Four-quarter format

[WSUNagy]

Is there still much national interest in a four quarters style format if the 4 quarters are....

A one v one round
B Toss Up w/o Bonus
C Lightning/Worksheet round
D Toss Up w/ Bonus

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Not really.

[Eddie]

Sorry to bump this thread, but what are the arguments for and against the four-quarter format and, if it looks like the general consensus is that it is inferior to the 20-20 format, why does History Bowl continue to use it?

[Skepticism and Animal Feed]

Sorry to bump this thread, but what are the arguments for and against the four-quarter format and

viewtopic.php?p=197133#p197133

[Eddie]

Um, unless I'm missing some huge metaphor, all I got out of that was "it's bad because Chip Bowl in Ohio uses it."

[Sniper, No Sniping!]

Um, unless I'm missing some huge metaphor, all I got out of that was "it's bad because Chip Bowl in Ohio uses it."

Four quarters is an NAC/Chip Beall thing. History Bowl does it (I'm assuming) because 20/20 format isn't appealing to teams that aren't very good, especially when playing a much better team. This has been discussed as nauseaum one time, lets not resurrect that topic.

Regarding "Chip Bowl in Ohio"; you don't know what you're talking about. You're reading that other thread and seeing allusions to Dave Madden being as warmly received in Ohio as Chip Beall would be, which is to say not at all.

[Stained Diviner]

Teams that like good quizbowl like answering tossups and bonuses. Those teams don't like four quarter formats because those formats take time away from answering tossups and bonuses, or the formats include part of a match with shorter tossups or bonuses or some other bad idea. Those teams may occasionally put up with a four-quarter format, but they don't seek it out.

Teams that like bad questions will play bad questions in any format and will convince themselves that the reason they chose the bad questions was because they love the format. Furthermore, those teams rarely change question vendors because change is so very scary.

When you put those two things together, you do not fill any need by writing four-quarter rounds. You might be writing them because somebody has a need for them, but you will have trouble finding other buyers of those questions.

[Marble-faced Bristle Tyrant]

Teams that like bad questions will play bad questions in any format and will convince themselves that the reason they chose the bad questions was because they love the format. Furthermore, those teams rarely change question vendors because change is so very scary.

Further, weaker teams* may irrationally prefer four-quarter with worksheet/lightning because it inflates their score to something like 50-350 instead of 0-300.

*not all of them, I mean

[Irreligion in Bangladesh]

Further, weaker teams irrationally prefer four-quarter with worksheet/lightning because it inflates their score to something like 50-350 instead of 0-300.

I don't see that as an inherently irrational preference -- a worksheet round in which they're going to answer something is not going to help them beat a much better team, but at least they can show they do know something and not end with a goose egg. That can be worthwhile.

That's one of the things I like about bouncebacks on bonuses -- a team might dominate you on some categories, but you can still show category-specific comparative strength on bouncebacks. For example, my team this year was deep in things like mythology and biology, and we'd pick up middle parts dropped by bio-weak teams that were crushing us on tossups. (In one extreme example, Chicago Latin outbuzzed us 19-1, but we converted 12 out of 15 missed bonus parts to keep the score from looking like an utter blowout.)

In my opinion, the existence of bouncebacks renders worksheets unnecessary -- it's a better vehicle for giving some weaker teams an opportunity to score. (It doesn't do much for very weak teams, but worksheets wouldn't help them anyway.) If your area has a lot of coaches who like worksheets for the "everyone gets a chance to play" aspect, you may want to consider adopting bounceback bonuses.

[Corry]

Further, weaker teams* may irrationally prefer four-quarter with worksheet/lightning because it inflates their score to something like 50-350 instead of 0-300.

*not all of them, I mean

Personally, I don't see any problems with this motivation. Beyond the top 50 (maybe top 100) teams in the nation, most teams play quiz bowl because it's fun. Getting 50 points is more fun than getting 0 points; it's not irrational at all.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Sorry to bump this thread, but what are the arguments for and against the four-quarter format and, if it looks like the general consensus is that it is inferior to the 20-20 format, why does History Bowl continue to use it?

So, I don't know what a "one v one" round is and I have a pretty extensive experience with 4 quarter quizbowl of all stripes, so I was kind of specifically answering your question, the four rounds you laid out are not really popular, especially since one of them I don't even know exists.

However, I don't think four quarters is incompatible with good quizbowl and disagree with some of the points being made above, however at this point 20/20 is so much more common of a production that it's just easier to go with it than to try and introduce more new things to lots of areas.

[i never see pigeons in wheeling]

Sorry to bump this thread, but what are the arguments for and against the four-quarter format and, if it looks like the general consensus is that it is inferior to the 20-20 format, why does History Bowl continue to use it?

So, I don't know what a "one v one" round is and I have a pretty extensive experience with 4 quarter quizbowl of all stripes, so I was kind of specifically answering your question, the four rounds you laid out are not really popular, especially since one of them I don't even know exists.

However, I don't think four quarters is incompatible with good quizbowl and disagree with some of the points being made above, however at this point 20/20 is so much more common of a production that it's just easier to go with it than to try and introduce more new things to lots of areas.

The guy you replied to is not the original poster of this thread.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Oh, whoops. Whatever, point stands.

[Emil Nolde]

I've played a similar (read:nearly exactly the same) format to the one suggested here. When we've participated in it, we've won every time in recent memory, but any criticism I could level against it would primarily stem from the extremely bad questions used in the competition I've experienced it in. However, I think that it really isn't possible to make such novelties a part of good and honest quizbowl. Even though when I've done it I've positively torn it up, Lightning rounds are stupid. They encourage really shallow knowledge, and are often rich in such monstrosities as spelling, extra-stupid trash, multiple-choice, etc. One-v-one rounds encourage rote memorization (when I've done it, it's always very specific and category-specialized).

[Sniper, No Sniping!]

Lightning rounds are stupid. They encourage really shallow knowledge, and are often rich in such monstrosities as spelling, extra-stupid trash, multiple-choice, etc.

Maybe that's true in your area, but vendors like HSAPQ, NAQT, and other various writers do write high quality lightning round sets.

[Emil Nolde]

Lightning rounds are stupid. They encourage really shallow knowledge, and are often rich in such monstrosities as spelling, extra-stupid trash, multiple-choice, etc.

Maybe that's true in your area, but vendors like HSAPQ, NAQT, and other various writers do write high quality lightning round sets.

I'm not sure how NAQT Lightning rounds work, and there is the issue that competitions with the format I'm describing are, generally, not good ones, and thus probably wouldn't use good questions anyway. Are there any clear good lightning round packets available on the net?

[Stained Diviner]

Look at Tournament 7 or the other Four-Quarter sets posted at HSAPQ.

[Emil Nolde]

Having read some of the questions, I concur that the actual question quality is better than what I've played before, however, I still think the lightning round format lends itself to bad and/or really gimmicky answerlines/categories (which of course I wouldn't hold HSAPQ reprehensible for, because they're a business enterprise, even if the formats are a bit wacky). One thing I did notice is that teams that don't know how to pass quickly are probably going to waste a lot of time on some of the harder questions.

[jonpin]

It's general practice to sort the lightning round by difficulty, so a team which is poor enough to struggle on part 5 and too inexperienced to not know how to say "pass" is likely (though obviously not certainly) not missing anything they could get on parts 6, 7, 8.

[Emil Nolde]

From what I've read, though, that's not really true. For example, in Round 1's 'Russia' category, Lake Ladoga and Sakharov come before Fathers and Sons. I've never heard either of the former pair come up previously.

[Matt Weiner]

You should look at more questions, but in any case, the category rounds in the old HSAPQ four-quarter sets were not written either with difficulty ordering in mind or with the intent to be played in sixty seconds, as you can tell from the length of the clues.

[BethL]

There is a question of availability. We just started a History Bowl team last year because we were invited to field a team in the JV category even though we are a middle school. We did go and play at Manheim Townships Middle School Tournament this year and enjoyed it. However the other 2 middle school events that I have found anywhere close to us involve an hour and half drive to Baltimore or 2.5 hour drive to DC area. (Whereas we did a History Bowl 30 minutes away and then one an hour and a half away)

I have a group of kids who like the competitions but the cost and the travel time can make it prohibitive for a middle school group to get more opportunities. Hence... we play what we've got, get them the exposure, and hope when they leave us they find something better at the high school level.

Not to mention, I'm still learning the ropes too.....

[Important Bird Area]

the category rounds in the old HSAPQ four-quarter sets were not written either with difficulty ordering in mind or with the intent to be played in sixty seconds, as you can tell from the length of the clues.

NAQT's lightning rounds are often used in a sixty-second format, so ours generally have shorter clues and there is usually a rough sense of difficulty order (ie, the most difficult question is likely to be somewhere in the 7-10 range and there will be some very easy parts in 1-5, so that even teams that have trouble managing the clock will still score points).