The Quizbowl Resource Center

I like this idea, which is pretty much Joe's just explained for people that do not really understand it.

Before lunch have 4 pools of 8 teams each.

After lunch have 8 pools of 4 teams each.

Pool 1
1A
1B
2C
2D

Pool 2
2A
2B
1C
1D

Pool 3
3A
3B
4C
4D

Pool 4
4A
4B
3C
3D

Etc...

Then those new pools would play round robin.
After this, the teams with the same record/PPG in case of ties from the corresponding pool (ei. pool 1 and pool 2) will play each other.
This will mean a championship between the teams that win the round robin in pool 1 and 2.
Then games to determine what team is 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th, etc.

This will be competitive, exciting, and give every team 11 games.

Scott, I like the idea of doing the rebracketed pools, but with many teams having planned for only 10 games, I don't know if adding the eleventh game is an option. If anything, I do like the redivision and the modified pools with each team playing two pool matches and then a crossover.
Matt
U of L

Joe:
Hope all is well. With the round robin, let me look at the times, we only have the building until 5, but let me send it to the coaches and see their thoughts.
Matt

Well, whether or not it takes 11 rounds (or more time) is up to you. If you chose to let ties stand (second place in each bracket ties for third, third place in each ties for fifth...first place in 1st flight ties for ninth, etc.), only the two teams in the finals would get an extra game. If having 11 rounds for everyone would really be a problem for time/teams being unhappy about getting to play more, letting ties stand would not require any extra time in the rooms, and I'd much rather see two brackets with ties standing than having to do the original plan because of the extra game.

Hope everyone is doing well. I had all the plans and everything drawn up to do the round robin and the extra match, but it looks like we may be down to 30 teams. THis would change things. So the prelim rounds would still happen in the morning, the afternoon sessions do become a bit tricky. Any suggestions on how do the format for the afternoon. In the past we took the top teams from each group and had them play, and that would work out numbers wise.
On the plus side, this would allow for 6 teams to compete for the qualifying spots instead of 4, but it does still allow for seedings to influence. Any help is greatly appreciated.
Matt
U of L

Could we have a field update?

You can do something similar - 5 brackets of six, the rebracket into two parallel brackets of six that will play a round robin, followed by finals between the winners for the championship, two for the 1st flight, and one for the bottom bracket. Round robin in each bracket, then crossovers as necessary. The bottom bracket wouldn't get crossovers in this plan, but all teams would still get 10 games, and 24/30 would get 11. Also this way more games would be against teams of a similar skill level. I'm not sure what your plans with lunch were, but it'd fit in nicely after five prelim rounds and give you time to draw up the afternoon brackets.

Joe, with the two parallel brackets of 6, it would be the top two in each of the five pools, would there be a play off between third place to get the last two, for the group?
Matt

Oops, sorry. I meant six brackets of five. This would require byes, I guess; I'm not sure how much people would be upset over that.

EDIT: Then, the top two can go to each championship bracket, 3rd and 4th to each middle bracket, and 5th to the bottom bracket.

What I may do is do the 6 of 5 and instead of having byes have everyone play one crossover match or would that be problematic with the format?
Matt

I dunno, having exhibition games during byes would be fine, but having ones that actually count seems unfair - what if team A's bye happens to be during the same round as really good team who's going to win the tournament's bye and team A has to play them, and presumably lose, and team B's bye is at the same time as a not very good team's bye, so B gets an extra win.

the only thing could be the byes could match similarly matched teams. If not, I may just do the byes.
Matt
U of L

Sorry to interrupt this format discussion, but for bracketing purposes, Manual will not be at full strength, missing Akshai

Sorry for the delay in the field update. The current field is
Adair County A
Adair County B
Ballard A
Ballard B
Danville A
Danville B
Eastern A
Eastern B (hopefully, I e-mailed Doug to see if they field a second team)
Edmonson County
Fleming County A
Fleming County B
Grayson County A
Grayson County B
Manual A
Manual B
Manual C
Mercy A
Mercy B
Northmont
Owensboro
Pikeville A
Pikeville B
Simon Kenton A
SImon Kenton B
St. X A
St. X B
Trinity A
Trinity B
Walnut Hills A
Walnut Hills B

For the format, we will have 6 groups of 5 in the morning with everyone playing 4 matches. Then the afternoon rounds will consists of two pools of six, composed of the top two teams from each group. A third pool of the the third place teams, a fourth pool of the fourth place teams and a 5th pool of 5th place teams. All teams will play round robin for 5 matches in the afternoon and then will play an 11th round match for final position.

Hope this sounds okay. Apologies for the alterations. Had all the format worked out for the schematic proposed by Joe, Nick, and Scott, and then the field changed.
All the best.
Matt Church
U of L

I'm glad to see that a TD is taking constructive advice to run a better tournament.

Is there word on an Eastern B team?

Eastern couldnt form a B team, but St. X is entering a third team. We had another drop tonight, but we'll find another team. I believe some schools are bringing more than 4 players. Also, we could even combine a few players. Last year at NAQT, we had a combined team from Edmonson and Grayson.All the best.
Matt
U of L

Church51907 wrote:Last year at NAQT, we had a combined team from Edmonson and Grayson.

That's great. They should still be the same county after all.

duPont Manual A beats Northmont in the finals (390-220)
Walnut Hills A beats Adair County A for 3rd and 4th (360-255)
duPont Manual B beats Simon Kenton A for 5th (245-210)

Edit: Scores, revision

Manual B beat SK for 5th. 245-210.

360-255 in the third place game.

Thanks to everyone who came to the tournament. The top 6 were Manual A, Northmont, Walnut Hills A, Adair County A, Manual B, and SImon Kenton A. The top 5 qualified for nationals, along with Danville as the top small school. I will post full stats on Monday or Tuesday, everyone have a nice Thanksgiving.
Matt
U of L

Just curious but in the prelims did the top 2 in each group automatically advance? or in the special case of our group since there was a 3 way tie for 1st place did you compare us (ballard) to the rest of the fields second place teams by ppg?

Maged, in the prelims the top two advanced. If memory serves, you all, Simon Kenton A, and Danville were in three way tie. Danville beat your team and you al beat Simon Kenton, who in turn beat Danville. Since we could not settle it through head to head, we broke the tie on total points.
Matt
U of L

PACE certification will be sought, correct?
(Cheers to the passive voice!)

We played well in the first three matches, with a PPG around 430, but then kind of fell apart.
We still have a long way to go to be close to being competitive nationally, but I think we are headed in the right direction.
Hopefully we will be able to build on this performance and improve throughout the season.

On a side note, I am hoping this tournament will receive gold or platinum PACE certification.

This tournament confirmed a few things in my mind.

Luke Maupin is a really good player, but Adair can't easily beat the top level of teams.
Manual is even better than last year and will probably be as good as Dunbar this year (if not better).
Our team has lots of wholes in knowledge, especially history and current events.
There are a lot of teams (Grayson, Danville, Simon Kenton, Manual B, Pikeville, etc.) that are pretty similar in level and will make for an interesting top 5 in the state by the end of the year.

Yeah, I was impressed by Manual B. Some fast buzzes by them and excessive negging by me gave them a significant lead on us at the half, and it was tough for us to get out of that hole. As for PACE certification, it should get gold, but I don't think it can get Platinum because it won't be reporting its stats in SQBS, as far as I know, just on the NAQT website. To be honest, I doubt that four teams there will finish in the top half of the NSC field, and I wouldn't really say that two Ohio teams constitute a geographically diverse field.

Joe N wrote:As for PACE certification, it should get gold, but I don't think it can get Platinum because it won't be reporting its stats in SQBS, as far as I know, just on the NAQT website.

NAQT's standard stat format is taken directly from SQBS; reporting full stats on our website (and not, say, "team records only") should be fine.

Hope all is well. I am actually working up the stats for the tournament on SQBS. The tournament was considered a gold tournament by PACE last year, I can contact Fred tomorrow about getting it certified. All the best.
Matt
U of L

Stats are posted for the tournament- http://www.naqt.com/stats/tournament-te ... nt_id=3344
Everyone have a great Thanksgiving
Matt
U of L

Looking at the stats I noticed that Danville had a lower pp20th but heard 7 extra tossups in the first two rounds leading them to compile 35 more points allowing them to advance to the top bracket.

Nice tournament!
It was well run and there was a pretty competitive field.

However, I do not understand why Pikeville is 8th and we are 9th.
Based on record and stats, we should be ahead of them.
This won't matter unless the tournament gets platinum certification for PACE, but if it does, hopefully you can get this changed.

grayson77 wrote:Nice tournament!
It was well run and there was a pretty competitive field.

However, I do not understand why Pikeville is 8th and we are 9th.
Based on record and stats, we should be ahead of them.
This won't matter unless the tournament gets platinum certification for PACE, but if it does, hopefully you can get this changed.

In the top group that both our teams were in Scott, there was a 3 way circle of death between Manual B, us, and you all. Based on total points, Manual B was the 3 seed from our bracket, Danville was the 4 seed, and Grayson was the 5 seed. Pikeville was the 4 seed from the other top bracket, so we played Pikeville for 7th and 8th and Grayson finished 9th.

Coach K wrote:

grayson77 wrote:Nice tournament!
It was well run and there was a pretty competitive field.

However, I do not understand why Pikeville is 8th and we are 9th.
Based on record and stats, we should be ahead of them.
This won't matter unless the tournament gets platinum certification for PACE, but if it does, hopefully you can get this changed.

In the top group that both our teams were in Scott, there was a 3 way circle of death between Manual B, us, and you all. Based on total points, Manual B was the 3 seed from our bracket, Danville was the 4 seed, and Grayson was the 5 seed. Pikeville was the 4 seed from the other top bracket, so we played Pikeville for 7th and 8th and Grayson finished 9th.

Okay, this makes sense.

Was there any data for points per bonus? How about individual stats?

Individual stats weren't kept. It would be really awesome if ppb could be separated out though. And, as a minor note, we heard 24 tossups in our game against Manual B, not 20.

I would like to point out that Trinity A and B weren't the right teams. After they found out the prelim pools, they switched their teams. I don't think it really threw anything off, but it seemed a bit unethical.

The thing about the Trinity teams is true.
Their coach was telling our coach about it, trying to explain why they lost to us.

I also think that what Trinity did made no sense.
Either they didn't want to play Grayson with their A-team, so they switched to play 3 teams that are around the same level as us.
Or they didn't want the B-team to play those 3 teams so they moved them to a pool where they were 2nd to last regardless.

Not saying they are a bad program, just saying that what they did was unethical, but just as bad, made no logical sense.

Will this get PACE-affiliated soon?

I e-mailed PACE a week ago and am waiting to hear.

Matt
U of L

This tournament was given Gold status for the purposes of qualification for the PACE NSC.

Since there were 30 teams, the top 6 qualified. They were:
duPont Manual A
Northmont
Walnut Hills A
Adair County B
duPont Manual B
Simon Kenton A

unless I am messing up the stats page

SoLegit12 wrote:Since there were 30 teams, the top 6 qualified. They were:
duPont Manual A
Northmont
Walnut Hills A
Adair County B
duPont Manual B
Simon Kenton A

unless I am messing up the stats page

Given the highlighting, I think Danville got in ahead of SK.

dtaylor4 wrote:

SoLegit12 wrote:Since there were 30 teams, the top 6 qualified. They were:
duPont Manual A
Northmont
Walnut Hills A
Adair County B
duPont Manual B
Simon Kenton A

unless I am messing up the stats page

Given the highlighting, I think Danville got in ahead of SK.

Highlighting indicates NAQT qualification, not place. Danville qual'ed for a small school or like the previously unqualified thing

SoLegit12 wrote:Highlighting indicates NAQT qualification, not place. Danville qual'ed for a small school or like the previously unqualified thing

Small school. Only state championships have a previously-unqualified-team clause.