Announcement: South SCT (02/10/07) hosted by Ok State

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

Announcement: South SCT (02/10/07) hosted by Ok State

Post by orangecrayon » Tue Dec 05, 2006 9:30 pm

The Oklahoma State University Quiz Bowl team will host a sectional championship tournament on Feb. 10, 2007.

Due to scheduling conflicts at our Stillwater campus, the tournament will be at the University of Tulsa (not to be confused with OSU-Tulsa).

The fee structure:
$120 for the first team
$100 for each additional team
-$10 for every 100 miles driven (according to MapQuest)
-$15 for each working buzzer system brought
-$15 for each volunteer brought (Please let us know in advance who you're bringing. There's an excess of volunteers, we'll take folks on a first come, first served basis.)
-$40 for schools that have not competed at an SCT in at least two years
Minimum fee: $50

Please send questions, bribe attempts and/or registration information to lenzy.krehbiel at okstate dot edu. Registration is open through Feb. 3, 2007 at 11:59 p.m. CST

Sincerely,
Lenzy Krehbiel
SCT Tournament Director
OSU Quiz Bowl
lenzy.krehbiel at okstate dot edu

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

Additional specs and field update

Post by orangecrayon » Tue Jan 16, 2007 6:51 pm

Two additional specs I forgot to include in the initial announcement:
— Check-in starts at 8:30 a.m., with a brief rules meeting starting soon after. Matches should (ideally) start no later than 9:15 a.m.
— If you are able to bring timers, please let me know. We're offering a $10 discount for each working clock brought.

And the field as of Jan. 15:

Division I
Harding (UG)
Oklahoma (grad)
Texas-Austin x2 (grad)
Tulsa (UG)

Division II
Harding x2
Oklahoma x2/3
Tulsa x2/3

Buzzers/volunteers/timers
Harding: 1?/0/5
Oklahoma: 3/1/0
Tulsa: 1?/1/0

Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton
SCT Tournament Director
OSUQB

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

Field update

Post by orangecrayon » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:49 pm

Division I
Harding (UG)
Louisiana-Lafayette (UG)
Oklahoma (grad)
Rolla (grad)
Tulsa (UG)
UT-Austin (grad)

Division II
Harding x2
Hendrix
Kansas State x2
Oklahoma x2/3
Rolla
Tulsa x2/3
UT-Austin

Buzzers/volunteers/timers
Harding: 1?/0/5
Hendrix: 1/1?/1
Oklahoma: 3/1/0
Rolla: 1/1/1
Tulsa: 1?/1/0
UT-Austin: 1-2/0/0

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

Field update

Post by orangecrayon » Mon Jan 29, 2007 5:07 pm

As of Jan. 29...

Division I
Harding (UG)
Louisiana-Lafayette (UG)
Oklahoma (grad)
Rolla (grad)
Tulsa (UG)
UT-Austin (grad)

Division II
Harding x2
Hendrix
Kansas State x2
Oklahoma x2/3
Rolla
SWOSU
Tulsa x2
UT-Austin

Also coming: UT-Dallas (divisions unknown)

Buzzers/volunteers/timers
Harding: 2-3/0/5
Hendrix: 1/1?/1
K-State: 2/1?/0
Oklahoma: 3/1/0
Rolla: 1/1/1
SWOSU: 1/0/0
Tulsa: 1/1/0
UT-Austin: 1-2/0/0

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

Final field count

Post by orangecrayon » Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:51 pm

OK, so the deadline is passed and the field is set. Here's who we're expecting...

Division I
Harding (UG)
Louisiana-Lafayette (UG)
Oklahoma (grad)
Rolla (grad)
Texas A&M (grad)
Tulsa (UG)
UT-Austin (grad)
Total: seven (three UG, four grad)

Division II
Harding x2
Hendrix
Kansas State x2
Oklahoma X2
Rolla
SWOSU
Texas A&M
Tulsa x2
UT-Austin
UT-Dallas x2
total: 15

Buzzers/volunteers/clocks
Harding: 2-3/0/5
Hendrix: 1/1?/1
K-State: 2/1?/0
Oklahoma: 3/1/0
Rolla: 1/1/1
SWOSU: 1/0/0
Texas A&M: 1/0/1
Tulsa: 1/1/0
UT-Austin: 1-2/0/0

User avatar
DVader
Wakka
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plain

Post by DVader » Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:06 am

After the end of the NAQT South SCT, the final results were that UT won in Div I with Texas A & M in second. Harding was the undergrad winner. In Division II, there was a three-way tie for first place among OU B, OU C, and Rolla. The teams played tiebreaker rounds against each other but Rolla kept defeating OU C, OU B (my team) kept defeating Rolla, and OU C kept defeating us. After two circuits of tie breakers we ran out of packets, so the TD declared all three teams co-champions pending an official ruling from NAQT. Considering that this has never happened before as far as I know, what will come of this?

Andy Saunders
Lulu
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Andy Saunders » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:03 am

Here's what I would have done:

I would have used PPTH to seed the teams 1, 2, and 3. Have 2 play 3 in the first tiebreaker for the right to play 1 for the title.

"If ties must be broken (as is the case in rebracketing or determining the championship, but not necessarily for reporting overall results for lower-finishing teams), they must be played off, at the buzzer. It is permissible to use statistics-based tie-breakers to determine the order in which teams play."

User avatar
Jeremy Gibbs Paradox
Rikku
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:54 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by Jeremy Gibbs Paradox » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:26 pm

I would have had others vote against the policy of tiebreakers as useless and artificial in the last NAQT survey. But then, reason continues not to be the strong point of this group anyway.

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 » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:56 pm

Would straight up single elimination of 4 be that outlandish in this type of situation? I mean, at least it gives the top seed team something to do while 2nd and 3rd are playing their game, and if they lose, well then hey they're not that consistant anyway.
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu

User avatar
DVader
Wakka
Posts: 210
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Where the wind comes sweeping down the plain

Post by DVader » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Well, after the 9 preliminary rounds, they had the top four seeded teams play each other in a round robin bracket along with having the other similarly lower seeded teams play each other in separate brackets. The fourth seeded team, Texas, lost all their games in the 4 team round robin and they had an additional loss than the top three teams, so they weren't in contention for the automatic bid. The other three teams, OU B, Rolla, and OU C had the same records going into the round of 4 and the same records going out, and OU B had beaten Rolla which had beaten OU C which had also beaten OU B.
The TD followed the rule of , "If ties must be broken (as is the case in rebracketing or determining the championship, but not necessarily for reporting overall results for lower-finishing teams), they must be played off, at the buzzer. It is permissible to use statistics-based tie-breakers to determine the order in which teams play," as they had OU C play Rolla first with the winner, Rolla, playing OU B, and that winner, OU B, playing OU C again in half rounds of 10 questions untimed. The problem came as we went through two cycles of this and the same results happened both times. It would have continued, I imagine, but they ran out of questions from Div I and Div II to ask. Since NAQT has no other way to break ties, we were all declared co-champions, and the whole matter is up for the main people at NAQT to decide on.

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 » Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:20 pm

Ahh didn't realize the top 4 played a round robin, I guess then it would be redundant to do single elimination of 4 after that, but still, teams 2nd and 3rd in pp20tuh should have played each other for the right to play the 1st ranked team in pp20tuh, as Andy suggested.
Matt Morrison, William & Mary '10, Tour Guide &c., MA in History '12?

"All the cool people eat mangoes while they smoke blunts and do cannonballs off a trampoline into my hot tub..."
-Matt Weiner

“In beer there is strength,
In wine is wisdom,
In water is germs.”
-Unknown

new email: mpmorr at email dot wm dot edu

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

Post by Rothlover » Sun Feb 11, 2007 5:24 pm

I'll be interested in seeing the final stats from this and how it is resolved, because, no disrespect, but I'm guessing that there were 6 non-winning teams in NE D2 with better stats than whoever there.

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

South SCT final results

Post by orangecrayon » Sun Feb 11, 2007 6:17 pm

Wow, didn't expect quite so many people to weigh in on our tournament.

As mentioned in a previous post by DVader, UT-Austin won the overall DI title and Harding was the top undergrad team. After a double round robin with byes, the final DI standings were:

1. UT-Austin (grad), 11-1
T2. Texas A&M (grad) and Harding (UG), 9-3
4. Oklahoma (grad), 6-6
5. Rolla (grad), 3-9
T6. Tulsa (UG) and Louisiana-Lafayette (UG), 2-10

Top 10 individual DI scorers were:
1. Jason Loy (Harding), 59.17 ppg
2. Trey Morris (A&M), 53.75 ppg**
3. Angelo Malabanan (Tulsa), 51.67 ppg**
4. Candace Benefiel (A&M), 47.31 ppg
5. Caleb Lo (UT-Austin), 38.18 ppg
6. Eric Kwartler (UT-Austin), 34.09 ppg
7. Max Tohline (Rolla), 30.42 ppg
8. Jamie Powers (OU), 29.58 ppg
9. Jake Sundberg (Louisiana-Lafayette), 25.00 ppg
10. Ryan Grabowski (OU), 24.17 ppg

As for the much-discussed Division II sectional, after nine prelim rounds and a couple of tie-breakers, we split the field into four brackets. OU C, Rolla and OU B were in a three-way tie for first and seeded according to points per game.

Tie-breakers:
UT-Austin d. Hendrix College, 100-80
Harding B d. Kansas State B, 70-55
Harding B d. UT-Dallas B, 55-35
UT-Austin breaks into bracket No. 1, Harding B breaks into bracket No. 3

Team standings after bracket play...
Bracket No. 1
T1. OU B, OU C and Rolla, 9-2
4. UT-Austin, 6-5

Bracket No. 2
T5. Harding A and Hendrix, 8-3
7. Tulsa C, 6-5
8. Kansas State A, 5-5

Bracket No. 3
9. UT-Dallas A, 6-5
10. Tulsa B, 6-5
11.SWOSU, 4-7
12. Harding B, 1-10

Bracket No. 4
T13. UT-Dallas B and Kansas State B, 2-8
15. Texas A&M, 1-10

After bracket play, we did two half-game round robin tiebreakers to try to clear things up for the DII title. As evidenced by the previous posts, that didn't work out, so we ended with a three-way tie for the South SCT DII title.

[As far as trying to use stats as the tie-breaker after all that, OU B had the highest PPG average at 254.1, compared to 251.4 for OU C and 240.9 for Rolla. As far as points per tossup heard are concerned, the three teams were within .1 of each other. OU B's PPTH average was 12.48, OU C's was 12.45 and Rolla's was 12.38.]

Not including tie-breaker stats, the top 10 individual DII scorers are...
1. Matt Chadbourne (Rolla), 55.00 ppg
2. Matt King, (OU C), 52.11 ppg
3. David Gagne (OU B), 50.00 ppg
4. Mark Molaro (UT-Austin), 44.55 ppg
5. Gavin Pearson (Tulsa C), 38.64 ppg
6. Nathaniel Russell (Tulsa B), 37.73 ppg
7. Adam Roush (Hendrix), 37.37 ppg
8. Jeffrey Hill (Rolla), 35.45 ppg*
9. Ben Lamb (Harding A), 35.00
10. Emily Duda (OU C), 34.09 ppg

Questions, complaints, etc. may be sent to lenzy.krehbiel at okstate dot edu.

Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton
Oklahoma State Quiz Bowl President
South SCT TD

*= Corrected the name spelling. The stat boy had it right on the official stuff while the TD went into auto-pilot mode when posting stuff yesterday.
**= Updated to reflect correction after noticing the last A&M-Tulsa DI game was entered into the system twice.
Last edited by orangecrayon on Sat Feb 17, 2007 7:57 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
jonpin
Forums Staff: Moderator
Posts: 2037
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: BCA NJ / WUSTL MO / Hackensack NJ

Post by jonpin » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:20 pm

On another board, Matt Chadbourne wrote: NAQT's elimination policy isn't really clear on this, but the OSU people considered the format being discussed here and rejected it as being a form of a single-elimination playoff, which is forbidden under the rules. Whether this is the correct interpretation, I'm not sure, but that was the rationale.
Emphasis mine.
orangecrayon wrote: Tie-breakers:
Harding B d. Kansas State B, 70-55
Harding B d. UT-Dallas B, 55-35
Harding B breaks into bracket No. 3

Team standings after bracket play...
Bracket No. 1
T1. OU B, OU C and Rolla, 9-2
4. UT-Austin, 6-5

After bracket play, we did two half-game round robin tiebreakers to try to clear things up for the DII title. As evidenced by the previous posts, that didn't work out, so we ended with a three-way tie for the South SCT DII title.

[As far as points per tossup heard are concerned, the three teams were within .1 of each other.]
Here's my reading of the situation: Early in the day, there was a 3-way tie for one spot in a higher playoff bracket, and it was broken with two half-games. Late in the day, there was a 3-way tie for one title, and it was attempted to be broken by a different method which failed twice.

NAQT rules state that most forms of single-elim are banned because a team cannot eliminate a team with a better record with one win. In this case, all three teams had the same record, so single-elimination was OK.

As six ten-tossup games were played, I deduce that three full packets were available for these tiebreakers. I would think that any of these tiebreaking formats would work best:
First, seed the teams A,B,C on PPTH. As noted on the NAQT page on tiebreakers, the only statistic that may be used is PPTH, and PPTH may be used to seed teams.
A, the most logical system: B plays C in a full game. Winner plays A in a full game for the title.
B, used at the 2006 D2 ICT (which OK St as a team and the TD as a player was at): A vs B in a half-game. Loser(A/B) vs C in a half-game. Winners in a full game for the title.
C, as above but done right: A vs B. Loser vs C. Winners for the title. All three are full games.

As noted, you had three packets so any of the above were possible, and would have definitively produced a winner.

The ranking of the teams on PPG is irrelevant, as it depends on the number of tossups heard in a round and NAQT specifically prohibits its use for tiebreaking/seeding. The ranking of the teams on PPTH is paramount, and I would guess will determine who gets the automatic bid out of this situation.

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

Post by orangecrayon » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:56 pm

jonpin wrote:Here's my reading of the situation: Early in the day, there was a 3-way tie for one spot in a higher playoff bracket, and it was broken with two half-games. Late in the day, there was a 3-way tie for one title, and it was attempted to be broken by a different method which failed twice.
And your interpretation is incorrect, Jon. We did the same thing to figure out who'd go to the lower bracket for playoffs as we did at the end of the day with the OU x2-Rolla circle of death. The difference is that with the former, one team won the first two games, eliminating the need for the third. With the latter, that did not happen either time.

Edited to address a comment brought to my attention from another board: If NAQT wants to yank our auto bid because of the staffing situation, that is their decision. Up until the week of the tournament, we had sufficient staff. However, when two schools yank their volunteers the week of and three additional people have to bail due to family situations (including two less than 48 hours before the tournament starts), there's not a whole lot that can be done. I'll admit, we had a couple of slow readers, but they were pressed into duty because of the aforementioned situation.
lkb

User avatar
The Ununtiable Twine
Auron
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:09 pm
Location: Lafayette, LA

Post by The Ununtiable Twine » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:32 pm

I'd like to commend Lenzy and crew on running a really good tournament despite their shortage in experienced staff members. The volunteers did a really good job despite their relative inexperience.

In response to the controversy, I say this. Sometimes weird things just happen. How often do things like this happen? If you were in the same situation, think about how you would have handled it. Give the tournament director a break and stop attacking people with giant text-filled walls once in a while. From what I heard, all the teams at the top of our D2 bracket were fairly decent, so hopefully the south gets more ICT bids than it usually does.

Again, good job on the tournament, Lenzy.

--Jake

User avatar
The Ununtiable Twine
Auron
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:09 pm
Location: Lafayette, LA

Post by The Ununtiable Twine » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:32 pm

Oh yeah, and when will the complete stats be up? Sorry I forgot to ask in my last post...

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

Post by orangecrayon » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:37 pm

Thanks, Jake...

I e-mailed out partial stats this afternoon. Will be sending out full results within the next day or so. Am still going through, double- and triple-checking everything. (I love our stat guy, but it was his first time using SQBS and it shows from time to time.)
lkb

User avatar
The Ununtiable Twine
Auron
Posts: 1000
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:09 pm
Location: Lafayette, LA

Post by The Ununtiable Twine » Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:40 pm

Thanks.

Can you email them to me at dezhakeem@aim.com whenever they're done? I'd appreciate it.

User avatar
Deckard Cain
Rikku
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:42 pm
Location: Ozark, Missouri

Post by Deckard Cain » Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:06 pm

orangecrayon wrote:Edited to address a comment brought to my attention from another board: If NAQT wants to yank our auto bid because of the staffing situation, that is their decision. Up until the week of the tournament, we had sufficient staff. However, when two schools yank their volunteers the week of and three additional people have to bail due to family situations (including two less than 48 hours before the tournament starts), there's not a whole lot that can be done. I'll admit, we had a couple of slow readers, but they were pressed into duty because of the aforementioned situation.
lkb
Well, I certainly hope NAQT doesn't choose to do this. I thought that, logistically, the tournament ran as well as could possibly be expected. Considering the amount of staff needed for such a large tournament, I was frankly impressed that everything ran as well as it did, and would also like to commend everyone involved for hosting a very enjoyable tournament.

I also didn't have a problem with the tiebreaker. It seemed the most fair way to determine a winner - although, as has been noted, it didn't quite work out that way. Still, it makes logical sense to me that one team should beat both of the others to be declared the champion, and this format is the most fair means of reaching that end. If, to use an example, we were Jon's hypothetical Team A, and lost to team B but defeated C and then defeated B to be crowned champion, I'd have felt like we cheated.

In retrospect, maybe it's fitting that we couldn't determine a champion, as no team in the final three really stood out as being clearly better than the other two.

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

Post by First Chairman » Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:49 pm

Well, I'd say that the 3 co-champions are probably the best way to resolve this. It's like the co-winners of the President's Cup two years back; it's too hard to put a win in the hands of Ernie Els vs. Tiger Woods when each of them square their tiebreaker holes time after time. If you run out of questions, it's not ideal... but you did what you could to try to break that tie.

Let's let the statistics decide, and hopefully it won't be an issue to get all three teams in.
Emil Thomas Chuck, Ph.D.
Founder, PACE
Facebook junkie and unofficial advisor to aspiring health professionals in quiz bowl
---
Pimping Green Tea Ginger Ale (Canada Dry)

Trey
Lulu
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:31 am

Post by Trey » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:08 am

I'd like to add my voice to the appreciation for the job OSU/TU did at the SCT. Yes, the moderating was less than stellar on occasion, but I don't know that I've ever been to a tournament that ran as smoothly as this one did. I can't imagine that NAQT would actually have the gall to revoke OSU's automatic bid; the D2 situation might have been handled better but it's surely not the most egregious mistake tolerated by NAQT, and as far as the logistical/staffing issues go... this year more so than usual NAQT should be fairly understanding.

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1818
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Post by Susan » Mon Feb 12, 2007 1:31 am

Considering that Mizzou got its autobid in 2003 despite running a disastrous SCT, I can't imagine what kind of a debacle you'd have to commit to actually get your bid revoked.

User avatar
Jeremy Gibbs Paradox
Rikku
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 11:54 pm
Location: St. Louis, MO
Contact:

Post by Jeremy Gibbs Paradox » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:29 am

Lenzy I wasn't being serious on the other board vis a vis the autobid; I was speaking with a knee jerk reaction. You guys did have to overcome more than your fair share of difficulties for which I totally sympathize, and I'm glad to hear that apart from the issues raised everyone seemed to have a good time. Apologies again.

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

Post by orangecrayon » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:33 am

Thanks, Sean. I really appreciate hearing that. (And I now feel like a complete heel...)

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:38 pm

Speaking as someone who has no firsthand knowledge of anything related to this, unless the stats are so horrible that realistically only one or two of the three co-champs has a good shot at a wild card berth if not declared the champion, I think this is perfectly fine for SCT. This wouldn't work for ICT or ACF Nationals for obvious reasons or CBI because of their wild-card selection process, but I think for most other tournaments the only issue would be over who gets prizes.

Candace Benefiel
Kimahri
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:58 pm
Location: College Station, TX

South SCT

Post by Candace Benefiel » Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:28 pm

On the whole, the tournament ran smoothly and on time. Tournaments often have staffing issues, and they aren't always overcome as well as this one was.

The whole D2 circle of death certainly wasn't the fault of the tournament organizers--you just had three very evenly matched teams. This is not a bad thing.

Lenzy, speaking as one who was there, that tournament ran just fine.

Candace Benefiel
Texas A&M Quizbowl

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

Post by orangecrayon » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:04 pm

At long last, the final statistics from the South SCT. But first, a few thank yous...

-- To Angelo Malabanan and the folks at the University of Tulsa for letting us use their facilities when OSU-Stillwater became unavailable.
-- To Jan Krehbiel of Panalpina Tulsa for printing all of our questions for free.
-- To the friends and family members who graciously agreed at the last minute to help us out of a tight spot: Eva Galluzzi, Randy and Jay Krehbiel and Cedric and Sissy Fry
-- To Jessica Harper, Jeremy Hixson and Paul Nelson, who were volunteered by their schools to help us out.

OK, the team standings.

Rank Team W L T Pct PPG PAPG Mrg 15 10 -5 TUH PPTH P/N BHrd BPts P/B
Division I
UT-Austin D-1 11 1 0 0.917 325.9 125.9 200.0 21 108 17 221 16.22 1.24 129 2275 17.64
Texas A&M D1 9 3 0 0.750 226.2 142.5 83.8 16 104 17 237 11.46 0.94 120 1520 12.67
Harding D1 9 3 0 0.750 212.5 134.6 77.9 7 100 13 240 10.62 0.54 107 1510 14.11
OU D-I 6 6 0 0.500 160.4 165.8 -5.4 10 87 20 242 7.95 0.50 97 1005 10.36
Rolla D-1 3 9 0 0.250 110.4 217.5 -107.1 6 62 9 237 5.59 0.67 68 660 9.71
UL-LA D-I 2 10 0 0.167 103.2 200.5 -97.3 3 59 4 214 5.30 0.75 62 520 8.39
TU D-I 2 10 0 0.167 102.9 246.2 -143.3 3 68 6 245 5.04 0.50 71 540 7.61

Division II (grouped by final bracket)
OU B D-II 9 2 0 0.818 254.1 131.8 122.3 6 110 26 224 12.48 0.23 116 1735 14.96
OU C D-II 9 2 0 0.818 251.4 135.0 116.4 15 94 14 222 12.45 1.07 109 1670 15.32
Rolla D-II 9 2 0 0.818 240.9 136.8 104.1 8 104 3 214 12.38 2.67 112 1505 13.44
UT-Austin D-2 6 5 0 0.545 139.5 160.9 -21.4 9 74 11 224 6.85 0.82 83 715 8.61

Hendrix 8 3 0 0.727 194.1 151.4 42.7 8 87 11 206 10.36 0.73 95 1200 12.63
Harding DII A 8 3 0 0.727 185.5 124.5 60.9 14 82 7 206 9.90 2.00 96 1045 10.89
TU C D-II 6 5 0 0.545 156.4 168.6 -12.3 8 66 11 205 8.39 0.73 74 995 13.45
Kansas State A 5 6 0 0.455 148.6 192.3 -43.6 10 62 9 213 7.68 1.11 72 910 12.64

UTD A 6 5 0 0.545 161.4 159.1 2.3 3 78 9 211 8.41 0.33 81 995 12.28
TU B D-II 5 6 0 0.455 183.6 134.5 49.1 8 83 24 199 10.15 0.33 91 1190 13.08
SWOSU 4 7 0 0.364 132.3 160.0 -27.7 12 62 9 213 6.83 1.33 74 700 9.46
Harding DII B 1 10 0 0.091 90.5 211.4 -120.9 2 44 10 205 4.85 0.20 46 575 12.50

Kansas State B 2 8 0 0.200 95.5 191.5 -96.0 4 44 8 187 5.11 0.50 48 495 10.31
UTD B 2 8 0 0.200 81.0 164.5 -83.5 2 44 7 171 4.74 0.29 46 375 8.15
Texas A&M D2 1 9 0 0.100 65.0 184.5 -119.5 2 39 8 186 3.49 0.25 41 270 6.59

Listed below are the individual stats. Please note that DI and DII are in there together...
Rank Player Team GP 15 10 -5 TUH P/TU P/N Pts PPG
1 Jason Loy Harding D1 12.0 2 72 8 240 2.96 0.25 710 59.17
2 Matt Chadbourne Rolla D-II 11.0 3 57 2 214 2.83 1.50 605 55.00
3 Trey Morris Texas A&M D1 12.0 7 58 8 237 2.72 0.88 645 53.75
4 Matt King OU C D-II 9.5 5 44 4 193 2.56 1.25 495 52.11
5 Angelo Malabanan TU D-I 12.0 3 60 5 245 2.53 0.60 620 51.67
6 David Gagne OU B D-II 11.0 2 59 14 224 2.46 0.14 550 50.00
7 Candace Benefiel Texas A&M D1 12.0 9 46 9 237 2.32 1.00 550 45.83
8 Mark Molaro UT-Austin D-2 11.0 3 47 5 224 2.19 0.60 490 44.55
9 Gavin Pearson TU B D-II 11.0 5 40 10 205 2.07 0.50 425 38.64
10 Caleb Lo UT-Austin D-1 11.0 5 37 5 221 1.90 1.00 420 38.18
11 Nathaniel Russell TU A D-II 11.0 5 40 12 199 2.09 0.42 415 37.73
12 Adam Roush Hendrix 9.5 4 32 5 176 2.02 0.80 355 37.37
13 Jeffrey Hill Rolla D-II 11.0 2 36 0 214 1.82 inf 390 35.45
14 Ben Lamb Harding DII A 11.0 2 36 1 206 1.87 2.00 385 35.00
15 Emily Duda OU C D-II 11.0 6 32 7 222 1.69 0.86 375 34.09
16 Eric Kwartler UT-Austin D-1 11.0 5 33 6 221 1.70 0.83 375 34.09
17 James Bailey TU A D-II 11.0 2 35 8 199 1.71 0.25 340 30.91
18 Max Tohline Rolla D-1 12.0 4 33 5 237 1.54 0.80 365 30.42
19 Jamie Powers OU D-I 12.0 4 33 7 242 1.47 0.57 355 29.58
20 Mike Uphoff Kansas State A 10.0 6 23 6 194 1.49 1.00 290 29.00
21 Sean Garett UTD A 11.0 1 32 4 211 1.49 0.25 315 28.64
22 Richard Badgett UTD A 11.0 2 30 4 211 1.47 0.50 310 28.18
23 David Webber SWOSU 11.0 5 24 2 213 1.43 2.50 305 27.73
24 Bryan Rodgers Hendrix 10.0 2 26 3 187 1.47 0.67 275 27.50
25 Stewart Mogg SWOSU 11.0 3 27 4 213 1.38 0.75 295 26.82
26 Jake Sundberg UL-LA D-I 11.0 2 25 1 214 1.29 2.00 275 25.00
27 Ryan Grabowski OU D-I 12.0 4 24 2 242 1.20 2.00 290 24.17
28 Julia Rosinski UT-Austin D-2 11.0 6 18 1 224 1.18 6.00 265 24.09
29 Scott Barrentine Texas A&M D2 10.0 2 22 2 186 1.29 1.00 240 24.00
30 Ray Yang UT-Austin D-1 11.0 4 22 4 221 1.18 1.00 260 23.64
31 Matt Nance UT-Austin D-1 11.0 7 16 2 221 1.15 3.50 255 23.18
32 Allen Mauldin Harding DII A 11.0 6 15 2 206 1.12 3.00 230 20.91
33 Michael Donaldson UTD B 10.0 2 19 4 171 1.17 0.50 200 20.00
34 Luke Snodgrass Harding DII A 11.0 3 19 4 206 1.04 0.75 215 19.55
35 Brett Follmer Kansas State A 10.0 3 15 0 194 1.01 inf 195 19.50
36 Kevin Bagnall OU B D-II 11.0 3 20 7 224 0.94 0.43 210 19.09
37 Kenneth Uphoff Kansas State B 10.0 1 21 7 187 1.02 0.14 190 19.00
38 Chris Terrill OU B D-II 11.0 0 20 1 224 0.87 0.00 195 17.73
39 Erin Cooper OU C D-II 11.0 4 14 2 222 0.86 2.00 190 17.27
40 Ben McNealy TU B D-II 11.0 2 15 0 205 0.88 inf 180 16.36
41 Scott Broussard UL-LA D-I 11.0 0 17 0 214 0.79 0.00 170 15.45
42 Caleb McNeece Harding DII A 11.0 3 12 0 206 0.80 inf 165 15.00
43 Brian Morrow OU D-I 12.0 1 19 6 242 0.72 0.17 175 14.58
44 Stephen Chapes Kansas State B 10.0 2 12 1 187 0.78 2.00 145 14.50
45 Tim Forbis Rolla D-1 12.0 0 18 2 237 0.72 0.00 170 14.17
46 James Brand UTD A 11.0 0 16 1 211 0.73 0.00 155 14.09
47 Adrienne Metcalf Hendrix 10.0 0 14 1 187 0.72 0.00 135 13.50
48 Jenna Roosevelt Harding DII B 11.0 1 14 3 205 0.68 0.33 140 12.73
49 Jeremy Bruington Kansas State B 10.0 1 11 0 187 0.67 inf 125 12.50
50 Shannon Burke TU D-I 6.0 0 8 1 119 0.63 0.00 75 12.50
51 Brett Keller Harding D1 12.0 2 12 2 240 0.58 1.00 140 11.67
52 Ted Swang OU B D-II 9.0 1 11 4 188 0.56 0.25 105 11.67
53 Emilie Dempsey TU B D-II 11.0 1 11 1 205 0.59 1.00 120 10.91
54 Mark Bryan Rolla D-II 11.0 2 9 1 214 0.54 2.00 115 10.45
55 German Acuna UL-LA D-I 11.0 1 11 2 214 0.54 0.50 115 10.45
56 Jordan Nester Harding DII B 11.0 0 13 3 205 0.56 0.00 115 10.45
57 Andrew Ferren Harding D1 12.0 2 10 1 240 0.52 2.00 125 10.42
58 Nick Miller UTD B 10.0 0 10 0 171 0.58 0.00 100 10.00
59 Will Asher Kansas State A 10.0 0 10 1 194 0.49 0.00 95 9.50
60 Donovan Wood OU D-I 11.0 1 11 5 221 0.45 0.20 100 9.09
61 Colin Bryson Texas A&M D2 10.0 0 12 6 186 0.48 0.00 90 9.00
62 Matt Tharby UTD B 10.0 0 9 1 171 0.50 0.00 85 8.50
63 Jeremy Cain Hendrix 5.0 0 4 0 96 0.42 0.00 40 8.00
64 Zach Christenson Rolla D-1 12.0 2 7 1 237 0.40 2.00 95 7.92
65 Karie Cross Harding DII B 11.0 0 9 1 205 0.41 0.00 85 7.73
66 Chris Kirk Harding DII B 11.0 1 8 3 205 0.39 0.33 80 7.27
67 Tim Corrigan SWOSU 11.0 1 7 1 213 0.38 1.00 80 7.27
68 Anthony Stobbe SWOSU 11.0 3 4 2 213 0.35 1.50 75 6.82
69 Michael Albrecht Kansas State A 10.0 0 7 1 194 0.34 0.00 65 6.50
70 Noble Kuriakose UT-Austin D-2 11.0 0 9 5 224 0.29 0.00 65 5.91
71 Houston Hughes Hendrix 5.5 0 3 0 104 0.29 0.00 30 5.45
72 Grant White Harding D1 12.0 1 6 2 240 0.27 0.50 65 5.42
73 Eleanor Lewin TU A D-II 11.0 1 5 2 199 0.28 0.50 55 5.00
74 Bryan Fontenot UL-LA D-I 11.0 0 6 1 214 0.26 0.00 55 5.00
75 Leslie Nguyen UTD B 10.0 0 6 2 171 0.29 0.00 50 5.00
76 Morgan Schiermeier Rolla D-II 11.0 1 2 0 214 0.16 inf 35 3.18
77 Sarah Yost OU C D-II 11.0 0 4 1 222 0.16 0.00 35 3.18
78 Lauren Fife Texas A&M D2 10.0 0 3 0 186 0.16 0.00 30 3.00
79 Seth Stanley Rolla D-1 12.0 0 4 1 237 0.15 0.00 35 2.92
80 Ryan Baines Texas A&M D2 10.0 0 2 0 186 0.11 0.00 20 2.00
81 Megan Mondragon TU A D-II 11.0 0 3 2 199 0.10 0.00 20 1.82
82 Matt Baumer TU B D-II 3.0 0 0 0 53 0.00 0.00 0 0.00


[Clarification note: TU A D-II and TU B D-II are the same as TU B D-II and TU C D-II. There was a little initial confusion on our statkeeper's part, as both names showed up for the Tulsa teams early on.]
lkb
Last edited by orangecrayon on Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Andy Saunders
Lulu
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Andy Saunders » Mon Feb 12, 2007 11:12 pm

I can see why people are up in arms over this one; we now are likely going to have two teams with a bonus conversion in the area of 15.5 to 16 losing out on ICT bids to teams with a bonus conversion in the area of 13.5 because of a differing interpretation of the NAQT tiebreaker rule.

Locked