NAQT Sectionals

Old college threads.
jazzerpoet
Wakka
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

NAQT Sectionals

Post by jazzerpoet »

I am surprised that no one has mentioned this as of yet, but does anyone know what is going on with NAQT Sectionals this year? Does anyone know whether or not any hosts have been selected? I mean, I know that there is still plenty of time until Sectionals actually occur, but it would be helpful to have an idea, if only for budgetary reasons.

Thanks.
Angelo Malabanan

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico »

I'll second this request.

MaS

User avatar
Mr. Kwalter
Tidus
Posts: 617
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 1:48 am
Location: Houston, TX

Post by Mr. Kwalter »

Hey Angelo, how about taking a break from the wondering to post stats from GHO. Or have I just missed this?

geekjohnson
Wakka
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:10 am
Location: Flomaton, AL
Contact:

Post by geekjohnson »

I guess this is relevant to the thread, most everyone reads these boards as compared to yahoo:

(copied from yahoo group)

Coaches and Players --

NAQT received a paucity of bids to host SCTs this year at both the
four-year and the community college level. Our announced procedures
didn't cover the case where the aggregate coverage of the submitted
sites was insufficient, so we've been mulling over what to do.

We've decided to accept these bids immediately:

Michigan
UC-Irvine
Brock
Valencia (CC)

Accept this bid on the presumption that a scheduling issue can be resolved:

Oklahoma State

Keep these two bids pending:

UTC
Pittsburgh

And extend the deadline to bid for an SCT (or CC SCT) by another week
to Wednesday, November 15.

We hope that teams were reticent to bid because they weren't sure of
their team size/leadership for the coming year and that, by this
point, they will have a better idea. We certainly hope to see a large
number of bids arrive so that we can do our best to make everybody's
trip to Sectionals convenient.

At the same time, we don't want to ignore the possibility that this
lack of bids is not chance. If there are non-logistical reasons that
your school isn't bidding (financial, policy, whatever), please take
the time to let us know so we can think about our plans for subsequent
years.

The information for bidders may be found here:

http://www.naqt.com/sct/2007/2007-sct-c ... hosts.html

Along with the host requirements:

http://www.naqt.com/sct/2007/2007-sct-h ... ments.html

-- R. Robert Hentzel
President and Chief Technical Officer,
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

I'd bid for Brown if we weren't hoping to qualify two teams for ICT; attempting to do so would make it impossible for us to both play and staff. Someone in the Northeast, please bid. I really don't want to drive to Pittsburgh.

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

I tried to convince my old chums at Brandeis to put in a bid. Don't know if they have the staff. I would bet problems like this could be alleviated by making the respective ICT's open reg, so the bigger programs don't need to worry about the concerns Jerry voices (and which, I'd bet, also scares off some similar potential hosts.)

jazzerpoet
Wakka
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:30 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Contact:

Post by jazzerpoet »

I think that one of the main contributors to the dearth of bids is the issue of timed rounds. Last year, when I was the TD for NAQT South SCT, the most frustrating and stressful aspect of hosting SCT was the need for quick yet clear readers.

Honestly, why not just abandon timed rounds for SCT? I mean, timed rounds should be easily accomplished at ICT, when the best readers are available from around the country. But when you force inexperienced readers to strive for a certain level of proficiency, things usually end up a mess.

Moreover, fixed rounds of 20 tossups would help to standardize cross-SCT statistical comparisons for the purposes of the ICT bids.

Just a thought.

Cheers!
Angelo Malabanan

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

jazzerpoet wrote:Honestly, why not just abandon timed rounds for SCT? I mean, timed rounds should be easily accomplished at ICT, when the best readers are available from around the country. But when you force inexperienced readers to strive for a certain level of proficiency, things usually end up a mess.
Because timed rounds are FUNN. Next thing you know, we'll be asking for ridiculous things like having SCT questions be factually correct and not suck.

User avatar
Captain Sinico
Auron
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 1:46 pm
Location: Champaign, Illinois

Post by Captain Sinico »

jazzerpoet wrote:IHonestly, why not just abandon timed rounds for SCT?
I guess that the argument I'd make as a player is that SCT is the only place (outside of practice, of course) that I get to play timed rounds, so, all else equal, it's better preparation for ICT if rounds are played on the clock (assuming ICT must be timed... which is another matter.) Of course, untimed rounds are easier to run, which just goes to show you that NAQT IS TOO HARD!

MaS

User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants »

So, I guess after today we'll have a good idea of the hosts, right? Please host East Sectionals UVA, pretty please with cherries, cigars, c-notes, and crack on top?

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Matt Morrison wrote:So, I guess after today we'll have a good idea of the hosts, right? Please host East Sectionals UVA, pretty please with cherries, cigars, c-notes, and crack on top?
I guess there it is. From the NAQT page, the hosts are:

Valencia CC
UC Irvine
Brock University
UMich
Oklahoma State
Marion Military Institute
Cloud CC

So, I'm not seeing any mid-Atlantic hosts at all, nor any Northeast hosts, any Northwest hosts, any Southwest hosts...

I'm planning to put in a bid at this point with some provisos and see if NAQT will go for it. If that doesn't work out, I guess I'm taking a trip to Canada.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Oh wait, I guess OK is Southwest. I are gud at geography.

Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

F5 for soccer posts wrote:I guess there it is. From the NAQT page, the hosts are:

Valencia CC
UC Irvine
Brock University
UMich
Oklahoma State
Marion Military Institute
Cloud CC

So, I'm not seeing any mid-Atlantic hosts at all
Hell, there's enough qb alumni around here who could read that I'd almost be willing to find a high school whose facilities could be borrowed and run it myself just as a service to the area.

vandyhawk
Tidus
Posts: 584
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2003 3:42 am
Location: Seattle

Post by vandyhawk »

F5 for soccer posts wrote: So, I'm not seeing any mid-Atlantic hosts at all, nor any Northeast hosts, any Northwest hosts, any Southwest hosts...
Read James' (geekjohnson) cross-posted thing from R. - there are pending bids at UTC and Pitt still, with others possibly coming in since that time. I doubt they've updated anything on their page since they gave people till today to submit bids.

User avatar
bsmith
Tidus
Posts: 586
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 10:33 am
Location: Ottawa, ON

Post by bsmith »

Can it be assumed that no one has bid for the ICT, or is the location just being kept secret until the SCT has passed? In the past, the ICT location was listed at about the same time as SCT locations.

(ps: this is not for my personal information, as I'm about 80% sure I will be staffing instead of playing at an SCT)

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

grapesmoker wrote: Valencia CC
UC Irvine
Brock University
UMich
Oklahoma State
Marion Military Institute
Cloud CC
Quoting myself, I just realized after looking at the NAQT page again that only 4 of the above sites will actually use an SCT set; the others are labeled "junior college" and will use IS sets. I have to ask, are the schools that play on these sets going to be qualifying for the ICT? Have schools qualified for the ICT before while playing on IS sets?

wd4gdz
Tidus
Posts: 740
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2004 5:40 pm
Location: Tallahassee

Post by wd4gdz »

grapesmoker wrote: I have to ask, are the schools that play on these sets going to be qualifying for the ICT?
Yes
grapesmoker wrote: Have schools qualified for the ICT before while playing on IS sets?
Yes

User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants »

Any other hosts? What happened to Pitt and UTC, as well as Jerry making an offer R. can't refuse, or Byko's quizbowl community service plan?

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Matt Morrison wrote:Jerry making an offer R. can't refuse
Well, I'd hardly call it that. The situation with Brown is that if possible I'd like to qualify two teams, a DI team and a DII team (we have some promising youngsters this year). Unfortunately, we don't yet know the ICT location, which makes it hard to figure out whether people will actually be able to afford to go. The problem is further compounded by the fact that we can't host and have team play at the same time; our club is just not large enough for that.

I've offered R. several variations on a theme, which I understand NAQT to be considering. One of them is a situation where we play off the clock, removing the need for scorekeepers in every room, one is a situation where we are allowed to use a host bid to send a DII team while I try to qualify a DI team solo (a la Yale last year), and a third option is one in which Harvard and Brown co-host, with both DI teams receiving a hosting bid and the DII teams being allowed to play. I hope to hear from NAQT soon about this.
grapesmoker wrote:I have to ask, are the schools that play on these sets going to be qualifying for the ICT?
wd4gdz wrote:Yes
grapesmoker wrote:Have schools qualified for the ICT before while playing on IS sets?
wd4gdz wrote:Yes
Ok, in that case I have to say that this is unfortunate. I think it's somewhat insulting to the intelligence of the CC and JC teams to essentially have them play a lower grade of questions to qualify for a national tournament. SCT questions are already pretty easy as it is, and I just can't see any reason not to have everyone play on the same set. It doesn't seem very fair to those teams that do end up playing on the SCT set and have to compete against teams playing on IS questions, unless of course there is no competition because NAQT reserves a certain number of spots for CC/JC teams; in which case, it's still somewhat condescending.

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8414
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

Yeah, I believe in past years the DII field has been 32 teams, with 24 spots allotted to DII teams playing DII SCT questions, and 8 spots to CC teams playing high school questions. CC teams that wished to compete with general DII teams would have to go to a DI/DII sectional.

As far as asking people in college to have some self-respect and not play high school questions, or asking NAQT not to facilitate and profit from such behavior, I think the ship has already sailed.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Matt Weiner wrote:Yeah, I believe in past years the DII field has been 32 teams, with 24 spots allotted to DII teams playing DII SCT questions, and 8 spots to CC teams playing high school questions. CC teams that wished to compete with general DII teams would have to go to a DI/DII sectional.
So, teams that qualify on ICT questions can't even compete against other teams at ICT? Please correct me if I misunderstand, but that seems really odd.
As far as asking people in college to have some self-respect and not play high school questions, or asking NAQT not to facilitate and profit from such behavior, I think the ship has already sailed.
Well, in the last analysis, people may choose to run their tournaments on IS questions based on time considerations and whatnot. I don't approve and would never take my team to play in those tournaments, but I can understand that laziness may be a powerful motivator. However, this situation is not analogous; basically, NAQT is already running a nation-wide qualifier, all on the same day. So, they have to provide the questions to everyone anyway, and they have to produce an SCT set no matter what because that's what all the other teams are playing. Thus, providing the SCT set to the CC/JC circuit would be equally labor intensive/profitable for NAQT. With those things in mind, why create what are in effect two separate tiers of question quality for people depending on where they go to school?

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8414
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

grapesmoker wrote:So, teams that qualify on ICT questions can't even compete against other teams at ICT? Please correct me if I misunderstand, but that seems really odd.
Past practice has been to play and rank all 32 DII teams (the 24 regular DII teams and the 8 CC teams) together, and allow the CC teams to contend for DII placement, while also running a separate CC final after the tournament proper.

The financial advantages of having CC teams discover that collegiate-level questions are TOOOO HAAAAAAAAARRRD by being unceremoniously dropped into nationals-level questions and competition after qualifying on high school questions, and thus remain a captive audience for NAQT high school questions forever more, are probably not lost on anyone.

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

So, this shows a clear example of the arcane bid requirements getting in the way of teams throwing everything into hosting? If that isn't a good example of why the ICT field should just be open to avoid these pointless conflicts, I don't know what is.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Of course, when I wrote "qualify on ICT questions" I really meant to write "qualify on IS questions." Bring back the edit button please!
Matt Weiner wrote:Past practice has been to play and rank all 32 DII teams (the 24 regular DII teams and the 8 CC teams) together, and allow the CC teams to contend for DII placement, while also running a separate CC final after the tournament proper.
I knew there was a separate CC final, but I hadn't realized the separation, or that apparently CC teams don't play on ICT questions at ICT.
The financial advantages of having CC teams discover that collegiate-level questions are TOOOO HAAAAAAAAARRRD by being unceremoniously dropped into nationals-level questions and competition after qualifying on high school questions, and thus remain a captive audience for NAQT high school questions forever more, are probably not lost on anyone.
I won't pretend to speculate about NAQT's motives, but telling people that they are playing in a national championship when in fact they are apparently playing on questions that have nothing in common with the questions being used in said championship (seriously, is this right? I'm having a hard time believing it, so I'm hoping that perhaps I'm just confused) doesn't make any sense to me. While I have no idea how many of those teams would or would not come to the ICT if they had to play on the same questions as everyone, I still think the situation is obviously unfair, both to the CC teams and to the teams they are going to be playing against.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Rothlover wrote:So, this shows a clear example of the arcane bid requirements getting in the way of teams throwing everything into hosting? If that isn't a good example of why the ICT field should just be open to avoid these pointless conflicts, I don't know what is.
I don't know about the "arcane" requirements; all I know is that a timed format means a moderator and a scorekeeper in every room and we can't possibly provide that. That said, I would of course prefer that the ICT be open, if only because it would mean that we wouldn't have to spend $400 to qualify teams for it.

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8414
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

grapesmoker wrote:Of course, when I wrote "qualify on ICT questions" I really meant to write "qualify on IS questions." Bring back the edit button please!
Matt Weiner wrote:Past practice has been to play and rank all 32 DII teams (the 24 regular DII teams and the 8 CC teams) together, and allow the CC teams to contend for DII placement, while also running a separate CC final after the tournament proper.
I knew there was a separate CC final, but I hadn't realized the separation, or that apparently CC teams don't play on ICT questions at ICT.
The financial advantages of having CC teams discover that collegiate-level questions are TOOOO HAAAAAAAAARRRD by being unceremoniously dropped into nationals-level questions and competition after qualifying on high school questions, and thus remain a captive audience for NAQT high school questions forever more, are probably not lost on anyone.
I won't pretend to speculate about NAQT's motives, but telling people that they are playing in a national championship when in fact they are apparently playing on questions that have nothing in common with the questions being used in said championship (seriously, is this right? I'm having a hard time believing it, so I'm hoping that perhaps I'm just confused) doesn't make any sense to me. While I have no idea how many of those teams would or would not come to the ICT if they had to play on the same questions as everyone, I still think the situation is obviously unfair, both to the CC teams and to the teams they are going to be playing against.
No, they do all use the DII set at the ICT and play in the general DII field. But they qualify by playing high school questions against other CCs.

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Matt Weiner wrote:No, they do all use the DII set at the ICT and play in the general DII field. But they qualify by playing high school questions against other CCs.
Ah, ok, that makes more sense. But if they're going to get dumped into the same division with everyone and have to compete on the same questions, they will obviously have harder time adjusting than if they had qualified on SCT questions. Qualifying on an IS set puts those teams at a distinct disadvantage.

Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

Matt Morrison wrote:Any other hosts? What happened to Pitt and UTC, as well as Jerry making an offer R. can't refuse, or Byko's quizbowl community service plan?
Considering the number of teams in the Mid-Atlantic general-neck-of-the-woods, someone in the area has to host a Mid-Atlantic sectional. Additionally, I would much rather see it be a college team because it's good experience for them to be able to host an event, plus it makes use of an automatic bid. So I'll gladly defer to Pitt if that works. I'm just kind of putting myself out there as a last resort.

Having said that, I haven't yet mentioned this to R. or anyone at NAQT for that matter. Maybe it's time I should.

Of course, if anyone has heard any new information in this area, let us all know--I really don't want to step on anyone's toes.

User avatar
jhn31
Wakka
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Starkville, MS

Post by jhn31 »

They have more hosts listed, but is there going to be no Southeastern site? 10 hours to Oklahoma State is a long way for us to go, and it's going to be farther for schools to the east of us...

Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

For that matter, there appears to be nothing of a 4-year sectional on the east coast: still nothing in the Mid-Atlantic or Northeast. So, I'll try to at least take care of the Mid-Atlantic issue right now.

User avatar
orangecrayon
Wakka
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:04 pm
Location: Tulsa, Okla.
Contact:

Post by orangecrayon »

jhn31 wrote:They have more hosts listed, but is there going to be no Southeastern site? 10 hours to Oklahoma State is a long way for us to go, and it's going to be farther for schools to the east of us...
Yeah, it'd be nice to know for us as well. If we wind up being the only four-year site south of the Mason-Dixon, I'd like to at least like to know so I can send you all the info...

For what it's worth, we won't even be having sectionals in Stillwater. We have to move them to Tulsa due to a campus scheduling conflict...

ktour84
Lulu
Posts: 53
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 1:09 am

Post by ktour84 »

Iowa, South Georgia College (CC), University of British Columbia, and University of Southern Mississippi (CC) have been added. Pitt is still pending as it wasn't listed. Still no host announcements for the East Coast, or the Northeast.

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8414
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

I think every community college south of the Mason-Dixon line should be allowed to host its own sectional and have its A team and B team play 12 times, with both of course receiving automatic bids. Having four different community college sectionals in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida just doesn't go far enough. Plus, by automating the bid process for community college sectionals, it will give NAQT some more time to spend on its apparently fruitless quest to find someone within 1000 miles of the Atlantic coast willing to make upwards of $2000 for ten hours work in hosting a sectional for full universities.

User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants »

So, Southern Miss. is a 4 year university, but they're hosting a CC sectional when there's no real 4 year southeast sectional? Brilliant!

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Matt Weiner wrote:I think every community college south of the Mason-Dixon line should be allowed to host its own sectional and have its A team and B team play 12 times, with both of course receiving automatic bids. Having four different community college sectionals in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Florida just doesn't go far enough. Plus, by automating the bid process for community college sectionals, it will give NAQT some more time to spend on its apparently fruitless quest to find someone within 1000 miles of the Atlantic coast willing to make upwards of $2000 for ten hours work in hosting a sectional for full universities.
Hey, I'm willing. I exchanged a flurry of emails with R. last week, but I haven't heard back in a couple days, so I assume NAQT is still pondering the Brown/Harvard proposal.

Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

Considering that, according to NAQT's hosting requirements, a preliminary announcement of contact information and schedule has to be made by this Friday, I would recommend NAQT be ready to make a decision soon.

Kyle
Auron
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Ifrane, Morocco / Oxford, UK / Issaquah, WA

Post by Kyle »

grapesmoker wrote:Hey, I'm willing. I exchanged a flurry of emails with R. last week, but I haven't heard back in a couple days, so I assume NAQT is still pondering the Brown/Harvard proposal.
We'd rather play than host, but Brown/Harvard seems to be the only option. If there is no sectional in the northeast, then we won't be able to go at all - and I think many other teams from around here are in the same situation. If teams from one region, especially a historically active one, are excluded by geography, then it doesn't seem to me like the ICT could bill itself as a "national" tournament...which is why I think it makes sense for NAQT to give Jerry and me two automatic bids in order to run one of these things, since neither team has the manpower to staff a tournament to NAQT's specifications by itself. But whatever - I don't make the decisions here. I just want the chance to play.

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

I suppose it's just a staring contest now btw the teams and NAQT... who blinks first? :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

Kyle wrote:
grapesmoker wrote:Hey, I'm willing. I exchanged a flurry of emails with R. last week, but I haven't heard back in a couple days, so I assume NAQT is still pondering the Brown/Harvard proposal.
We'd rather play than host, but Brown/Harvard seems to be the only option. If there is no sectional in the northeast, then we won't be able to go at all - and I think many other teams from around here are in the same situation. If teams from one region, especially a historically active one, are excluded by geography, then it doesn't seem to me like the ICT could bill itself as a "national" tournament...which is why I think it makes sense for NAQT to give Jerry and me two automatic bids in order to run one of these things, since neither team has the manpower to staff a tournament to NAQT's specifications by itself. But whatever - I don't make the decisions here. I just want the chance to play.
That's basically my position too, with the exception that if I have to, I will drive with 4 other people to Canada. NAQT's reservations seem to lie in the fact that they've never given 2 automatic bids for a single site. I've repeatedly suggested Yale as a good location for a Northeast SCT, as they are the only club with the manpower to do it alone, but I suspect they probably would like to field multiple teams at ICT, and thus might have the same problems that we do.

Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

Kyle wrote:If teams from one region, especially a historically active one, are excluded by geography, then it doesn't seem to me like the ICT could bill itself as a "national" tournament...which is why I think it makes sense for NAQT to give Jerry and me two automatic bids in order to run one of these things, since neither team has the manpower to staff a tournament to NAQT's specifications by itself.
grapesmoker wrote:NAQT's reservations seem to lie in the fact that they've never given 2 automatic bids for a single site.
Considering that I'm not looking for any automatic bids myself for potentially hosting in the Mid-Atlantic, I'll gladly give what would otherwise be an automatic bid from our region to another team hosting in the Northeast. After all, it's not like I have any eligibility to go play at ICT. If that helps to fix the problem, by all means, I'm in. I just simply want something logical. I'd also like a response from someone at NAQT so that we can try to expedite things.

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

grapesmoker wrote:
Kyle wrote:
grapesmoker wrote:Hey, I'm willing. I exchanged a flurry of emails with R. last week, but I haven't heard back in a couple days, so I assume NAQT is still pondering the Brown/Harvard proposal.
We'd rather play than host, but Brown/Harvard seems to be the only option. If there is no sectional in the northeast, then we won't be able to go at all - and I think many other teams from around here are in the same situation. If teams from one region, especially a historically active one, are excluded by geography, then it doesn't seem to me like the ICT could bill itself as a "national" tournament...which is why I think it makes sense for NAQT to give Jerry and me two automatic bids in order to run one of these things, since neither team has the manpower to staff a tournament to NAQT's specifications by itself. But whatever - I don't make the decisions here. I just want the chance to play.
That's basically my position too, with the exception that if I have to, I will drive with 4 other people to Canada. NAQT's reservations seem to lie in the fact that they've never given 2 automatic bids for a single site. I've repeatedly suggested Yale as a good location for a Northeast SCT, as they are the only club with the manpower to do it alone, but I suspect they probably would like to field multiple teams at ICT, and thus might have the same problems that we do.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, "fuck bids." If NAQT wants to run a timed tournament that doesn't piss people off with understaffing issues and such, then they will have to give two bids out. If people didn't need a bid to go to ICT, then they could focus on things like banding together as a region to put up a well-staffed one-site tournament in a region that is the densest as far as active/semi-active programs. When teams have to focus on getting bids over all else, then the quality of tournament experience provided by the hosts, if adequate hosting can even happen, WILL suffer. Would an open D1 really get more than like 40 teams anyway?

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

Well, I don't know if it matters. They will get their 100+ teams for HSCT to keep them afloat, and they'll get plenty of people from the college circuit to help them with this event. I don't know if they will ever want to go back to an open format because there is the element of exclusivity of getting a bid (calls for teams to fill the field on contingency basis aside).

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8414
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

There's plenty of people (like me) who have no real interest in playing Sectionals questions or Sectionals opponents and would be happy to go staff somewhere instead, if it meant helping the tournament happen and getting a bid to ICT based on the fact that we quite obviously would have qualified anyway. But such a sensible solution would never be adopted when it means NAQT might miss out on charging the highest entry fee of the year to so many teams. We have to pay $120 to prove that we're better than such 2006 ICT qualifiers as Minnesota, Ottawa, and Rutgers, and so does Brown and so does every other team that will contend for the top bracket at ICT yet still has to go through qualification for some unknown rea$on.

Byko
Auron
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Edgewater, MD

Post by Byko »

Matt Weiner wrote:NAQT might miss out on charging the highest entry fee of the year to so many teams. We have to pay $120
Yeah, I was a little floored to see such a high base rate that NAQT is mandating that every site charge teams. You don't suppose that might be something that could be holding them back from getting younger, start-up teams that are, in many cases, not as well funded as some (though not all by any stretch) long-standing programs, do you?

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

Since I've been out of the NAQT circuit for a while, how much does the ICT entry fee cost? So even if you did go to Sectionals and then ICT, that's $240 to spend plus transportation/housing?

I see how the cost is a disincentive for good young programs to attend, even if you could get a Div2 team to ICT... because you still have to have someone drive the van and deal with housing charges.

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8414
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

E.T. Chuck wrote:Since I've been out of the NAQT circuit for a while, how much does the ICT entry fee cost? So even if you did go to Sectionals and then ICT, that's $240 to spend plus transportation/housing?
Try $360 total; ICT alone was $240 last year on top of $120 for Sectionals.

But really, it's worth spending four times as much as any other tournament in exchange for lazy questions, ad-hoc rules made up to award protests to favored teams, and a complete lack of interest in actually deciding where either tournament will be held. Why wouldn't it be?

User avatar
First Chairman
Auron
Posts: 3875
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:21 pm
Location: Fairfax VA
Contact:

Post by First Chairman »

Matt Weiner wrote: But really, it's worth spending four times as much as any other tournament in exchange for lazy questions, ad-hoc rules made up to award protests to favored teams, and a complete lack of interest in actually deciding where either tournament will be held. Why wouldn't it be?
Dem's fightin' words... Isn't that why high school teams play at :chip: events ? Of course you can also see where the talent went in the high school circuit, but why a similar migration to ACF has not happened is probably due to the fact that individual teams have difficulty writing good questions too.

As for having ICT become an open event, I can see why NAQT would not want to do it. If it's an extra $120 per team, it financially benefits them to have qualification tournaments, whether it's the "state championships" run by NAQT or college sectionals.

Kyle
Auron
Posts: 1125
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Ifrane, Morocco / Oxford, UK / Issaquah, WA

Post by Kyle »

You guys make it sound like NAQT is losing interest among high school teams, and that's not the case. There are lots of high school NAQT tournaments and the field for the HSNCT is increasing, not decreasing. The result is that NAQT cares more and more about high school and less and less about college (you'll notice that the HSNCT site was announced long ago and will be played in late May, while the ICT site for early April remains a mystery).

User avatar
Zip Zap Rap Pants
Yuna
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:55 am
Location: Richmond/Williamsburg, VA
Contact:

Post by Zip Zap Rap Pants »

E.T. Chuck wrote: I see how the cost is a disincentive for good young programs to attend, even if you could get a Div2 team to ICT... because you still have to have someone drive the van and deal with housing charges.
It's actually $80 for Sectionals for new teams (not sure if it's teams consisting of new players or just new programs). So that's some incentive for us to go this year if they'll ever announce a site that doesn't take an Atlas rocket for us to get to.

User avatar
orangecrayon
Wakka
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 2:04 pm
Location: Tulsa, Okla.
Contact:

Post by orangecrayon »

Matt Morrison wrote: It's actually $80 for Sectionals for new teams (not sure if it's teams consisting of new players or just new programs). So that's some incentive for us to go this year if they'll ever announce a site that doesn't take an Atlas rocket for us to get to.
I'm pretty sure that discount is just for new programs.

Locked