SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Old college threads.
User avatar
Skepticism and Animal Feed
Auron
Posts: 3174
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:47 pm
Location: Arlington, VA

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Skepticism and Animal Feed » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:03 pm

TaylorH wrote:
CodyJohansen wrote:Insofar as the opinions of an undergraduate president of a 12-person club in a podunk circuit matter, here are mine.
Insofar as the opinions of an undergraduate president of a different 12-person club in the same podunk circuit matter, here are mine and some of my teammates who I asked about the issue. The following paraphrased opinions are expressively about the theoretical idea of good team coming to Florida for the purpose of getting an easy bid at the expense of all the Florida teams, not about the particular situation involving Columbia.

One UF player called this theoretical practice "awful", and compared the idea to "what is happening in the CL in soccer where only big teams plays". He also called the idea "boring" and "the death of fun".

Another UF player said that they did not like the idea in general. This player encouraged teams to couple traveling for fun with playing quiz bowl for the many tournaments throughout the year without consequences for ICT qualifications. This player also said they could sympathize with teams in tough circuits who have to face very hard schedules and still not qualify, and that they realize we (UF) have it easy.

A third UF player said that bids should automatically be revoked and teams should have to ask for special dispensations outside their region. They also mockingly compared teams engaging in this theoretical practice to an obnoxious southern football fan saying that every SEC team is "just plain better than any Pac-12 or American or Conference team I've never heard of".

A fourth UF player said that single schools simply shouldn't be able to compete a multiple locations to win more spots. That player said they believe teams in though regions should have to qualify by D values.

A fifth player stated that if you used the D value system as an (admittedly imperfect) ranking of the best 32 teams, only 2 teams wouldn't qualify that do under the current system. One being the Columbia team that went to Colorado.

The point is that feelings expressed by UCF' Cody welcoming teams to exploit the Florida circuit is far from the norm of feeling in the region.

My personal feelings are that NAQT should not institute any official rule requiring teams to play in region, as this could be interfere with distance students and teams out of region for spring break or similar situations. However I think teams traveling cross country to snatch up easy bids is overall bad for teams in weak regions. Which is more valuable to a player who has never played outside the Florida circuit: getting wrecked by a few out of regions schools who fly in, or getting to go to a centralized national tournament where they play a day's worth of teams full of people they have never met before.

Some people feel ICT should only be the absolute best 32 teams, which we all know would really only be mostly Northeastern and Midwestern teams.Heck, look at the map of where all the D1 teams came from last year There are only 5 or 6 teams from outside those regions. If ICT is really for just solely for those best teams, why have bids for regional winners at all? Why not just have D values from all the site the only qualification for ICT? I feel that having the winner of each region get a bid implies that ICT is supposed to represent some level of geographical diversity. I would be interested to hear from NAQT on the logic of giving bids to regional winners at the expense of having a potentially weaker ICT field.

Also considering the case of Aayush at SCT Florida in 2015 I do recall some of the player on the UF team he beat being a little miffed and confused as to why he choose to play there.

Anyways, I'm not asking for any reform, I just wanted some opinions of some people in a weak region who most of you never hear from to be tossed up. I have had the pleasure of watching the Florida region grow lots of the last couple years, with new teams springing up at FSU and New College, as well as the expansion of the clubs at UF, UCF, and the CC circuit. I would hate to see newer players discouraged by better teams gaming the system.
Thanks for doing this. This is fantastic. More of this, please. People from elite quizbowl programs often theorize as to what folks like your teammates think about issues like this on HSQB, and you are providing us actual information.
Bruce
Harvard '10 / UChicago '07 / Roycemore School '04
ACF Member emeritus
My guide to using Wikipedia as a question source

User avatar
1.82
Rikku
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:35 pm
Location: Atlanta area
Contact:

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by 1.82 » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:32 pm

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: I also wonder if it's worth loosening the criteria under which teams are no longer allowed to compete in Division 2. Obviously, the top high school players who routinely romp the top of the field each year shouldn't be allowed to come back and do it year after year. But should teams in the bottom half of the D2 field be forced into Division 1 the next year, given that the Division 1 SCT is a fair bit tougher (in terms question content, and often in terms of competition as well) than D2 ICT?
Notably, this would do the exact opposite of solving the problem that Nick Conder pointed out earlier in the thread:
Ferlinghetti's Axis wrote: I will note that the the D2 ICT field is comically small to the extent that D2 teams basically have to hit 20 PPB to qualify and decent players get stuck in easy-question limbo for extended periods of time. I don't know if it's easier to solve both of these problems at once or if perhaps it would be hard to expand both divisions at once. But we've been pushing off this discussion for years.
Naveed Chowdhury
Maryland '16
Georgia Tech '17

User avatar
Rococo A Go Go
Auron
Posts: 2245
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Rococo A Go Go » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:46 pm

Our Lady Peace wrote:
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: I also wonder if it's worth loosening the criteria under which teams are no longer allowed to compete in Division 2. Obviously, the top high school players who routinely romp the top of the field each year shouldn't be allowed to come back and do it year after year. But should teams in the bottom half of the D2 field be forced into Division 1 the next year, given that the Division 1 SCT is a fair bit tougher (in terms question content, and often in terms of competition as well) than D2 ICT?
Notably, this would do the exact opposite of solving the problem that Nick Conder pointed out earlier in the thread:
Ferlinghetti's Axis wrote: I will note that the the D2 ICT field is comically small to the extent that D2 teams basically have to hit 20 PPB to qualify and decent players get stuck in easy-question limbo for extended periods of time. I don't know if it's easier to solve both of these problems at once or if perhaps it would be hard to expand both divisions at once. But we've been pushing off this discussion for years.
Yeah I was about to post something along these lines. Quite frankly, we need those players and teams to move on to D1 to avoid things like combined SCT fields. I guess the goal Will is trying to achieve is to allow D2 ICT to hold some of the mid-level teams for a couple years since D1 ICT is so hard to qualify for, but that simply creates (or worsens) other problems.

Not to be too harsh, but the only teams that typically display the inability to comfortably move up to D1 are community college teams, which are exempt from being forced into D1 after playing D2 ICT. Occasionally some teams with autobids from hosting (or winning an easier sectional) are also probably not entirely ready, but that's a discussion of how to award automatic bids rather than D2 eligibility in my opinion.
Nick Conder
Louisville, KY

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."--Eugene V. Debs

User avatar
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
Auron
Posts: 1945
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Periplus of the Erythraean Sea » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:53 pm

To respond to Naveed's (and Nick's) point:
Ferlinghetti's Axis wrote: I will note that the the D2 ICT field is comically small to the extent that D2 teams basically have to hit 20 PPB to qualify and decent players get stuck in easy-question limbo for extended periods of time. I don't know if it's easier to solve both of these problems at once or if perhaps it would be hard to expand both divisions at once. But we've been pushing off this discussion for years.
This is not true - decent players are not stuck in "easy question limbo" because there isn't actually anything preventing them from choosing to play D1 instead of D2! For example, Sameer Rai is technically D2 eligible this year, but he (correctly) has chosen to play D1 instead.

Also, you don't have to "basically" hit 20 PPB to qualify - for example:

2016 Great Lakes Sectional - Ohio State A and Penn State B, at 18.76 and 19.51 respectively
2016 Texas Sectional - Texas C, at 18.87
2016 Midwest Sectional - Illinois B and Chicago E, at 18.80 and 19.46 respectively
2016 Mid-Atlantic Sectional - Georgetown B and Maryland C, at 17.92 and 18.93 respectively

The Midwest and Mid-Atlantic sectionals aren't traditionally weak sites by any means (nor is Great Lakes, really) and teams from each of these sites qualified with less than 20 PPB. This assertion is demonstrably false. In stronger teams, the newer players inevitably move up as lower players graduate anyways, and there's an element of social expectation in quizbowl that strong D2 players "move on" - as evidence by the fact that people (rightly) went after Charles Hang for playing D2 ICT two years in a row despite being a strong player.

That all being said, the field should still be expanded...
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

CaseyB
Lulu
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:22 pm

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by CaseyB » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:58 pm

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: I also wonder if it's worth loosening the criteria under which teams are no longer allowed to compete in Division 2. Obviously, the top high school players who routinely romp the top of the field each year shouldn't be allowed to come back and do it year after year. But should teams in the bottom half of the D2 field be forced into Division 1 the next year, given that the Division 1 SCT is a fair bit tougher (in terms question content, and often in terms of competition as well) than D2 ICT?
Another problem with this suggestion is that it prevents some players from experiencing ICT at all. For example, from my time at UCF, I know that typically in Florida only the winner of the Division 2 SCT goes to D2 ICT. If that winner were allowed to remain D2 eligible because it finished in the bottom bracket at ICT (as happened to me when I played D2 ICT), then the next year that same team could win the D2 SCT again, thus keeping the other players in the circuit from experiencing ICT at any level. It is true that when I played at DI ICT 2 years later, we didn't do very well, but the graduation to DI meant other teams had a greater chance of qualifying for D2 ICT themselves the next year.

It also occurs to me, that with how common tiebreaker matches can be at ICT after prelims, that there could be those who, if faced with a situation where a lower bracket means they can play D2 again, might intentionally lose to get into that lower bracket.

I also must admit that I rather like the simplicity of the way NAQT currently makes the distinction between DI and D2: either you've played at or qualified for ICT in the past, or you haven't.
Casey Bindas
Canton HS (MI) 2007-11
UCF 2011-15
VCU 2015-16
Michigan Tech 2016-18
PACE

User avatar
Picasso's Middle Name
Wakka
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:01 pm

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Picasso's Middle Name » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:58 pm

Mewto55555 wrote:Note that, as discussed upthread, Chicago possesses all of the logistical requirements to split teams across multiple sites, the devious leadership required to sign off on it, is still livid as a club about our quite good B team getting D-value bubbled last year so that an auto host-bid could go to a team that put up 28.5 PPG and 5 PPB at ICT ( :capybara: :capybara: :capybara: ), and yet we still haven't attempted a convoluted team-splitting thing across sites. Splitting across sites is really not a Thing Teams Do, even the fabulously wealthy and evil ones.

As the only person on that team that even gave a :capybara: about quizbowl, I was hoping to address this in the forum before any one else did, but Max beat me to it.

I feel like this is an issue that needs to be discussed. Since there is no longer a bidding process with NAQT and SCT hosting, why are host teams not required to play in order to qualify a team?

We were all but forced to host Sectionals last year, even after Kansas State lobbied relentlessly to host. A member with NAQT contacted me and TOLD me that they were planning to host a SCT at Central Oklahoma the day after we were granted ACF Regionals (which I played because I knew that we were not good enough to deserve an autobid), even after I told them that we were hosting Regionals the week before. Since we were short on staff, our A-team did not play a tournament that would have been most of their last. By the time that Sectionals was over, I was so mad at NAQT that I no longer wanted to attend ICT and even stated that it was :capybara: that a really really good Chicago B (who had beaten us when we had better teams) was getting snubbed because of us, but the school had already purchased plane tickets and booked the hotel room. On top of that, NCUR was the same day as ICT, so I ended up playing with the worst two players on our B-Team.

So after all that, I'm not defending us playing ICT, we had no right to be there. What I want to know is why NAQT is still giving hosts autobids instead forcing those teams to qualify?

EDIT: If you want to know more details about last year's Sectionals and what made me mad, send me a message.
Tracey Hickman
Rock Creek High School 2012
Redlands CC 2014 A.A. English
Central Oklahoma 2016 B.A. American Languages and Literature
Coach, Coalgate Schools (OK)
Curriculum Director, Oklahoma Quizbowl Camps

User avatar
Rococo A Go Go
Auron
Posts: 2245
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:08 am
Location: Louisville, KY

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Rococo A Go Go » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:09 pm

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:To respond to Naveed's (and Nick's) point:
Ferlinghetti's Axis wrote: I will note that the the D2 ICT field is comically small to the extent that D2 teams basically have to hit 20 PPB to qualify and decent players get stuck in easy-question limbo for extended periods of time. I don't know if it's easier to solve both of these problems at once or if perhaps it would be hard to expand both divisions at once. But we've been pushing off this discussion for years.
This is not true - decent players are not stuck in "easy question limbo" because there isn't actually anything preventing them from choosing to play D1 instead of D2! For example, Sameer Rai is technically D2 eligible this year, but he (correctly) has chosen to play D1 instead.

Also, you don't have to "basically" hit 20 PPB to qualify - for example:

2016 Great Lakes Sectional - Ohio State A and Penn State B, at 18.76 and 19.51 respectively
2016 Texas Sectional - Texas C, at 18.87
2016 Midwest Sectional - Illinois B and Chicago E, at 18.80 and 19.46 respectively
2016 Mid-Atlantic Sectional - Georgetown B and Maryland C, at 17.92 and 18.93 respectively

The Midwest and Mid-Atlantic sectionals aren't traditionally weak sites by any means (nor is Great Lakes, really) and teams from each of these sites qualified with less than 20 PPB. This assertion is demonstrably false. In stronger teams, the newer players inevitably move up as lower players graduate anyways, and there's an element of social expectation in quizbowl that strong D2 players "move on" - as evidence by the fact that people (rightly) went after Charles Hang for playing D2 ICT two years in a row despite being a strong player.

That all being said, the field should still be expanded...
C'mon dude.

Fine: 18 PPB, not 20 PPB. Even then, there are some teams that struggle to qualify at nearly 20 PPB, a thing that is demonstrably true. We can talk about social expectations, but it's not how quizbowl really works and you know it. Moreover, the types of players on the outside fringes of D2 ICT qualification from the previous year have to choose between moving to D1 (likely on a team that gets like 13 PPB and doesn't qualify) or trying to do well in D2. Considering going to ICT is something everybody wants to do (and can secure massive funding for quizbowl programs from schools who like winners) I actually think it's fine for these types of players staying in D2 to qualify regardless of what people on this forum say about it. This is demonstrably different than Sameer Rai playing D2.
Last edited by Rococo A Go Go on Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Nick Conder
Louisville, KY

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."--Eugene V. Debs

User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Yuna
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Benin Rebirth Party » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:09 pm

Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote: The point of regional diversity aside, a lot of strong teams are getting screwed out of D1 ICT, and it's for a myriad of reasons. Strong teams like last year's Columbia B (which played as Columbia C at SCT) would not have gotten to attend ICT were their A-team not able to split up and earn two bids. Meanwhile, Amherst and (short-handed) Dartmouth didn't even get to play ICT, despite each scoring higher PPBs and multiples of the number of powers than some other teams that did qualify.
I think this is best solved by changing the formula for D-value. Looking at the 2016 ICT D-values, looking at just aPPB seems a lot more fair (though not without problems) than the current D-value formula. You probably also need to account for power percentage, which is not directly accounted for in NAQT's current formula.

Furthermore, Columbia C's downfall last year was partially due to the fact they lost to a bunch of worse teams and then their D-value got averaged down and decreased by quite a bit. This unfortunately is unavoidable in strong regions.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:I also wonder if it's worth loosening the criteria under which teams are no longer allowed to compete in Division 2. Obviously, the top high school players who routinely romp the top of the field each year shouldn't be allowed to come back and do it year after year. But should teams in the bottom half of the D2 field be forced into Division 1 the next year, given that the Division 1 SCT is a fair bit tougher (in terms question content, and often in terms of competition as well) than D2 ICT?
This seems like it would be disastrous for local circuits. McGill B has finished 17th at D2 ICT two straight years and it would be wholly inappropriate for either of these two teams to go back and crush the Canadian D2 SCT for another year. I think the current Division split is fine.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:I am sympathetic to the "regional diversity" argument, in no small part due to the fact that there's probably not a very good chance that quizbowl will expand in regions like Florida if none of the teams there ever get a chance to play Nationals.
I agree with Will. This is same reason why I think a monstrous HSNCT is fine even if the field is weaker than it should be. Canadian teams attending Nationals (even if our D-values implies that we weren't deserving) has helped grow the circuit and give newcomers a concrete goal to aim for.

This is probably a pretty radical suggestion to increase field size without increasing competition length, but what about having D1a and D1b tournaments at the ICT similar to the UEFA Champions League and the UEFA Europa League? The top tier (~24 teams) would be determined through SCT D-value alone (in addition to a panel judging whether or not SCT host schools qualify or not), while the bottom tier (a straight ~14 team RR) would be all other qualifiers, including SCT hosts deemed not good enough, bad SCT winners, "undeserving B teams", etc.
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5490
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Important Bird Area » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:14 pm

Picasso's Middle Name wrote:why are host teams not required to play in order to qualify a team?
SCT is difficult enough to staff properly under the current system. Forcing the A team from the host school into the field would make things much worse.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

CaseyB
Lulu
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 7:22 pm

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by CaseyB » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:15 pm

Picasso's Middle Name wrote:
So after all that, I'm not defending us playing ICT, we had no right to be there. What I want to know is why NAQT is still giving hosts autobids instead forcing those teams to qualify?
This is a valid question. It seems to me that the reason for host autobids is that it allows for teams who had to devote players to staffing the tournament instead of playing it the ability to go to ICT even if they were unable to qualify at the buzzer because their best players were running the tournament. This makes sense because it alleviates the concerns a host might have about being able to qualify for ICT while hosting, especially if that host school felt they had a good chance of qualifying at the buzzer. This is also why that host autobid is burned if that host school qualifies at the buzzer anyway. However, I agree with your concerns that it results in teams playing at ICT that have no business being there, especially in the face of more deserving teams staying home. I like what ACF has done with regards to this now that Regionals is a qualifying tournament for Nationals. Hosts have to apply for a host autobid. This way, if a host was good enough to play at Nationals anyway, they can still get a bid and have experienced players running the tournament, but hosts that don't deserve a host autobid still have to earn their spot, and don't take a spot at Nationals away from a more deserving team.
Casey Bindas
Canton HS (MI) 2007-11
UCF 2011-15
VCU 2015-16
Michigan Tech 2016-18
PACE

User avatar
Picasso's Middle Name
Wakka
Posts: 102
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 8:01 pm

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Picasso's Middle Name » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:24 pm

bird bird bird bird bird wrote:
Picasso's Middle Name wrote:why are host teams not required to play in order to qualify a team?
SCT is difficult enough to staff properly under the current system. Forcing the A team from the host school into the field would make things much worse.

Fair enough, but has NAQT ever had a discussion about making the automatic bid more like ACF's? That is, the host school must provide evidence that it is deserving of a spot in the field, much like a wildcard team does. Obviously teams like Stanford and Yale would qualify "at the buzzer", but I'm not so sure Hamilton or Youngstown State would at their respective sites.

EDIT: And I know for sure that UT-Dallas wouldn't have since I staffed at that site and they fielded a full a team in D2.
Last edited by Picasso's Middle Name on Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Tracey Hickman
Rock Creek High School 2012
Redlands CC 2014 A.A. English
Central Oklahoma 2016 B.A. American Languages and Literature
Coach, Coalgate Schools (OK)
Curriculum Director, Oklahoma Quizbowl Camps

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5490
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Important Bird Area » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:27 pm

We haven't. I'll add that to our discussion list for this summer (for obvious reasons it would be unfair to change this policy for the 2017 ICT).
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

User avatar
sonstige
Wakka
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by sonstige » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:42 pm

TaylorH wrote:Some people feel ICT should only be the absolute best 32 teams, which we all know would really only be mostly Northeastern and Midwestern teams.Heck, look at the map of where all the D1 teams came from last year There are only 5 or 6 teams from outside those regions. If ICT is really for just solely for those best teams, why have bids for regional winners at all? Why not just have D values from all the site the only qualification for ICT? I feel that having the winner of each region get a bid implies that ICT is supposed to represent some level of geographical diversity. I would be interested to hear from NAQT on the logic of giving bids to regional winners at the expense of having a potentially weaker ICT field.

Also considering the case of Aayush at SCT Florida in 2015 I do recall some of the player on the UF team he beat being a little miffed and confused as to why he choose to play there.

Anyways, I'm not asking for any reform, I just wanted some opinions of some people in a weak region who most of you never hear from to be tossed up. I have had the pleasure of watching the Florida region grow lots of the last couple years, with new teams springing up at FSU and New College, as well as the expansion of the clubs at UF, UCF, and the CC circuit. I would hate to see newer players discouraged by better teams gaming the system.
Would that really happen, though? Say a good, non-regional team travels to Florida, would it really discourage the local teams --- or would it inspire them to improve, now that they've had a taste of what national-caliber quiz bowl is like?

I can use a personal example here. Back in my day (...sigh...) --- the Southeast had FSU, Vandy, UGA, USF, Alabama, and UF as the teams to beat locally (not to mention, Chipola and Valencia!). These programs collectively raised the level of competition in the region, and as a result --- many teams from these schools had respectable showings at ICT. My teams, for example, lost to teams from these schools enough times that we finally made a push to improve --- and as a result, we ended up making ICT and doing OK.

The Southeast doesn't seem to have that same sort of situation today (but it's getting there!). Maybe getting an out-of-state team to push the Florida teams is what's needed to inspire the local circuit to improve relative to teams at the national level.

Which, I think, leads to the question: What motivates teams for getting bids to ICT ---- is it simply to attend, or is it to attend and do well?

If it's simply to attend, then I suppose one can ask --- why make the local SCT's field any harder than it is now? But if it's to attend and be competitive, then surviving a tougher SCT, I'd think, should be welcomed rather than discouraged (and if you don't survive the SCT because of the out-of-state teams....well, you have a whole year to get better and try again!).

Ultimately, Taylor --- I get where you and the current UF folks are coming from (even if I don't entirely agree)....and I'm hoping y'all make some noise at ICT this year.
Travis Vitello
University of Florida '08
The Ohio State University '14
University of Virginia '21
Writer, NAQT

User avatar
Cody
2008-09 Male Athlete of the Year
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:57 am
Location: Richmond

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Cody » Tue Feb 07, 2017 6:56 pm

When I was asked to host SCT last year, I was explicitly told the following:
R wrote:5. It would be your responsibility to market the event to existing
teams and to staff the tournament. Host sites will NOT, as a matter
of course, be expected to staff the tournament (and they will not be
earning a host bid as a matter of course). NAQT is open to the idea
that it may be necessary to "trade a host bid for staff" at some SCTs,
but we'd like to make that the exception (rather than the rule).
I am not sure where the disconnect in guidelines between different sites arises. (or why finding a Mid-Atlantic SCT host was such a problem this year -- I wasn't even asked to host again until a last minute e-mail blast!)
Cody Voight, VCU ‘14. I wrote lots of science and am an electrical engineer.
VCU Tournament Director ‘13-‘17. HSAPQ President ‘15-16.
Hero of Socialist Quizbowl Labor (NSC ‘14). “esteemed colleague” of Snap Wexley, ca. 2016. Stats Hero (Nats ‘16).
Quizbowl at VCU

User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
Posts: 2340
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by ValenciaQBowl » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:56 pm

I would hate to see newer players discouraged by better teams gaming the system.
I am firmly of the opinion that it's very rare for players, and certainly rare for whole teams/programs, to give up on quiz bowl due to beat-downs from better teams. It often seems like it's good players/teams who make this argument on behalf of uh, less good teams.

Players stick with the game because they like playing it. Success certainly helps, but it's not the primary drive (see the recent threads about what keeps people doing quiz bowl, what the game has given them, etc.). The CC circuit is a good example: in Florida, we have a number of programs that have probably never had a winning record at almost any tournament in the 21st century, but they come to 6-8 competitions a year, and their players seem to have fun. Now why they don't all want to hunker down and get better, I'm not quite sure, but even that seems to speak to reasons to play the game beyond winning.

So to tie this back into the thread, 1) I'm confident the amount of teams that will ever send teams to far-flung sites to qualify teams is very small, and 2) if they do, well, teams in that far-flung place should decide whether they want to put in the work to keep that from happening. Either way, I don't think we'll see any teams just quitting the game if they lose in that manner, and frankly if that will lead them to give up the game, I doubt they were that committed to it anyway.
Chris Borglum
Valencia College Grand Poobah

touchpack
Rikku
Posts: 327
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 12:25 am

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by touchpack » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:53 pm

ValenciaQBowl wrote:
I would hate to see newer players discouraged by better teams gaming the system.
I am firmly of the opinion that it's very rare for players, and certainly rare for whole teams/programs, to give up on quiz bowl due to beat-downs from better teams. It often seems like it's good players/teams who make this argument on behalf of uh, less good teams.

Players stick with the game because they like playing it. Success certainly helps, but it's not the primary drive (see the recent threads about what keeps people doing quiz bowl, what the game has given them, etc.). The CC circuit is a good example: in Florida, we have a number of programs that have probably never had a winning record at almost any tournament in the 21st century, but they come to 6-8 competitions a year, and their players seem to have fun. Now why they don't all want to hunker down and get better, I'm not quite sure, but even that seems to speak to reasons to play the game beyond winning.
To expand on this a little, it's certainly true that people do encounter collegiate quizbowl, find it intimidatingly hard, and then quit. However, 90% of those people quit after the first practice, and virtually all of them are gone by the time October/November rolls around. The type of players who are still playing quizbowl in January and beyond are not going to quit because it's too hard--they have various other reasons as to why they enjoy the activity. Hell, some of them (such as myself, circa April 2011), will go to nationals, take repeated 400-0 beatings to the best teams, then take it as motivation to become the best.
Billy Busse
Illinois '14
President, ACF
Writer/Subject Editor/Set Editor, NAQT

User avatar
etchdulac
Rikku
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 6:02 am
Location: Texas, for better or worse

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by etchdulac » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:14 pm

Picasso's Middle Name wrote:And I know for sure that UT-Dallas wouldn't have since I staffed at that site and they fielded a full a team in D2.
There may be confusion on this, but my understanding is that UT Dallas did not receive an autobid for hosting because TQBA was the actual host and provided the staff. No autobid was given in 2016 either for the site was hosted.
Stephen Fontenot
Texas Quiz Bowl Alliance Deputy Director
Communications, UT Dallas
Strake Jesuit '96 -+-+- Southwestern '00

User avatar
ezubaric
Rikku
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: College Park, MD
Contact:

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by ezubaric » Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:27 pm

I don't check the boards as often as I used to, so I missed the kerfuffle. (And it seems the youngin's prefer their Instagrams and Facebooks over old school web forums.)

First, on Mohit. Mohit was in town anyway and when we had seven teams, he asked if he could play as an exhibition team. There was never a goal of earning a bid from his play. He's graduating this year (from UMD), and this was his last chance to play in a tournament. This was really about rounding out the field.

There was some grousing about Charlie being here. It came up frequently, but Charlie endeared himself to meany of the teams over the course of the day. Colorado certainly didn't mind that he came. (I'll let other teams speak for themselves.)

If Colorado continues to host SCT in future years (I hope we don't ... please, somebody else host), I don't think it's a bad thing to have tourist teams. Most teams in our region will never play a team outside this region. It's good to see that there's a bigger world of quiz bowl out there.

Speaking just as the advisor for Colorado's team, it's good for Colorado players to have a better idea of what a "good quizbowler" looks like and gives them something to work toward. Charlie is the kind of player they'll be seeing at ICT. Hopefully we'll have a separate D1 division next year to insulate the newer teams more effectively.
Jordan Boyd-Graber
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2018-present
UC Boulder, Founder / Faculty Advisor 2014-2017
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2010-2014
Princeton, Player 2004-2009
Caltech (Pasadena, CA), Player / President 2000-2004
Ark Math & Science (Hot Springs, AR), Player 1998-2000
Monticello High School, Player 1997-1998

Human-Computer Question Answering:
http://qanta.org/

User avatar
tiwonge
Tidus
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2006 5:54 pm
Location: Boise (City of Trees), Idaho

Re: Rocky Mountain Sectionals (Boulder, CO; February 4, 2017

Post by tiwonge » Sun Feb 12, 2017 10:21 pm

CPiGuy wrote:
bird bird bird bird bird wrote:
CPiGuy wrote:The situation here will probably result in no actual teams from the Rocky Mountain circuit qualifying for ICT in Division I. This is probably not good.
None of the policies proposed in this thread would change that situation.
That's false; limiting teams to one site would have disincentivized Columbia from sending a one man team to Colorado by making it so that they would have no chance to qualify more than one D1 team, and so that they couldn't qualify any D2 teams. If a club really wanted to have one guy play a weaker field to guarantee a spot at the expense if letting the rest of their players meaningfully play the tournament, they're welcome to.

For that matter, I would support preventing schools from fielding teams at more than one SCT. I would also support, for this year, extending a bid to the team which would have otherwise won this SCT (I don't know who that is), even if their D-value would be otherwise too low.
There was one year that Bob Kilner was getting his Master's from BSU while living and working in Ohio. He attended a SCT local to him as BSU, while a team of undergraduates from BSU went to Seattle, also as BSU. Should this not be permitted? (Ah, after reading the rest of the thread, I see others have mentioned a similar situation.)

In the northwest, we also had a case a few years ago of Travis Vitello flying in to Boise to play (and win) ACF Fall. This is a bit different, in that it's not a qualification for a national tournament, but nobody at the tournament resented his presence. (He also came here for quiz bowl tourism.) (And I see Travis has also given his perspective.)

On the other hand, because this is for an ICT invitation, if we were in contention for one, I might resent it a bit. (UW has almost always won the ICT bid from our region, but they don't always attend the ICT.)

If, in a few years, our team of freshmen and sophomores get strong enough to compete for the the Northwest SCT title, and we're looking forward to maybe going to the ICT as a reward for years of hard work, and somebody from the northeast comes in and wins this bid (without providing the numbers to bump the region up to an extra bid, as happened in Colorado), it might bother us a bit. But we'd have to be pretty good and pretty confident that we'd win the tournament before I'd really get upset. (And, given the size of our region, losing the SCT to a strong UW (or BYU!) team or to an outsider would be about the same.)

I guess in short, from one of the circuits that might be prime for a bid-stealing team to attend, I don't think that I'd be terribly upset. If we're not in the top teams anyway, it's nice to see new faces. And if we are, it provides an infusion of competition (and it's not like we're guaranteed to win the SCT, even without an outsider).

(But if you're going to do quiz bowl tourism and not just game the system, come to one of the tournaments that doesn't provide a bid to a national tournament.)
Colin McNamara, Boise State University
PACE
Idaho Quiz & Academic Teams

User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Yuna
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: Rocky Mountain Sectionals (Boulder, CO; February 4, 2017

Post by Benin Rebirth Party » Tue Feb 14, 2017 3:14 am

Cody wrote:
raffi_-_c-a-n-a-d-a.mp3 wrote:I also think the host bid should go through an application like how ACF does it now.
Based on my experience hosting SCT last year, it does.
Seems like it doesn't. Please do what ACF does and have hosts submit a roster for evaluation before giving them an ICT spot.
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR

User avatar
Victor Prieto
Tidus
Posts: 708
Joined: Tue May 08, 2012 5:15 pm
Location: State College, PA

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Victor Prieto » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:01 pm

touchpack wrote:So the analogy to quizbowl isn't perfect here, but I think it holds up reasonably well. I think there's an argument to be made that it's very enjoyable to compete against teams and players from all over the country that you never see. Even if say, Chicago C is a better team than Florida or Colorado or what have you, I (when I was an active player for Illinois) would MUCH rather play against Florida/Colorado because I get to play Chicago C at every single local circuit event. So when you have a team that travels to a weaker site to steal their autobid (which is NOT what happened with Charlie, as we've discussed plenty), it kinda feels really shitty!
I'm kind of surprised that this sentiment isn't universally held.

To me, it seems that NAQT prioritizes some level of geographic diversity through autobids. This is completely undermined by a high-level team sending people to a low-level site to kill teams from underrepresented regions. If the D-value system works perfectly, then high-level teams wouldn’t need to beat up on distant sites. I have no doubt that if Harvard or Penn had spent the money to send their team to Colorado and compete with Dees for the Rocky Mountains autobid, then that team would have won instead, and we would be yelling at them instead of pitying them for getting knocked out of the field. Essentially, what Columbia did here was purchase an invitation to ICT, which is now even more magnified because only four teams were initially invited off of D-value alone. The Northeast sectionals are obviously way harder, but there's no way that Columbia B deserves to go over Harvard or Penn, who were also both at the New England sectional. Why do people not have more of a problem with this?!
Victor Prieto
Secretary, PACE
Tower Hill School '11 | Rice University '15 | Penn State University '20
Member (and lots of other stuff): PACE (2015-present) | Writer, Editor: HSAPQ (2013-2016)

User avatar
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea
Auron
Posts: 1945
Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:53 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Periplus of the Erythraean Sea » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:39 pm

Victor Prieto wrote:
touchpack wrote:So the analogy to quizbowl isn't perfect here, but I think it holds up reasonably well. I think there's an argument to be made that it's very enjoyable to compete against teams and players from all over the country that you never see. Even if say, Chicago C is a better team than Florida or Colorado or what have you, I (when I was an active player for Illinois) would MUCH rather play against Florida/Colorado because I get to play Chicago C at every single local circuit event. So when you have a team that travels to a weaker site to steal their autobid (which is NOT what happened with Charlie, as we've discussed plenty), it kinda feels really shitty!
I'm kind of surprised that this sentiment isn't universally held.

To me, it seems that NAQT prioritizes some level of geographic diversity through autobids. This is completely undermined by a high-level team sending people to a low-level site to kill teams from underrepresented regions. If the D-value system works perfectly, then high-level teams wouldn’t need to beat up on distant sites. I have no doubt that if Harvard or Penn had spent the money to send their team to Colorado and compete with Dees for the Rocky Mountains autobid, then that team would have won instead, and we would be yelling at them instead of pitying them for getting knocked out of the field. Essentially, what Columbia did here was purchase an invitation to ICT, which is now even more magnified because only four teams were initially invited off of D-value alone. The Northeast sectionals are obviously way harder, but there's no way that Columbia B deserves to go over Harvard or Penn, who were also both at the New England sectional. Why do people not have more of a problem with this?!
I feel like people would have less of a problem with this if ICT bids weren't such a rat race - frankly, I don't blame Columbia for taking advantage of its resources to guarantee itself a second bid, because Columbia B is a pretty solid team and deserves to go a lot more than, say, Youngstown State. I'd rather have Florida in the field than Columbia B (for the geographic diversity), but Florida is also a pretty solid team and represents the best team from its region - Youngstown isn't even close to the best team in its region!
Will Alston
Bethesda Chevy Chase HS '12, Dartmouth '16, Columbia Business School '21
NAQT Writer and Subject Editor

User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Yuna
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Benin Rebirth Party » Tue Feb 14, 2017 4:48 pm

Victor Prieto wrote: To me, it seems that NAQT prioritizes some level of geographic diversity through autobids. This is completely undermined by a high-level team sending people to a low-level site to kill teams from underrepresented regions.
I agree with Victor here. Columbia B essentially bought their way to an ICT bid.
Periplus of the Erythraean Sea wrote:Youngstown isn't even close to the best team in its region!
Or Carleton, or UCF, or WKU, or Yale B, or Virginia B, or true Maryland B..........
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR

User avatar
Jewish Pugilist
Lulu
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Orlando,FL

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Jewish Pugilist » Wed Feb 15, 2017 1:16 pm

Or Carleton, or UCF, or WKU, or Yale B, or Virginia B, or true Maryland B..........
I know this probably does not help much, but I just wanted to throw in the comment that UCF has only played one tournament this season as a true A team (Acf fall 2016 I think). Our "A Team" for SCT was our fourth best player (Bradley K) and fifth best (myself) while our three best were staffing.

I think our A team competes just fine with the Georgia's, Alabama's, and Florida's when full strength.
Peter Torres
University of Central Florida 2014-

User avatar
Benin Rebirth Party
Yuna
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 8:46 pm
Location: Farhaven, Ontario

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Benin Rebirth Party » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:22 pm

Sorry, Peter. I searched UCF and got results for EFT and SCT but not ACF Fall, which as Victor pointed out, aren't posted.
Joe Su
Lisgar 2012, McGill 2015, McGill 20--

FINALIST -- 2017 ILQBM MEME OF THE YEAR

User avatar
Jewish Pugilist
Lulu
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Orlando,FL

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Jewish Pugilist » Wed Feb 15, 2017 2:41 pm

raffi_-_c-a-n-a-d-a.mp3 wrote:Sorry, Peter. I searched UCF and got results for EFT and SCT but not ACF Fall, which as Victor pointed out, aren't posted.
It's cool. If you still care the Fall stat link is in the collegiate announcement forum for the FSU ACF site. My teammates are really smart people and the club has come a long way from fall of 2015, and Florida as whole is becoming a stronger circuit (as Travis V mentioned earlier in the other autobid discussion). I just did not want the work of my teammates like Bradley (and his million flashcards) or Daniel Golisch to be undermined.

In reference to an earlier post in the thread, I do agree that UF is the strongest team in Florida right now , but we have been known to nab a game or two from them like at 2016 MUT.

Edit: The comment about UF's strength may have been mentioned in the other discussion. Honestly, I confuse the two threads half the time
Peter Torres
University of Central Florida 2014-

User avatar
The Ununtiable Twine
Yuna
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:09 pm
Location: Lafayette, LA

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by The Ununtiable Twine » Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:11 pm

Jewish Pugilist wrote:
I think our A team competes just fine with the Georgia's, Alabama's, and Florida's when full strength.
It's not a good idea to make global comparisons of team strength based on stats from combined field SCTs played on D2 questions and ACF Fall. Those results are never analogous to comparisons which are made on regular college difficulty and beyond, never have been, and never will be.
Jake Sundberg
Louisiana '04-'10, '14-'16, '18-'xx
Alabama '10-14
President, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Club for Academic Competition

User avatar
Jewish Pugilist
Lulu
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Orlando,FL

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Jewish Pugilist » Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:28 pm

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
Jewish Pugilist wrote:
I think our A team competes just fine with the Georgia's, Alabama's, and Florida's when full strength.
It's not a good idea to make global comparisons of team strength based on stats from combined field SCTs played on D2 questions and ACF Fall. Those results are never analogous to comparisons which are made on regular college difficulty and beyond, never have been, and never will be.
I mean, I am just working with the stats at hand, bud. We did not go to Terrapin as there was no close (less than six hours away) site or any other regular difficulty tournaments in fall. Also, it was more making a point that the SCT and EFT stats were far lower because we were separated and at Fall we were not. Saying we can hang in with teams like UF was more based on my opinion than anything else
Peter Torres
University of Central Florida 2014-

User avatar
The Ununtiable Twine
Yuna
Posts: 997
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:09 pm
Location: Lafayette, LA

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by The Ununtiable Twine » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:28 pm

Jewish Pugilist wrote:
The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
Jewish Pugilist wrote:
I think our A team competes just fine with the Georgia's, Alabama's, and Florida's when full strength.
It's not a good idea to make global comparisons of team strength based on stats from combined field SCTs played on D2 questions and ACF Fall. Those results are never analogous to comparisons which are made on regular college difficulty and beyond, never have been, and never will be.
I mean, I am just working with the stats at hand, bud. We did not go to Terrapin as there was no close (less than six hours away) site or any other regular difficulty tournaments in fall. Also, it was more making a point that the SCT and EFT stats were far lower because we were separated and at Fall we were not. Saying we can hang in with teams like UF was more based on my opinion than anything else
Well even then your A team, which you say was full at ACF Fall, wasn't competing against the full UF A or the whole UGA A. UF A was split into two and UGA A played without Jason, who basically doubles their team's capabilities on that difficulty. So saying you can compete with partially assembled elite teams in the Southeast is the far more accurate statement. For the record, Alabama is no longer elite - that ship done sailed.
Jake Sundberg
Louisiana '04-'10, '14-'16, '18-'xx
Alabama '10-14
President, University of Louisiana at Lafayette Club for Academic Competition

User avatar
Jewish Pugilist
Lulu
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 1:39 am
Location: Orlando,FL

Re: SCT, autobids, and ICT size discussion

Post by Jewish Pugilist » Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:47 pm

The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
Jewish Pugilist wrote:
The Ununtiable Twine wrote:
Jewish Pugilist wrote:
I think our A team competes just fine with the Georgia's, Alabama's, and Florida's when full strength.
It's not a good idea to make global comparisons of team strength based on stats from combined field SCTs played on D2 questions and ACF Fall. Those results are never analogous to comparisons which are made on regular college difficulty and beyond, never have been, and never will be.
I mean, I am just working with the stats at hand, bud. We did not go to Terrapin as there was no close (less than six hours away) site or any other regular difficulty tournaments in fall. Also, it was more making a point that the SCT and EFT stats were far lower because we were separated and at Fall we were not. Saying we can hang in with teams like UF was more based on my opinion than anything else
Well even then your A team, which you say was full at ACF Fall, wasn't competing against the full UF A or the whole UGA A. UF A was split into two and UGA A played without Jason, who basically doubles their team's capabilities on that difficulty. So saying you can compete with partially assembled elite teams in the Southeast is the far more accurate statement. For the record, Alabama is no longer elite - that ship done sailed.
Well, you got me Jake. You clearly unveiled a UCF conspiracy to make ourselves look good in the eyes of the greater quizbowl circuit. Now everyone will know how much we suck and you proved your point :party:

Edit: Sorry, this was a dumb comment in retrospect
Peter Torres
University of Central Florida 2014-

User avatar
sonstige
Wakka
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:50 am
Location: Charlottesville, VA

Re: Rocky Mountain Sectionals (Boulder, CO; February 4, 2017

Post by sonstige » Wed Feb 22, 2017 6:46 pm

tiwonge wrote: In the northwest, we also had a case a few years ago of Travis Vitello flying in to Boise to play (and win) ACF Fall. This is a bit different, in that it's not a qualification for a national tournament, but nobody at the tournament resented his presence. (He also came here for quiz bowl tourism.) (And I see Travis has also given his perspective.)
A "few" ... it was over 5 years ago (!!!) (...yeah, Colin...we're getting old...). But that tournament was great, and people should go to Boise --- Craters of the Moon, in particular, is worth the trip. Oh, and the Boise Fry Company (which will ruin your expectation for french fries thereafter). Plus, Colin's a pretty swell dude if you don't know him personally. /steps off soapbox

I do want to stay out of the debate on the strength of current teams in Florida, but will quietly say...Taylor + Alex + Julio is a very well-rounded core (improving since last year), and I don't know if a recent tournament exists where a full-strength UCF team has crossed paths with them.

I'd like to think they'll do well at ICT --- but what I think may hurt them is their initial bracket. Scaling due to their SOS and playing a D2 set at SCT knocked their D-Value down to 22nd, which will translate to what...something like a 5- or 6-seed? Compare this to 2016 --- they were ranked 21, again due to scaling.

To sort of tie it back to this thread --- had some D1 out-of-region team traveled to Florida for SCT, UF could have played on not-D2 questions ... plus, their SOS would have likely increased (rather than having to play New College C, UCF C, and College of Charleston, etc.).

Would this have *helped* them in the D-Value rankings, even if they lost a game or two to that out-of-region team, I don't know. But clearly, inflating stats against novice-level teams on D2 questions hasn't placed them better than a 20 (I assume, in all of this, that D-Value means something when it comes to initial ICT brackets...but really, I have no idea how that works).

With that, maybe the risk of a low D-Value would be enough of a deterrent to keep teams from traveling to weaker regions for SCT?
Travis Vitello
University of Florida '08
The Ohio State University '14
University of Virginia '21
Writer, NAQT

User avatar
Important Bird Area
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 5490
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 3:33 pm
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Contact:

Re: Rocky Mountain Sectionals (Boulder, CO; February 4, 2017

Post by Important Bird Area » Wed Feb 22, 2017 7:23 pm

sonstige wrote:I'd like to think they'll do well at ICT --- but what I think may hurt them is their initial bracket. Scaling due to their SOS and playing a D2 set at SCT knocked their D-Value down to 22nd, which will translate to what...something like a 5- or 6-seed?

(I assume, in all of this, that D-Value means something when it comes to initial ICT brackets...but really, I have no idea how that works).
For the record: while D-values do help inform ICT bracketing, they are not the only information we use when ranking ICT teams.
Jeff Hoppes
President, Northern California Quiz Bowl Alliance
former HSQB Chief Admin (2012-13)
VP for Communication and history subject editor, NAQT
Editor emeritus, ACF

"I wish to make some kind of joke about Jeff's love of birds, but I always fear he'll turn them on me Hitchcock-style." -Fred

Locked