The Quizbowl Resource Center

Hello everyone,

It’s that time of year again! Michigan Academic Competitions is pleased to invite your team to the 2009 Autumn Classic on Saturday, December 5, 2009, at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Since 1995, Michigan Academic Competitions has hosted numerous tournaments for high schools throughout the state of Michigan. We continue this tradition in this year’s Autumn Classic, where we hope to draw some of the finest schools from the region and beyond.

This event will be run with questions provided by NAQT (IS–90). Teams entering the 2009 Autumn Classic will be able to qualify for the 2010 NAQT High School Championship.

OVERVIEW

Matches will consist of two nine-minute halves. In each half, the moderator reads questions until either time runs out or all 24 questions are exhausted. Players who answer correctly receive a bonus for their team worth up to 30 points. Questions come from all areas: science, math, history and government, literature, current events, geography, popular culture, fine arts, sports, mythology and religion, social science, and general knowledge. Academic knowledge is emphasized heavily.

We guarantee each team a minimum of six matches. The preliminary rounds will take the form of a pooled round robin to ensure that all teams have an opportunity to play against teams of equal skill. Top teams will play additional matches head-to-head to determine the tournament champion. Our goal is to maximize the number of matches each team plays. We will do our best to keep teams from the same school from playing each other in the preliminary rounds.

This tournament follows NAQT rules, which can be found in full at http://naqt.com/rules.html.

Schedule & Location

Registration begins at 8:15 a.m. There will be a mandatory meeting for players and coaches at 8:45 a.m. Rounds will start at 9:00 a.m. and continue through the morning and early afternoon with a lunch break around 1:00 p.m. Playoff rounds will follow, along with an awards ceremony at the end. The tournament should finish no later than 6:00 p.m.

The tournament will be held at Mason Hall on the University of Michigan’s Central Campus, just like in years past. More specifics on this will be sent out as the tournament date approaches.

REGISTRATION

Deadline: 5:00 p.m. Friday, November 20, 2009.

Registration for this event will be limited to 32 teams. We will accept teams on a first-come, first-served basis until the registration deadline. The first 32 teams to register are guaranteed slots; any teams who register after that will be place on the wait list.

Schools will initially be limited to two teams. Third teams and beyond will be placed on a separate wait list, also first-come, first-served, which will be used to complete the tournament field after registration closes. Teams may consist of any number of players, but only four may play at once. It is our hope, however, that every student who participates in the tournament gets a fair share of playing time.

To register, send an e-mail to [email protected] that includes the following information. (Note: Do not use the obsolete registration forms from our website.)

• Your name
• Your school
• Number of teams
• Number of buzzer systems you can bring
• Contact phone number
• Answers to the survey below

You will not be officially registered until you provide all of this information.

Survey

This is a survey of your preferences on tournament layout, and your opportunity to help us decide how the tournament is structured. For both questions, please talk with your teams about their preferences, and if teams and coaches have different opinions, please describe both.

1. The Autumn Classic playoffs have been run in the past as a single elimination tournament, with the top half of the field reaching the playoffs. Many tournaments have recently switched to other formats which allow teams to play more games. We know that some teams would like to play as many games as possible, but others want to leave immediately after lunch. Which of the following playoff formats appeal to you? Do you have any other suggestions? Multiple answers are fine, and please explain your choices.

a. Single elimination, as done in the past
b. Double elimination, which could more fairly determine a champion but takes extra rounds and allows teams eliminated from contention to leave.
c. Playoff brackets, where the top teams play each other in a round robin to determine a champion or reach a final
i) If you prefer these playoff brackets, should the teams in contention be cut to 8? 16?
ii) If your team was in a playoff bracket and lost the first couple of rounds, leaving you unlikely to be in title contention, would you leave?
d. Playoff brackets for all teams, with teams playing other teams with similar records from the prelims
e. I don’t care, any playoff

2. NAQT has discussed offering sets in which the computational math is replaced with other questions. The other questions in these sets would be identical to those in the normal IS set, and there would be more theoretical math questions included. If we have the option to choose between a set with or without computational math questions, which would you and your team prefer?

FEE

The fee for 2009 Autumn Classic is as follows.

First team from your school: $90
Additional team: $70

For US high schools, $ is USD. For Canadian high schools, $ is your choice of CAD or USD.

Discounts

You are eligible for a discount if you

Bring a fully functional buzzer system (limit two per school): –$10 each
Register by 5:00 p.m., November 13: –$10 per team
Are new to this tournament (have not participated in at least two years): –$10 per team
Travel a long distance, 100–275 miles: –$10 per team
Travel an extreme distance, over 275 miles: –$50 per team

Your distance will be determined based on the one way distance from your school to the tournament site according to maps.google.com. Discounts cannot reduce your fee total below $0.

Payment

Payment should be in the form of a check made out to ‹Michigan Academic Competitions›. We prefer you to bring it to the tournament and hand it to us at registration. Alternatively, you may mail the check to

Michigan Academic Competitions
c/o University Activities Center
4002 Michigan Union
530 S. State St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

FINAL INSTRUCTIONS

Once we receive your registration, we will send you an email showing your calculated fee. If you find an error in the calculated fee or you do not receive this email promptly, please email us immediately. Once we receive your school’s entry, we will send you a confirmation notice, tournament rules, area maps and directions, and other information to help you on tournament day. Check on our website for a Frequently Asked Questions that may answers some questions you have about the tournament (http://www.umich.edu/~uac/mac/).

If you have any questions about the tournament, feel free to contact us by e-mail at [email protected].

We look forward to seeing you on December 5!

Best regards,

Phil Guan
Tournament Director
Michigan Academic Competitions

MORE UPDATED POST IS BELOW. PAY ATTENTION TO THAT ONE!

This space is reserved for field updates.

Interested (but we still need registration info)
GPN (2)

Current field:
Culver (2)
Sand Creek (2)
Troy (2)
Huron (New Boston)
Dorman
Chattahoochee
DCC (2)
Brighton (2)
Hartland
Novi (2)
DCDS
Utica
Chelsea
Saline
West Bloomfield (2)

Waiting list:
Brighton (third team)

DCDS is most likely interested in this tournament, so could you please sign us up as interested, though not completely sure as to whether we are going.

Wow Dorman and Chattahoochee are interested in going. That would be the first time they came to this tournament in a while.

Yes, we are going - just haven't sent in the registration form yet. We always try to attend at least one tournament outside the SE in the fall or spring before Nationals and this one fit best for us and our schedule. We look forward to playing many teams that we rarely, if ever, get to compete against. Plus, Ann Arbor is a really cool town.

Bump for field update. We are now over half full.

Can you give a preliminary schedule for this tournament so far?

We will presumably divide into groups of 8 and have a round robin, then go to playoffs. The playoff structure is not determined at all right now. In answers to our survey, I think we have had just about everything at least once. Answers have ranged from "anything" to "double elim" to "playoff brackets for everyone" to "playoff brackets for everyone, but we would leave once out of contention for the title." That last one really confused me.
I think double elimination is the most popular answer at the moment, but it is also the least efficient playoff format. We'll send out something once we have a final plan.

squareroot165 wrote:We will presumably divide into groups of 8 and have a round robin, then go to playoffs. The playoff structure is not determined at all right now. In answers to our survey, I think we have had just about everything at least once. Answers have ranged from "anything" to "double elim" to "playoff brackets for everyone" to "playoff brackets for everyone, but we would leave once out of contention for the title." That last one really confused me.
I think double elimination is the most popular answer at the moment, but it is also the least efficient playoff format. We'll send out something once we have a final plan.

Not that it matters, but my preference would be double elimination as well. Often times, good teams get eliminated based off sometimes when it seemed to be a fluke, and I feel the double elimination would correct it. Granted, I know that it will be like needing to read like 13, 14, or 15 packets, but I do feel that in the longrun, it will be good that more teams can hear more questions.

Since we are traveling so far, whatever option gives us the most games possible while still finishing at a reasonable hour is the one we would prefer. I guess double elimination would be the closest to the actual HSNCT - not that we have to follow that format to the letter. I think 8+ rounds done by 6pm would be ideal.

RountreeCHS wrote:Since we are traveling so far, whatever option gives us the most games possible while still finishing at a reasonable hour is the one we would prefer. I guess double elimination would be the closest to the actual HSNCT - not that we have to follow that format to the letter. I think 8+ rounds done by 6pm would be ideal.

Last year, I remember we got done with 11 packets by 4:30 I believe, so if it holds, we should be able to have more than 8 by six.

11 rounds before 5pm - that would be fantastic! We are really excited about going to this tournament.

Hi everyone,

UPDATE The field is set at 32 teams and is full. Unfortunately, we are not able to 36 teams due to packet limitations and player preferences.

Registry
Culver (2)
Catholic Central (2)
Dorman (2)
Sand Creek (2)
Troy (2)
Huron
Chattahoochee
Brighton (2)
Hartland
Novi (2)
Country Day
Utica Academy
Chelsea
Saline
West Bloomfield
Ottawa Hills (2)
Thurston (2)
Kalamazoo
Jackson (2)
Rochester
Grosse Point North
Farmington

Wait List
Quincy
DeWitt (2)
Country Day, additional team

Best regards,

Thanks to everyone for coming.
Dorman A won the tournament after defeating Detroit Country Day two out of three times in a double elimination playoff. Detroit Catholic Central A was third; Dorman B and Catholic Central B were fourth.
I have team stats finished; I'll have individuals inputted in the next couple of days.

For now, here are the team stats for prelims and combined playoffs and prelims, with playoff teams listed.

I'll get things into a better format when I get individual stats entered.

Thanks for running an excellent tournament, and being able to pull off 15 rounds by 6 p.m. That is pretty impressive.

Note of this tournament: Dorman A getting TWELVE Powers against DCD in the first of three matches against DCD. That is quite impressive to say the least.

Playoff stats here.
Full prelims will be up tomorrow or the day after.

How did the playoffs work?

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:How did the playoffs work?

It was double elimination.

Basically, there was a losers' bracket and a winners' bracket. Dorman A and DCD were the last two remaining in the winners' bracket. Dorman A thumped DCD 685-160 which caused DCD to fall to the losers' bracket. Dorman A had two byes because they won the winners' bracket. DCD had to play two more games in the losers' bracket. Then since DCD won the losers' bracket, there was an Advantaged Final, with Dorman having the Advantage. In Round 14, DCD beat Dorman A 560-300, erasing Dorman A's advangtage; Round 15 saw Dorman A beat DCD 500-345, and hence Dorman A were the winners.

So, DCD ended up playing all the NAQT Packets for IS 90.

AlphaQuizBowler wrote:How did the playoffs work?

Well, Neil beat me to it, but:
Double elimination. We asked teams what they preferred between double elimination, single elimination, and playoff brackets, and double elimination won in a landslide.

We had a good time. Thanks to the Michigan team for putting together such a well-run tournament. I absolutely loved the timed, HSNCT format. We wish there were more tournaments (much closer ) that used the same format. Of course, it requires having good readers who really know what they are doing to pull it off. Luckily, y'all had that. We heard, on average 18-20 tossups per game, with the low being 15 tossups in one round and the high being all 24 tossups in another round. The playoff format was also great. Again, thanks for hosting.

I couldn't agree more. This was an excellently run tournament; we had the opportunity to hear all 15 packets and do it with virtually no delays. This is easily the most efficient tournament that we've been to all year.

We were really impressed with the caliber of teams we saw, especially DCC and DCD. Excellent job, and we hope to get a chance to face off again.

Ok, here are full prelim stats.
Playoff stats are still here.

Neil, that is really, really, impressive.

squareroot165 wrote:Ok, here are full prelim stats.
Playoff stats are still here.

Neil, that is really, really, impressive.

9/9/1 in one game...I don't want to be a fanboy, but is that some kind of record?

Journey to the Planets wrote:

squareroot165 wrote:Ok, here are full prelim stats.
Playoff stats are still here.

Neil, that is really, really, impressive.

9/9/1 in one game...I don't want to be a fanboy, but is that some kind of record?

From what i can remember from the NAQT stats records online (they're broken now for some reason), i think it might be.

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:

Journey to the Planets wrote:

squareroot165 wrote:Ok, here are full prelim stats.
Playoff stats are still here.

Neil, that is really, really, impressive.

9/9/1 in one game...I don't want to be a fanboy, but is that some kind of record?

From what i can remember from the NAQT stats records online (they're broken now for some reason), i think it might be.

If my post from a year ago is to believed, Ike Jose's 5-13-0 at Solon was the old record. So, since 220 is greater than 205, I would say this is the record.

Did Ike hear 20 or 24 tossups at Solon? Neil heard 24 in his 9/9/1 round.

gyre and gimble wrote:Did Ike hear 20 or 24 tossups at Solon? Neil heard 24 in his 9/9/1 round.

We use timed rounds, so I have no idea (plus I don't have stats, so... ).

According to the NAQT website, that round had 20 tossups read.

quantumfootball wrote:According to the NAQT website, that round had 20 tossups read.

I'm sorry to intrude in this conversation, but I found that according to this http://www.naqt.com/stats/team-performa ... m_id=11192 the number of questions in the round would have to be at least 22. We would never know how many questions exactly were asked in that round.

It really doesn't matter though in my opinion. Stats are just used mainly for entertainment purposes; don't really foretell how a person will do in the future all that well.

master15625 wrote:

quantumfootball wrote:According to the NAQT website, that round had 20 tossups read.

I'm sorry to intrude in this conversation, but I found that according to this http://www.naqt.com/stats/team-performa ... m_id=11192 the number of questions in the round would have to be at least 22. We would never know how many questions exactly were asked in that round.

It really doesn't matter though in my opinion. Stats are just used mainly for entertainment purposes; don't really foretell how a person will do in the future all that well.

Neil, you buzzed in on 19/20 questions, and got 9 of them in power. They may not foretell how well you'll do exactly, but they do tell us that you're pretty good. That's one hell of a stat line. Good job!

Getting 15 points on NAQT tossups, i've always thought, is harder than on any other sets we see all year (HSAPQ or house-writes) because they questions tend to be shorter, clues tend to be weirder/more vague in the first line or two, and NAQT is very good at placing power marks at the right spot just before a knowable middle clue for many players. Getting nine 15s in one round (and nine others!) is ridonkulous.

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:NAQT is very good at placing power marks at the right spot just before a knowable middle clue for many players.

This is our intent; glad to hear we're doing a good job.

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:clues tend to be weirder/more vague in the first line or two

This, however, is not. Examples from history/geography welcome by email (and other categories too, but of course judgment of those clues as weird/vague I would refer to our other writers/editors).

bt_green_warbler wrote:

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:clues tend to be weirder/more vague in the first line or two

This, however, is not. Examples from history/geography welcome by email (and other categories too, but of course judgment of those clues as weird/vague I would refer to our other writers/editors).

I think that was just a generalization. NAQT's earlier clues are definitely more interesting and weirder than other formats. I really enjoy that aspect of NAQT, learning an interesting new fact about something. I'd cite an example from IS-88, but I don't think I'm allowed.

Okie, i'll see what i can find, Jeff, in the recent sets we've seen (only heard IS86 this year so far).

But yes, i will say NAQT really is great at those power marks. I can't tell you how many times i say "missed it by one word" to Trey in practice on old NAQT sets.

Inkana7 wrote:NAQT's earlier clues are definitely more interesting and weirder than other formats. I really enjoy that aspect of NAQT, learning an interesting new fact about something. I'd cite an example from IS-88, but I don't think I'm allowed.

Email me if you'd like to talk about this year's sets. Alternatively, please feel free to cite examples from last year's.

More interesting is obviously good. Vague is obviously bad. Weird? I'd have to see some examples.

Inkana7 wrote:

master15625 wrote:

quantumfootball wrote:According to the NAQT website, that round had 20 tossups read.

I'm sorry to intrude in this conversation, but I found that according to this http://www.naqt.com/stats/team-performa ... m_id=11192 the number of questions in the round would have to be at least 22. We would never know how many questions exactly were asked in that round.

It really doesn't matter though in my opinion. Stats are just used mainly for entertainment purposes; don't really foretell how a person will do in the future all that well.

Neil, you buzzed in on 19/20 questions, and got 9 of them in power. They may not foretell how well you'll do exactly, but they do tell us that you're pretty good. That's one hell of a stat line. Good job!

This wasn't a 20 question round, it was a timed round. There were more than 20 correct answers given, and Michigan always runs timed NAQT tournaments.

nalin wrote:

Inkana7 wrote:

master15625 wrote:

quantumfootball wrote:According to the NAQT website, that round had 20 tossups read.

I'm sorry to intrude in this conversation, but I found that according to this http://www.naqt.com/stats/team-performa ... m_id=11192 the number of questions in the round would have to be at least 22. We would never know how many questions exactly were asked in that round.

It really doesn't matter though in my opinion. Stats are just used mainly for entertainment purposes; don't really foretell how a person will do in the future all that well.

Neil, you buzzed in on 19/20 questions, and got 9 of them in power. They may not foretell how well you'll do exactly, but they do tell us that you're pretty good. That's one hell of a stat line. Good job!

This wasn't a 20 question round, it was a timed round. There were more than 20 correct answers given, and Michigan always runs timed NAQT tournaments.

More specifically, they went through all 24 questions that round.

Dr. Isaac Yankem, DDS wrote:Getting 15 points on NAQT tossups, i've always thought, is harder than on any other sets we see all year (HSAPQ or house-writes) because they questions tend to be shorter, clues tend to be weirder/more vague in the first line or two, and NAQT is very good at placing power marks at the right spot just before a knowable middle clue for many players. Getting nine 15s in one round (and nine others!) is ridonkulous.

This seems partly why I feel like NAQT is a harder format for me. I felt it was easier to power when reading through HSAPQ ACF#3 than on older NAQT sets.

Since I haven't said it yet, congrats to Neil for his outstanding performance. 9/9/1 is just incredible, but so is the total number of powers he put up by himself that day.