A Modest Proposal Regarding D2 ICT Qualification

Elaborate on the merits of specific tournaments or have general theoretical discussion here.
Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 290
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:16 am

A Modest Proposal Regarding D2 ICT Qualification

Post by Milhouse » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:44 pm

This year's Rocky Mountain SCT site was won by BYU, a D2-eligible team. However, they did not receive a Tier-5 ICT invitation (for SCT site champions) because fewer than four teams in the combined field were D2-eligible--the qualification rules say that "In the event of a combined-field SCT, there must be four teams from three schools in the team’s division." I think this is a mistake. BYU would have qualified if Colorado A had been made up entirely of new players instead of D2-ineligible ones, or if Colorado B or Colorado Springs had split their rosters into two teams. It would have been easier for them to win the tournament in both of these cases, and it doesn't make sense to me why they should only be rewarded with a bid in the easier of the two scenarios. It seems clear, to me at least, that beating D2-ineligible teams is nearly always harder than beating eligible ones, and I don't see why the aptitude demonstrated by the former should be disregarded when offering bids.

In short, I would suggest that in the future if a D2-eligible team wins a combined-field SCT with four or more teams from three or more schools in total, it should be able to recieve a Tier-5 invitation regardless of the number of teams that are D2-eligible. This precise situation is quite rare, and of course this argument does not apply to D1 teams with too few D1 opponents, or to sites with fewer than four teams. I'd appreciate hearing other people's thoughts on this matter, and in particular critiques of my argument.
Eric Wolfsberg
Bethlehem Central High School 2016
University of Delaware 2020
Writer, NAQT

User avatar
A Very Long Math Tossup
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:02 pm
Location: Boulder, CO

Re: A Modest Proposal Regarding D2 ICT Qualification

Post by A Very Long Math Tossup » Sun Feb 11, 2018 4:56 pm

As the director of this tournament, I completely agree.

I should also clarify that Kansas State was supposed to attend, but they blew a tire and were unable to make it to Boulder. Had this not occurred, the field would have had enough teams to act as a qualifier.
Matt Mitchell
Colorado '20
Treasure Valley '16
QBNotify creator, Colorado Quiz Bowl founder, PACE member

Edward Lansdale
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:43 pm

Re: A Modest Proposal Regarding D2 ICT Qualification

Post by Edward Lansdale » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:57 am

Agree. I remember looking at SCT results and feeling bad for BYU; it's not their fault that the Mountain West is a quizbowl desert. Alabama qualified for D1 despite finishing 45th on D-value, so BYU's 46th is scarcely less deserving.
Mirza Ahmed
New York University '12
Keck Graduate Institute '15

Posts: 2305
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:51 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: A Modest Proposal Regarding D2 ICT Qualification

Post by jonah » Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:53 pm

Over the summer we will review the many changes we made to SCT and ICT this year, including the new qualification scheme, and we will consider changes (including this one) for 2019 and beyond. Thanks for the suggestion!
Jonah Greenthal
National Academic Quiz Tournaments

Post Reply