Announcement: NAQT Northeast SCT at Brown (2/9/2007)

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Thu Dec 27, 2007 7:33 pm

I'm pleased to announce the NAQT Northeast SCT at Brown University on Saturday, February 9th.

Our fee structure is as follows:
$120 for first team from a school
$100 for each additional team
-$5 for each working buzzer system brought
-$20 for each volunteer brought
-$40 for schools who haven't competed at an SCT in at least 2 years

Please register by emailing me at dennis _ jang AT brown DOT edu. When you register, please tell me the eligibility of the teams you are bringing.

We currently have 10 rooms in Barus and Holley (where almost all of our previous tournaments have been) available for us, and potentially up to 12. This means that we should be able to host 20 teams, but if we somehow need more, other teams are going to need to bring staff, so register as early as possible.

More specific information will be posted later, as will field updates as teams register.

First Chairman · Post by **First Chairman** » Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:04 am

The discussion on the Honda Challenge competitions was moved to College Discussion: http://www.hsquizbowl.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=4846 .

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:11 am

Field update:

Div I:
Dartmouth (1-2)
Rutgers-NB
Amherst
Williams
Columbia

Div II:
Dartmouth
Columbia

Obviously, there is space available, so please let me know how many teams you would like to register as soon as possible so that I can request an adequate number of timers and what not.

pray for elves · Post by **pray for elves** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 9:44 am

We're sending one D2 team.

ezubaric · Post by **ezubaric** » Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:32 am

Princeton will send something, most likely a D1 team and a D2 team. Perhaps two D1 teams if we can convince our grad students to come out.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:35 pm

Another field update:

Div I:
Dartmouth (1-2)
Rutgers-NB
Amherst
Williams
Columbia
Princeton (1-2)
Harvard (2)
Maryland
MIT?

Div II:
Dartmouth
Columbia
Brandeis
Princeton
Harvard
MIT?

If any of this is false/updated, please let me know. Also, I'll be sending an email sometime in the near future, asking for confirmation and number of buzzers. If there are teams still interested, please let me know, but we'll have to look at the staffing situation first before making a decision.

z2trillion · Post by **z2trillion** » Mon Feb 04, 2008 10:51 pm

Princeton will more likely send 1 Div I and two Div II. When can we reasonably expect the tournament to be over by?

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Fri Feb 08, 2008 3:19 pm

Final field update:

Div I:
Dartmouth (2; 1 UG)
Rutgers-NB
Princeton
Williams (1 UG)
MIT (UG)
Amherst (UG)
Maryland
Harvard (2; 1 UG)

Div II:
Dartmouth
Brandeis
Princeton (2)
MIT (2)
Columbia
Harvard
Brown

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:44 am

Some quick results:

Division I:

1) Maryland (11-2)
2) Harvard A (8-5)
3) Williams (8-5)
4) Princeton (8-5)

Individuals:
1) Jonathan Magin (85.77 PPG) - Maryland
2) Jason Keller (68.85 PPG) - Rutgers
3) Charles Meigs (62.31 PPG) - Maryland

Division II:

1) Dartmouth (11-1)
2) Brandeis (8-4)
3) Harvard (6-6)
4) Princeton B (6-6)
5) Princeton A (6-6)

Individuals:

1) Jacob (68.33 PPG) - Brown
2) Kunle (48.33 PPG) - Princeton
3) James (47.50 PPG) - Dartmouth

Full results will be posted later. Much thanks to those who helped staff, including Delano Barnes, Mark Seifter, and all of those who helped read and scorekeep. Best of luck for all teams competing at ICT.

yoda4554 · Post by **yoda4554** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:19 pm

I doubt it will end up mattering, but a point of curiosity on behalf of my alma mater: since it seems like there were more than four UG teams, and since Maryland had a grad student, there should have been a separate UG champion declared, who would receive an automatic Nationals bid. Princeton seems to have had grad students--but did Harvard A? If so, I suppose Williams is the UG champ. If not--was the UG champ decided by some other method?

yoda4554 · Post by **yoda4554** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:19 pm

I doubt it will end up mattering, but a point of curiosity on behalf of my alma mater: since it seems like there were more than four UG teams, and since Maryland had a grad student, there should have been a separate UG champion declared, who would receive an automatic Nationals bid. Princeton seems to have had grad students--but did Harvard A? If so, I suppose Williams is the UG champ. If not--was the UG champ decided by some other method?

pray for elves · Post by **pray for elves** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:09 pm

yoda4554 wrote:I doubt it will end up mattering, but a point of curiosity on behalf of my alma mater: since it seems like there were more than four UG teams, and since Maryland had a grad student, there should have been a separate UG champion declared, who would receive an automatic Nationals bid. Princeton seems to have had grad students--but did Harvard A? If so, I suppose Williams is the UG champ. If not--was the UG champ decided by some other method?

Harvard A had their all-class-of-2009 lineup of Kyle, John, Adam, and Julia, so they would be the undergraduate champion. Bruce (the only current Harvard grad/law/med student who plays) was on their B team.

Skepticism and Animal Feed · Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:09 pm

yoda4554 wrote:I doubt it will end up mattering, but a point of curiosity on behalf of my alma mater: since it seems like there were more than four UG teams, and since Maryland had a grad student, there should have been a separate UG champion declared, who would receive an automatic Nationals bid. Princeton seems to have had grad students--but did Harvard A? If so, I suppose Williams is the UG champ. If not--was the UG champ decided by some other method?

Harvard A was free of the grad student plague.

Dartmouth College Bowl · Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:33 pm

What I was wondering is whether they are considering playoffs in stats for ICT bids. It might not be fair to include playoff stats because the Upper Bracket would have theoretically had to play "better" teams twice. So I'd presume that NAQT would just use round robin to determine the bid.

pray for elves · Post by **pray for elves** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:51 pm

Dartmouth College Bowl wrote:What I was wondering is whether they are considering playoffs in stats for ICT bids. It might not be fair to include playoff stats because the Upper Bracket would have theoretically had to play "better" teams twice. So I'd presume that NAQT would just use round robin to determine the bid.

Hypothetically, the S-value takes into account strength of schedule, and they definitely use playoff brackets in terms of finishing order, which is a factor in invitations.

vandyhawk · Post by **vandyhawk** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:51 pm

Dartmouth College Bowl wrote:What I was wondering is whether they are considering playoffs in stats for ICT bids. It might not be fair to include playoff stats because the Upper Bracket would have theoretically had to play "better" teams twice. So I'd presume that NAQT would just use round robin to determine the bid.

NAQT has made it very clear over the years that making it into an upper bracket is much better for earning a bid than being in a lower bracket. I suspect the SOS is taken into account here.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:58 pm

I didn't realize that NAQT rules say that an undergrad team earns an automatic bid if there are more than four UG teams in the field, since that wasn't an issue last year when I was the TD for sectionals. Last year I was not required to determine an undergrad champion, which I explained to Eric and Charles. I realized upon coming home and reading the rules that the situation this year was different and, technically, there probably should have been a one-game undergrad final between Harvard and Williams. We are the UG "champions" only in the sense of having a higher bonus conversion than Williams, but we finished with identical records (and were 1-1 against each other). I think the only fair thing at this point is to consider Harvard and Williams co-champions of the UG division. But absolutely none of this matters: both teams will receive bids to the ICT regardless.

pray for elves · Post by **pray for elves** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:26 pm

Stats are available here:

Division I
Division II

The DI standings aren't sorted into playoff brackets, and Charles Meigs's negs were attributed to Chris Ray's Washington Redskins t-shirt, so he was actually third in individual scoring behind Jason Keller.

Dennis · Post by **Dennis** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:43 pm

Yeah, it had slipped my mind that we should have played an undergraduate final between Harvard and Williams. I've contacted NAQT about the situation, but I don't there's anything that can be done at this point. Sorry to both teams for not playing the final.

Kyle · Post by **Kyle** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:18 am

No, Dennis, I wasn't criticizing you. It doesn't matter, as I said, and I'm sure Williams was as tired as we were after our last game came down to the final question. We will all be fired up to take another crack at Williams in St. Louis, as I'm sure they will be excited to play us.

[On a similar note, I talked to Craig Barker last year during the SCT about the necessity of playing a D2 final between Dartmouth and MIT (I believe MIT was one game clear of the field — but we only had one remaining packet) and he said it didn't matter because the northeast was so strong that both teams would qualify anyway. In the end, I think six or seven teams from D2 in the northeast qualified last year. My guess is that a similar number will qualify out of D1 this year, not least because of the three-way tie for second.]