S-Q-B-SVienna summit wrote:An inherent problem with taft, that is; not a malfunction. Finish your programs, Evan Silberman.lchen wrote:a problem with the stats program
clap clap clapclapclap
S-Q-B-SVienna summit wrote:An inherent problem with taft, that is; not a malfunction. Finish your programs, Evan Silberman.lchen wrote:a problem with the stats program
It will but it won't be accurate. Standings up to round 10:etchdulac wrote:Will the scoreboard page continue to update?
Championship bracket standings after playoffs:Vienna summit wrote:LASA is a game up on St. Anselm's going into the advantaged final.
Is it the opinion of the editors that this set is significantly easier than last year's set?Carangoides ciliarius wrote:Wow.stats wrote:LASA 5 0 0 1.00 500.00 172.00 328.00 67 10 100 25.00 500.00 67 1880 28.06
I remember teams like Charter posting up pretty ridiculous numbers last year too. Also, this is the same LASA team that has managed to beat teams like the Gorman-led Rice at college tournaments, so maybe they are just that good.Ben Cole wrote:Is it the opinion of the editors that this set significantly easier than last year's set?Carangoides ciliarius wrote:Wow.stats wrote:LASA 5 0 0 1.00 500.00 172.00 328.00 67 10 100 25.00 500.00 67 1880 28.06
Well, yes, we did try to make it easier than last year's set. We were trying to write a regular difficulty set, since last year's was too difficult for many of the teams in our field.Ben Cole wrote:Is it the opinion of the editors that this set significantly easier than last year's set?Carangoides ciliarius wrote:Wow.stats wrote:LASA 5 0 0 1.00 500.00 172.00 328.00 67 10 100 25.00 500.00 67 1880 28.06
Well, i mean, there's only been three of them. The first was widely-regarded (by a fair amount of people) as too difficult, last year's was tougher than normal but nothing outrageous.Judy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:It did seem easier than the last two when we ran a mirror of it. It seems to be a trend that Prison Bowl sets are getting progressively easier, but that's just my opinion.
The first may have been a tad bit more difficult, but it was easily the worst grammatically. Last year's was a phenomenal High School set, though, and I really look forward to playing this year's set in practice once it's released.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:Well, i mean, there's only been three of them. The first was widely-regarded (by a fair amount of people) as too difficult, last year's was tougher than normal but nothing outrageous.Judy Sucks a Lemon for Breakfast wrote:It did seem easier than the last two when we ran a mirror of it. It seems to be a trend that Prison Bowl sets are getting progressively easier, but that's just my opinion.
What's even scarier is that LASA's 5th player won the scoring prize playing solo.wexs883198215 wrote:I remember teams like Charter posting up pretty ridiculous numbers last year too. Also, this is the same LASA team that has managed to beat teams like the Gorman-led Rice at college tournaments, so maybe they are just that good.Ben Cole wrote:Is it the opinion of the editors that this set significantly easier than last year's set?Carangoides ciliarius wrote:Wow.stats wrote:LASA 5 0 0 1.00 500.00 172.00 328.00 67 10 100 25.00 500.00 67 1880 28.06
Benji and Thomas are juniors. I'm positive that Shen is a senior.Jacopo Robusti wrote:Question: In what year of high school are each of LASA's current starters?
You're a really awesome player. A lot of bonuses are going to look "easy-easy-medium/hard" to you... lit for example, describing a book ("oh wow that's easy, duh"), describing its author ("oh jesus, how can you not 20 this?"), describing another book by that author ("huh, pretty sure i know this, that's not hard at all").Prof.Whoopie wrote:Not that this is a complaint, but yes, the set kinda did seem on the easy side, especially on bonuses. It seems that a lot of bonuses lacked a clear easy-medium-hard structure, often opting for easy-easy-medium/hard.This will be easier to elucidate when the set is clear somewhere close to the end of time. Or April. Whatever.
I mean, it's not the easiness he's talking about, per se. It was just hard, sometimes, to see which part was easy, which was middle, and which was hard: like, sometimes all three bonus parts would be about the same difficulty, other times they would all be hard to different degrees.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:You're a really awesome player. A lot of bonuses are going to look "easy-easy-medium/hard" to you... lit for example, describing a book ("oh wow that's easy, duh"), describing its author ("oh jesus, how can you not 20 this?"), describing another book by that author ("huh, pretty sure i know this, that's not hard at all").Prof.Whoopie wrote:Not that this is a complaint, but yes, the set kinda did seem on the easy side, especially on bonuses. It seems that a lot of bonuses lacked a clear easy-medium-hard structure, often opting for easy-easy-medium/hard.This will be easier to elucidate when the set is clear somewhere close to the end of time. Or April. Whatever.
I'm sure the set was of appropriate difficulty.
Well--though I'm not discounting your observation in itself; you could be right, and the effect I'm describing does not necessarily affect specific observations you might make--the former perception can also derive from being very good.Cantaloupe (disambiguation) wrote:I mean, it's not the easiness he's talking about, per se. It was just hard, sometimes, to see which part was easy, which was middle, and which was hard: like, sometimes all three bonus parts would be about the same difficulty, other times they would all be hard to different degrees.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:You're a really awesome player. A lot of bonuses are going to look "easy-easy-medium/hard" to you... lit for example, describing a book ("oh wow that's easy, duh"), describing its author ("oh jesus, how can you not 20 this?"), describing another book by that author ("huh, pretty sure i know this, that's not hard at all").Prof.Whoopie wrote:Not that this is a complaint, but yes, the set kinda did seem on the easy side, especially on bonuses. It seems that a lot of bonuses lacked a clear easy-medium-hard structure, often opting for easy-easy-medium/hard.This will be easier to elucidate when the set is clear somewhere close to the end of time. Or April. Whatever.
I'm sure the set was of appropriate difficulty.
Let's just say that i trust the editors of this set tremendously, moreso than in the past. If there any any bonus fluctuations in difficulty, though, i hope those are altered/fixed before its subsequent mirrors.Crazy Andy Watkins wrote:Well--though I'm not discounting your observation in itself; you could be right, and the effect I'm describing does not necessarily affect specific observations you might make--the former perception can also derive from being very good.Cantaloupe (disambiguation) wrote:I mean, it's not the easiness he's talking about, per se. It was just hard, sometimes, to see which part was easy, which was middle, and which was hard: like, sometimes all three bonus parts would be about the same difficulty, other times they would all be hard to different degrees.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:You're a really awesome player. A lot of bonuses are going to look "easy-easy-medium/hard" to you... lit for example, describing a book ("oh wow that's easy, duh"), describing its author ("oh jesus, how can you not 20 this?"), describing another book by that author ("huh, pretty sure i know this, that's not hard at all").Prof.Whoopie wrote:Not that this is a complaint, but yes, the set kinda did seem on the easy side, especially on bonuses. It seems that a lot of bonuses lacked a clear easy-medium-hard structure, often opting for easy-easy-medium/hard.This will be easier to elucidate when the set is clear somewhere close to the end of time. Or April. Whatever.
I'm sure the set was of appropriate difficulty.
It's rather strange to see Andrew sure that this set was of appropriate difficulty without seeing it when the last time he evaluated a high school set without seeing it it was surely far too hard. Alas, it's hard to be consistent in evaluations made without data.
Well, I mean, look at the stats. Here and in Illinois, don't bonus conversion numbers seem a little higher than usual across the board? Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing; it may be a good thing and indicative that Hunter did a better job than vendors/other housewrites at making their set accessible. I was simply saying that this set seemed easier than what I usually encounter. A slight difficulty drop is not a bad thing.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:You're a really awesome player. A lot of bonuses are going to look "easy-easy-medium/hard" to you... lit for example, describing a book ("oh wow that's easy, duh"), describing its author ("oh jesus, how can you not 20 this?"), describing another book by that author ("huh, pretty sure i know this, that's not hard at all").Prof.Whoopie wrote:Not that this is a complaint, but yes, the set kinda did seem on the easy side, especially on bonuses. It seems that a lot of bonuses lacked a clear easy-medium-hard structure, often opting for easy-easy-medium/hard.This will be easier to elucidate when the set is clear somewhere close to the end of time. Or April. Whatever.
I'm sure the set was of appropriate difficulty.
You, Dorman and LASA(As well as the many good teams who played this set in Illinois) are all National Championship contenders. LASA just won ACF Regionals Texas and you got 2nd in the Mid-Atlantic. I'd be disappointed if you didn't have ppb numbers that made me green with envy.Prof.Whoopie wrote:Well, I mean, look at the stats. Here and in Illinois, don't bonus conversion numbers seem a little higher than usual across the board? Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing; it may be a good thing and indicative that Hunter did a better job than vendors/other housewrites at making their set accessible. I was simply saying that this set seemed easier than what I usually encounter. A slight difficulty drop is not a bad thing.Carangoides ciliarius wrote:You're a really awesome player. A lot of bonuses are going to look "easy-easy-medium/hard" to you... lit for example, describing a book ("oh wow that's easy, duh"), describing its author ("oh jesus, how can you not 20 this?"), describing another book by that author ("huh, pretty sure i know this, that's not hard at all").Prof.Whoopie wrote:Not that this is a complaint, but yes, the set kinda did seem on the easy side, especially on bonuses. It seems that a lot of bonuses lacked a clear easy-medium-hard structure, often opting for easy-easy-medium/hard.This will be easier to elucidate when the set is clear somewhere close to the end of time. Or April. Whatever.
I'm sure the set was of appropriate difficulty.
Sorry, I just saw this. Yeah, I have some thoughts on LASA, and I'll edit this post to write them down.Edward Powers wrote:Some questions for the Saint Anselm's players.
It just occurred to me that Saint Anselm's played State College head to head twice at Penn's QuAC earlier this year in the Championship bracket there, and just this weekend you played LASA twice in the Hunter tournament. This seems to place you in a fairly unique position in terms of being able to assess the qualities that each of these very gifted teams seems to possess. So, care to discuss your perceptions of the relative strengths of each team, at least as you perceived them in your two matches in Championship level play with each? And, to discuss weaknesses with such talented teams seems silly, perhaps, but you are gifted players as well, so perhaps you do have some assessment of possible weaknesses as well? I know earlier this year Matt attempted to assess the merits of the top teams in the nation, and now that he's seen two of the best up close and personal, would he care to comment some more based on his experience with both teams? Would Aidan? Or Jacob---would you care to comment? And, how might each stack up against some of the other great teams with which each of you is familiar?
It's my guess that others around the country who enjoy quizbowl might find your informed judgments, assuming you would be willing to give them, to be both interesting and illuminating. So---care to share?
I mean that sometimes they'd know an answer but not buzz, or say the wrong thing on a bonus prompt, or lose buzzer races because they couldn't see where the question was going and got beaten out by someone who could. You know, gameplay stuff.Edward Powers wrote:Thank you Matt. Your analysis portrays LASA as an extremely formidable opponent, virtually across the board. Further, the very precision of your analysis intrigues, for if LASA plays Lit, RMP & Music as well as anyone, while Shen adds great strength in the visual arts---and then we learn that these are not even LASA's greatest strengths!!!!---history and science are, if you are correct---then the question becomes where, in fact, are they weak at all?
Nevertheless, as you well point out, your analysis leaves room for the assessment that there still might be a few teams even stronger still in all or at least most of these categories---teams like State & MWGS---but you certainly paint a picture that leaves one with the impression that perhaps LASA's only true weakness vis-a-vis the two great opponents you mentioned in your analysis is their lack of "buzzer instincts" or "quizbowl savoir faire". Still, you suggest that LASA could upset MWGS with the right packet--and this in itself is high praise indeed. But your notion of "buzzer instincts/ qb savoir faire" is both fascinating and somewhat cryptic---care to elaborate on what you mean by these depictions?
And thanks again for such a rigorous assessment of LASA. I read once for them at Hunter and I was extremely impressed with their speed, their accuracy, their confidence, their teamwork and their balance, but because I had the responsibility of reading I did not have a chance to completely digest & assess the specific areas of mastery they seemed to possess as rigorously or as precisely as you have done here---so thank you for your contribution.
Do your teammates share your assessments?
EDITED : For accuracy re: buzzer instincts etc...