TJIAT 2005 Results

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:55 pm

Raleigh Charter A edged Maggie Walker Governor's School A by 15 points in a relatively low scoring, difficult final round to win TJIAT 2005. Congratulations to Raleigh Charter. They have an outstanding team.

Overall, it was a well run tournament with many strong teams. The questions were of high quality.

I'm sure others will post further information.

tj b boy · Post by **tj b boy** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:59 pm

For further elaboration, the final score, I believe, was 105 to 90. Blair took third, and I'm afraid I don't recall any further than that.

edit: whoops. I've always confused you two, I'm afraid. ugh

mrblinux · Post by **mrblinux** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 11:04 pm

Actually, we came in third.

1. Raleigh Charter A
2. MLW GSGIS A
3. Blake A
4. Richard Montgomery

jewtemplar · Post by **jewtemplar** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:31 am

For what it's worth, I would like to officially apologize for the obscene difficulty of the final round. It didn't get the attention it deserved and was not ideally suited to deciding a final match between such highly competitive teams. There's not much of an excuse for a lot of the answer selection in that round, so the affected teams have my apologies. Full stats in sqbs format should be up within the week provided I threaten my webmaster with severe flogging. I hope a good time was had by all.

vcuEvan · Post by **vcuEvan** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 6:56 am

1. Raleigh Charter A
2. MLW GSGIS A
3. Blake A
4. Richard Montgomery
5. MLWGSGIS B
6. Blair B
7. Blair A

jbarnes112358 · Post by **jbarnes112358** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:57 am

I wouldn't worry about the difficulty of that final round too much. I am not sure how it impacted the consolation games. But, as for the finals, the better team ended up winning. Although both teams came into the final game as unbeatens, Raleigh Charter had racked up more impressive scores all day. Their knowledge base was at least as good as ours and probably better. Their anticipatory buzzing skills were definitely better.

The insane difficulty of the final round put us (MLWGS A) in a position to win by partly nullifying some of RC's natural advantages. The difficulty of the round effectively shortened the game, as only 11 of the 20 questions were correctly answered by either team. RC's buzzer advantage was evident from the fact that they won 7 of the 11 answered toss-ups. But, they only averaged about 7 points per question on those difficult bonuses. Our bonus conversion was better, which incredibly allowed us have a 95-75 lead going into the final question, which, in a game like that, was a rather large lead.

Going into the final question there had been 4 negs, 3 by Raleigh Charter. But, in none of those cases could the opposing team answer correctly to take full advantage. Finally, in the last question, Raleigh was able to answer our neg, convert enough bonus points, and hence win the game.

We were kicking ourselves because we had our opportunities to win it. But, even if we had, we would have felt a little guilty about it since the round was at it was. In the end, the best team won. So, "no harm, no foul." "All is well, that ends well."

rchschem · Post by **rchschem** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:30 pm

Considering our final two round wins required last question saves, I would, were I a neutral observer, find it hard to discriminate who the better team was in that final match. (does that make sense?)

No matter how you look at it, the final round was bloodbath. We didn't convert a bonus between questions 2 and 16. But then (not to take away from Gov A's performance) the bonuses were highly uneven--to go from Calc III concepts to characters from Mutiny on the Bounty in the span of one question was absurd.

Anyway--I haven't seen a more exciting match. Thanks to Dr. Barnes' team for giving us a workout.

Eric

Chris Frankel · Post by **Chris Frankel** » Tue Feb 22, 2005 6:26 am

Just wanted to chip in since I had a chance to see this infamous finals packet just now. Definitely too hard for any high school tournament, but it would have been really fun to play it at a college tournament. Answer selection was pretty close to what should be expected at an average college submission tournament (basically reinforcing my prior sentence), and there was definitely a good understanding of pyramidality, better than most unedited college packets I've seen.

So in closing I would say that the packet definitely doesn't fly for high school, but don't discount the quality, since I did see some pretty good writing fundamentals. I hope everyone who contributed will stay involved in college and help rebuild the packet submission culture.