TQBA events is probably worthwhile/necessary. But again, "first few tournaments" would work if the number of tournaments in Texas was comparable to those in other circuits (I acknowledge that I have minimal right to complain here considering that my school's lack of attendance did not help). Additionally, any argument that is being made here about NAQT questions being superior to QU is almost nullified if we consider "A" packets, which are extremely short and nothing compared to what I would call "real" pyramidal questions. Perhaps a good selection of question providers would be like so: one NAQT IS-A set, one NAQT IS set, and the rest HSAPQ sets, before the state championship, which would also be an NAQT IS set?Diocletian wrote:For what it is worth, I do think that we should continue to play NAQT sets in Texas for a couple of reasons:
1. They (especially A-packets) can help bring in teams from Chip (think St. Mark's this year). For the sake of good tournaments, however, I would limit such use of A-packets to maybe the first few tournaments of the year.
2. No matter the wildcard process, Mr. Fontenot is right to say that the best way to qualify for HSNCT is to play and do well on actual NAQT questions.
I do, however, feel that Texas would benefit at both nationals from the more academic focus brought by playing on HSAPQ questions, since this would allow teams to see their weaknesses and address them rather than have their egos propped up by easy questions only to be shot down by nationals level competition.