ACF Winter Minimum Guaranteed Games

[Halinaxus]

ACF currently requires Winter hosts to offer at least ten games. While I completely understand why ACF wants to ensure teams get what they're paying for at Winter, I think the ten-game requirement as it stands is excessive and actively makes some teams' Winter experience worse.

At first, ten games seems like a very reasonable target, as it's pretty much the perfect amount of quiz bowl to fill up a Saturday without going deep into the evening. However, I think it's very important to realize that "hosts must offer all teams at least ten meaningful games" does not usually translate to "all teams play ten rounds." Almost all Winter sites have enough teams that packet-sub byes are required, which effectively makes the ten-game requirement an eleven-round requirement. Depending on the exact field size, it's also pretty common to need to play even more rounds to make the format work out properly.

ACF's suggested formats follow the following length distribution:
10 rounds: 2
11 rounds: 7
12 rounds: 15
13 rounds: 6
14 rounds: 2

As a result of the byes from packet sub and awkward field sizes, it appears that around half of Winter sites will hit the 12-round mark before finals. I haven't pored over enough stats to confirm if that's actually the case, but anecdotally I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption.

Twelve rounds plus finals is a lot of quiz bowl. Even at a perfectly-run tournament (40-minute rounds starting at 9 am with a 40-minute lunch break and no time lost to rebracketing or other delays), most teams will be playing until nearly 6 pm. The vast majority of tournaments are not run at perfect efficiency, either. In my experience, twelve rounds will often run until 8 pm or later.

I know each player and team's view of how late a tournament can acceptably run will vary, but I would venture a guess that past 6 pm is too late for a majority of teams. I think perceptions of this fact are often skewed by the fact that TDs (a) live near the host school and don't have to worry about eating dinner or getting home at a reasonable time, and (b) tend to be diehard players who might overestimate others' zeal for long days of quiz bowl. I don't mind it if ACF Regionals goes late; it's a high-stakes tournament meant for serious players who know what they're in for. However, I don't think that same logic should apply to Winter, which is one of the most accessible and high-quality mainstream sets of the year.

My proposal is that ACF should simply lower the ten-game requirement to nine, as is the case for Fall. I think such a move would have a significant positive effect on the average casual player's Winter experience, and I don't think anyone's ever going to be upset by playing "only" nine games at Winter. Relaxing the number of minimum guaranteed games wouldn't prevent sites that want to play more games from doing so, either; if anything, I think it would mostly be bottom brackets that finish earlier since most formats err on the side of putting more teams in the top bracket.

Another alternative might be doing away with packet sub entirely, which would remove a round without removing any games. I think that’s a topic for another thread, but in my experience ACF tournaments consistently run longer than housewrites due to the extra bye rounds.

I'd love to hear what others think, but I do want to make it clear that I'm not just speaking for myself here: I'm speaking for the dozens (hundreds?) of casual players who I think would agree with me but don't have forums accounts, including but not limited to the Purdue underclassmen who had to leave two rounds early yesterday in the modest quest to eat a reasonable dinner and get to bed before 1 am.

[Cody]

There is no 21-team format that removes rounds from the schedule you had unless you allow one loss to eliminate a team from championship contention. Packet submission has no effect because the byes are natural.

What would a 9-game minimum actually do? Even where it shortens the tournament, it can't make up for bad tournament logistics or a 4-hour drive home (counting the time difference and a quick stop for food). If twelve rounds take until 8pm, the tournament format/length doesn't make much difference.

[Halinaxus]

There is no 21-team format that removes rounds from the schedule you had unless you allow one loss to eliminate a team from championship contention. Packet submission has no effect because the byes are natural.

What would a 9-game minimum actually do? Even where it shortens the tournament, it can't make up for bad tournament logistics or a 4-hour drive home (counting the time difference and a quick stop for food). If twelve rounds take until 8pm, the tournament format/length doesn't make much difference.

I believe 7/7/7 into 6/6/6/3 (which was the original plan in the logistics email) would only take 11 rounds. Bottom-bracket teams would only play 8 games, but honestly if I were in a bottom bracket team I wouldn't mind thet.

I'm not trying to haggle over the exact number of rounds, merely advocating for more wiggle room to avoid everyone being forced to play games that many don't want to be playing.

If there were no packet subs, then the host school would be better able to manipulate the field size by adding or subtracting host teams to reach a better number. With packet subs, there aren't really any good numbers.

Bad logistics are also a problem (and I intend to make another post sometime about how to run an efficient tournament), but as I cited in my original post 12 rounds of Winter is going to go late even if the tournament is perfectly run.

[Cody]

I believe 7/7/7 into 6/6/6/3 (which was the original plan in the logistics email) would only take 11 rounds. Bottom-bracket teams would only play 8 games, but honestly if I were in a bottom bracket team I wouldn't mind thet.

Eight guaranteed games is less than nine. The minimum you proposed is nine. Therefore, this format does not count and there is no [standard] 21-team format that removes rounds from the schedule you had. Additionally, Purdue needed to leave two rounds early, not one round early. Therefore, eleven rounds does not change the situation since some of the Purdue players who left were not in the 5-team bottom bracket and likewise would not have been in a 3-team bottom bracket.

(The fact that the original logistics email proposed a format that is not acceptable at an ACF tournament is its own issue.)

I'm not trying to haggle over the exact number of rounds, merely advocating for more wiggle room to avoid everyone being forced to play games that many don't want to be playing.

A minimum will determine, precisely, which formats hosts choose. What is there to do aside from haggling about how many games must be provided to teams in exchange for their hard-earned money?

If there were no packet subs, then the host school would be better able to manipulate the field size by adding or subtracting host teams to reach a better number. With packet subs, there aren't really any good numbers.

Why? And what is your preferred number ±21 teams that gives a better schedule with a 9-game minimum? And how would adding a host team to a tournament that ran long help the situation?

Bad logistics are also a problem (and I intend to make another post sometime about how to run an efficient tournament), but as I cited in my original post 12 rounds of Winter is going to go late even if the tournament is perfectly run.

Tournaments generally expand to fill the time available - later start times, longer lunches, more leeway for late teams, etc. I don't think cutting a single round (usually) is going to solve the fundamental issue of a Saturday tournament taking up the whole day.

[Halinaxus]

I don't pretend to have a perfect solution. I simply observed a problem that is making some people's experience with quiz bowl less fun and wanted to start a conversation about possible improvements.

I've observed firsthand that the current status quo of an expectation of playing every game of long, exhausting tournaments makes college quiz bowl less inclusive of casual players. I've put a lot of time and effort into making the Purdue team a welcoming space for casual players without becoming "trash captured" or reducing our ability to be competitive, and I'm sad that the rest of the community doesn't seem as interested in supporting that.

[Krik? Krik?! KRIIIIK!!!]

I've observed firsthand that the current status quo of an expectation of playing every game of long, exhausting tournaments makes college quiz bowl less inclusive of casual players. I've put a lot of time and effort into making the Purdue team a welcoming space for casual players without becoming "trash captured" or reducing our ability to be competitive, and I'm sad that the rest of the community doesn't seem as interested in supporting that.

I'm not very good at bracketing so I don't have enough of an opinion to post my thoughts, but I do sympathize with you over the desire to shorten long events so they're easier for a more general audience to attend and still have a weekend left. Trust me, especially in college quizbowl in the Midwest, I know how one tournament can suck up all of your weekend with travel included.

I don't know how much lowering the required games by one would really fix the problem of tournaments running long. Let's say one game lasts 40 minutes. That is 40 minutes you get back to your schedule, but let's say I went from Chicago to Purdue to play for the day. Well, I'm already driving about 4 hours round trip and playing from an optimistic 9 AM to 5 PM with lunch in between: that's another 8 hours of sunk cost. With the complexities that Cody has pointed out, I'm not sure of what the marginal benefit of those 40 minutes are going to be compared to the rest of your day - though I do recognize that at hour 8 of the tournament, the desire to leave may be different.

I think broadly, college quizbowl is a hard activity to be "casual" at: asides from how the difficulty ramps up, I think the travel, time, and financial costs are more than what people expect when they think of a "trivia club." When I was at Iowa, we were able to get about 15-20 people to come to practices even though we sent maybe 1-2 teams to tournaments; that's because it is possible to create a club that is a welcoming space for players while also going to more formal competitions. I certainly think quizbowl may benefit from shorter events, but its up to teams to decide whether traveling 3-4 hours is worth it to play only, say, half a day.

The reason I say all this is that finding a balance for how to make quizbowl work for different types of players is a huge issue and something that's constantly evolving. I don't think you should dismiss "the rest of the community" as "not interested" for not posting in a thread less than 24 hours old yet.

[1.82]

To add on to Cody's excellent points, I'll observe that it simply isn't possible to make intercollegiate quizbowl a "casual" activity in terms of time commitment. At risk of stating the obvious, this is because colleges are far apart and travel between them takes a long time. This is the same as with all intercollegiate competition: I had one roommate in college who did mock trial and another who played rugby, and their days were just as long, if not longer. Not everyone wants to participate in this sort of activity, but those who do know that they're giving up their Saturday evenings. The solution, such as it is, is to make the experience of traveling with the quizbowl club enjoyable enough that people don't mind having to come home late.

[Halinaxus]

I appreciate everyone's input.

I do want to push back on the ideas that all college tournaments are inherently going to go late and that it's not possible to be a competitive collegiate quiz bowl player without accepting this. I've attended plenty of tournaments that have ended at reasonable times (4-5 pm); indeed, I think all tournaments are capable of doing this if they're staffed competently and don't target an excessive number of rounds.

I guess I just don't really see the point of requiring 10+ games for Winter when 8 or 9 would do, especially given the round lost to a packet sub bye. Unless I'm playing on a team with a shot at winning, I'm usually exhausted and ready to go home by round 10. This doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy rounds 1-8, just that my idea of a fun quiz bowl tournament does not involve playing until 8 pm.

To add on to Cody's excellent points, I'll observe that it simply isn't possible to make intercollegiate quizbowl a "casual" activity in terms of time commitment. At risk of stating the obvious, this is because colleges are far apart and travel between them takes a long time. This is the same as with all intercollegiate competition: I had one roommate in college who did mock trial and another who played rugby, and their days were just as long, if not longer. Not everyone wants to participate in this sort of activity, but those who do know that they're giving up their Saturday evenings. The solution, such as it is, is to make the experience of traveling with the quizbowl club enjoyable enough that people don't mind having to come home late.

I would argue that there are plenty of people interested in giving up their Saturday mornings and afternoons, but not evenings, for quiz bowl, and that we should not exclude them based on precisely how devoted they are. Has the quiz bowl community not been making great strides towards being more inclusive and less insular in the past five years or so?

I think it's perfectly reasonable for challenging and high-stakes tournaments like Penn Bowl and ACF Regionals to play 11+ rounds because they're explicitly catering to devoted, high-level players. I don't think the same should be true for Winter, which is the most accessible non-novice tournament of the competiton year (and really the only 2 dot and below tournament between October and February).

[ThisIsMyUsername]

I do want to make it clear that I'm not just speaking for myself here: I'm speaking for the dozens (hundreds?) of casual players who I think would agree with me but don't have forums accounts

I don’t doubt that there are people who share the general preference that you are expressing: that tournaments should be shorter. But it’s a lot to ask everyone to take your word for it that you are accurately representing the views of dozens or hundreds of players, while you suggest that either (a) ACF Winter should cut the minimum number of games by 20% and thus guarantee even fewer games than ACF Fall does; or (b) we should eliminate packet submission just so people can get home a little earlier. And it’s unseemly to keep insinuating that other people don't care about inclusivity when they simply point out the logistical (and, in some cases, mathematical) barriers that you are discounting.

You’re not helping your case when you say something like this:

I don't think anyone's ever going to be upset by playing "only" nine games at Winter

You really don’t think anyone is going to be upset to drive 6-8 hours round trip, pay a hefty entry fee, and play that few games? (And, as we found out later, it’s not even 9 games that would have to be the new minimum; it’s 8, which means that at a well-run tournament, teams could end up playing as little as 5 hours of quizbowl.) I assure you that some people will be upset, and they won’t necessarily be just the most experienced teams. Neither of us knows how many such people there are. But we have to acknowledge that they exist. Your proposals would affect the entire community. There’s no way to get around the fact that you are asking to worsen some players’ experiences to improve some other players’ experiences. To be clear, that’s not a problem particular to what you’re advocating for. Any format we choose (including keeping the status quo) inevitably does that. And thus any honest conversation has to be about tradeoffs.

There are two questions here:
(1) ACF has a list of formats on its website. Are you saying that you want all of them changed, and if so, what are you proposing that they be changed to?
(2) Do enough people actually want this and do they want it by enough for it to be worth the cost to everyone else?

If you come up with an answer to (1), showing that what you’re proposing is actually feasible, then you might want to follow it up with something like a survey sent to all of the teams who played ACF Winter, asking them what their preferences are and (equally importantly) how increasing or decreasing the minimum would affect their decision to play the tournament again in future. If that data shows that, as you say, the 10-game minimum is a major threat to retention, and there is an actual practical alternative, then this conversation can be had in earnest.

[Halinaxus]

I don’t doubt that there are people who share the general preference that you are expressing: that tournaments should be shorter. But it’s a lot to ask everyone to take your word for it that you are accurately representing the views of dozens or hundreds of players, while you suggest that either (a) ACF Winter should cut the minimum number of games by 20% and thus guarantee even fewer games than ACF Fall does; or (b) we should eliminate packet submission just so people can get home a little earlier. And it’s unseemly to keep insinuating that other people don't care about inclusivity when they simply point out the logistical (and, in some cases, mathematical) barriers that you are discounting.

I think I've done a poor job of articulating my position. I am not advocating for the number of games offered at Winter to be dropped to eight or for Winter to offer fewer games than Fall. I'm not seriously advocating for the elimination of packet submission; I merely proposed it as an alternative solution.

I am advocating for the minimum number of games Winter hosts are required to offer to be dropped to nine.

This is not a perfect solution. I recognize that in some situations (including, I believe the Midwest site last weekend), this means Winter would still have to be 12+ rounds. However, it seems to me like nine is relatively low-hanging fruit.

I don't think anyone's ever going to be upset by playing "only" nine games at Winter

You really don’t think anyone is going to be upset to drive 6-8 hours round trip, pay a hefty entry fee, and play that few games? (And, as we found out later, it’s not even 9 games that would have to be the new minimum; it’s 8, which means that at a well-run tournament, teams could end up playing as little as 5 hours of quizbowl.)

Yes, I really don't think very many people are going to be particularly upset about playing nine games at Winter. Nine games is a perfectly reasonable number at basically any tournament, particularly if the field is 10 teams.

Additionally, in the rare case where teams do want to play more than nine games (perhaps in a sparse circuit where teams have to stay overnight anyway), there would be nothing stopping them from playing more!

There are two questions here:
(1) ACF has a list of formats on its website. Are you saying that you want all of them changed, and if so, what are you proposing that they be changed to?

I'm suggesting that formats that give each team nine games be allowed, in line with ACF Fall.

(2) Do enough people actually want this and do they want it by enough for it to be worth the cost to everyone else?

If you come up with an answer to (1), showing that what you’re proposing is actually feasible, then you might want to follow it up with something like a survey sent to all of the teams who played ACF Winter, asking them what their preferences are and (equally importantly) how increasing or decreasing the minimum would affect their decision to play the tournament again in future. If that data shows that, as you say, the 10-game minimum is a major threat to retention, and there is an actual practical alternative, then this conversation can be had in earnest.

ACF sent a survey to the teams that played Winter, and it included a question about the number of rounds. I think they'll soon have data about this issue and will presumably act on it as they think is best.

Returning to this one more time:

I don’t doubt that there are people who share the general preference that you are expressing: that tournaments should be shorter. But it’s a lot to ask everyone to take your word for it that you are accurately representing the views of dozens or hundreds of players, while you suggest that either (a) ACF Winter should cut the minimum number of games by 20% and thus guarantee even fewer games than ACF Fall does; or (b) we should eliminate packet submission just so people can get home a little earlier. And it’s unseemly to keep insinuating that other people don't care about inclusivity when they simply point out the logistical (and, in some cases, mathematical) barriers that you are discounting.

I've received multiple private expressions of support for starting this thread. I don't know how many people's views I represent, and it's very possible that we're in the minority, but it's not just me.

Edit: fixed a typo

[ThisIsMyUsername]

Reilly, this is the slipperiest rhetoric I’ve seen on these forums in a while. I’m writing under the assumption that you’re arguing in good faith, but you keep changing what you’re saying while claiming that you've said the same thing the whole time.

I think I've done a poor job of articulating my position. I am not advocating for the number of games offered at Winter to be dropped to eight or for Winter to offer fewer games than Fall. I'm not seriously advocating for the elimination of packet submission; I merely proposed it as an alternative solution.

I am advocating for the minimum number of games Winter hosts are required to offer to be dropped to nine.

In multiple posts in this thread, you said it would be okay for the minimum number of games to be 8, which is lower than the minimum for Fall. So, yes, you did say you’d be fine with a format in which Winter can potentially offer fewer games than the minimum that Fall guarantees. Does this mean you're no longer supporting that?

I don't think anyone's ever going to be upset by playing "only" nine games at Winter

You really don’t think anyone is going to be upset to drive 6-8 hours round trip, pay a hefty entry fee, and play that few games? (And, as we found out later, it’s not even 9 games that would have to be the new minimum; it’s 8, which means that at a well-run tournament, teams could end up playing as little as 5 hours of quizbowl.)

Yes, I really don't think very many people are going to be particularly upset about playing nine games at Winter. Nine games is a perfectly reasonable number at basically any tournament, particularly if the field is 10 teams.

This is another example. You said that no one would be upset. I said, yes, some people would be upset and you have to acknowledge that there are tradeoffs between those who want more games and those who want fewer games, and that's what this discussion is about. Then you reply by saying, "Yes, I really don't think very many people are going to be particularly upset," as if that was what you were saying the whole time, when it's the opposite of what you said. And then you go back to refusing to acknowledge that there are competing opinions, declaring by fiat that "Nine games is a perfectly reasonable number at basically any tournament"! Again, some people will agree with you, some people won't, and we should wait to find out what people actually think, and how much it matters to them.

Additionally, in the rare case where teams do want to play more than nine games (perhaps in a sparse circuit where teams have to stay overnight anyway), there would be nothing stopping them from playing more!

First, you are again just declaring that this case is "rare.” Second, what do you mean "there would be nothing stopping them from “playing more”? Any tournament format has to apply to the entire field of a site. If there are teams that want to play more games but their region’s host has decided not to create a schedule that affords that, then those teams won’t get to play more games.

I've received multiple private expressions of support for starting this thread. I don't know how many people's views I represent, and it's very possible that we're in the minority, but it's not just me.

The first sentence of my post acknowledged that it's not just you who believes this is a problem, so you’re not opposing anything I said. But your moving from “I do want to make it clear that I'm not just speaking for myself here: I'm speaking for the dozens (hundreds?) of casual players who I think would agree with me” to “I don't know how many people's views I represent, and it's very possible that we're in the minority, but it's not just me” is progress.

[EDIT: Removed my mistaken claim about ACF Fall.]

[Halinaxus]

Reilly, this is the slipperiest rhetoric I’ve seen on these forums in a while. I’m writing under the assumption that you’re arguing in good faith, but you keep changing what you’re saying while claiming that you've said the same thing the whole time.

I think I've done a poor job of articulating my position. I am not advocating for the number of games offered at Winter to be dropped to eight or for Winter to offer fewer games than Fall. I'm not seriously advocating for the elimination of packet submission; I merely proposed it as an alternative solution.

I am advocating for the minimum number of games Winter hosts are required to offer to be dropped to nine.

In multiple posts in this thread, you said it would be okay for the minimum number of games to be 8, which is lower than the minimum for Fall. So, yes, you did say you’d be fine with a format in which Winter can potentially offer fewer games than the minimum that Fall guarantees. Does this mean you're no longer supporting that?

I personally would be okay with an 8-game minimum for both Fall and Winter, but from what I gather that would be very unpopular with many teams. My intention was for 9 games to be a compromise that could work for everyone.

I don't think anyone's ever going to be upset by playing "only" nine games at Winter

You really don’t think anyone is going to be upset to drive 6-8 hours round trip, pay a hefty entry fee, and play that few games? (And, as we found out later, it’s not even 9 games that would have to be the new minimum; it’s 8, which means that at a well-run tournament, teams could end up playing as little as 5 hours of quizbowl.)

Yes, I really don't think very many people are going to be particularly upset about playing nine games at Winter. Nine games is a perfectly reasonable number at basically any tournament, particularly if the field is 10 teams.

This is another example. You said that no one would be upset. I said, yes, some people would be upset and you have to acknowledge that there are tradeoffs between those who want more games and those who want fewer games, and that's what this discussion is about. Then you reply by saying, "Yes, I really don't think very many people are going to be particularly upset," as if that was what you were saying the whole time, when it's the opposite of what you said. And then you go back to refusing to acknowledge that there are competing opinions, declaring by fiat that "Nine games is a perfectly reasonable number at basically any tournament"! Again, some people will agree with you, some people won't, and we should wait to find out what people actually think, and how much it matters to them.

Yes, these posts were poorly worded. I apologize. I agree that there are tradeoffs with any option and would also like to know what people's opinions on them are.

I have personally never seen anyone complain that nine games is too few for a one-off Saturday tournament that is not a national championship or qualifier for one, and it was my understanding that, unlike eight games, nine is an acceptable number if the field size warrants it (typically if there are 10 teams and no need for packet sub byes). If this is not standard, I would be happy to learn what is.

Additionally, in the rare case where teams do want to play more than nine games (perhaps in a sparse circuit where teams have to stay overnight anyway), there would be nothing stopping them from playing more!

First, you are again just declaring that this case is "rare.” Second, what do you mean "there would be nothing stopping them from “playing more”? Any tournament format has to apply to the entire field of a site. If there are teams that want to play more games but their region’s host has decided not to create a schedule that affords that, then those teams won’t get to play more games.

I was operating under the (perhaps optimistic) assmumption that hosts and attendees would communicate about their desires and come to a mutually acceptable arrangement. In my experience, teams in the same circuit tend to know each other, have open channels of communication, and be amenable to making things work for everyone.

I genuinely didn't come to the forums to bicker. I observed what appeared to be an inefficiency and wanted to help find a solution, much like this thread last month. I think all of my posts in this thread have suffered from a lack of time spent polishing my position; in the future, I'll spend more time crafting my argument before starting complex discussions like this one.

[benchapman]

For what it’s worth, I would personally be disappointed to travel 5+ hours each way for a tournament to play only 9 games.

[L.H.O.O.Q.]

At the risk of coming off coarse, it's hard not to notice that the dissenting opinions here are coming from fossils of previous quizbowl generations. As someone who also played in a prior generation, I think the game is just different now in a way that makes the 10-game minimum unwieldy. In particular, the argument that 8 or 9 games is "a small amount" is pretty amusing to me. I don't know if perhaps we've gotten too used to grueling open tournaments, or if this just speaks to a level of quizbowl sicko-ism that it requires to be a top-level open tournament player, but I don't remember ever being disappointed that my team only heard 180 cycles at a college tournament.

In particular, from my time staffing tournaments in the Great Lakes region, where games seem to go very slow for no discernible reason, a game is not worth the same amount everywhere. I was spoiled in college by a cabal of elite moderators and experienced TDs in the Midwest, who were able to make an 11-game tournament finish by 6 pm. Last year, I read for the finals for ACF Fall at OSU (11-12 games for teams, I believe), and we adjourned at 8:30 pm. ACF Winter this year was 14 rounds and ended at 10. I wouldn't say the Great Lakes region's slowness is caused by bad tournament staff; by my assessment OSU has a decently-sized pool of average-to-above-average moderators, but that's not sufficient to make tournaments get through 10+ rounds in a reasonable amount of time.

Additionally, from my observations, most college quiz bowlers in 2024 are not sickos like me with no other major interests and low school workloads. Generally speaking, they have other interests, friends outside the club, and, often, other plans for their Saturday evenings. For that reason and the ones above, I don't think your typical collegiate player will be disappointed that they only heard 9, even 8 rounds of quiz bowl. Bowl is no longer life.

[Gene Harrogate]

At the risk of coming off coarse, it's hard not to notice that the dissenting opinions here are coming from fossils of previous quizbowl generations.

It feels like unproductive, not to mention incorrect, ad hominem to label people like Ben Chapman (Hunter College High School '21) "fossils of previous quizbowl generations."

[forrestw]

To add my voice to the choir as someone who started playing in 2022, I also prefer to play as many games as possible. Even in the northeast where travel is easy and fast, tournaments are typically all-day events so I don't see a benefit to shaving off an hour or two.

[L.H.O.O.Q.]

At the risk of coming off coarse, it's hard not to notice that the dissenting opinions here are coming from fossils of previous quizbowl generations.

It feels like unproductive, not to mention incorrect, ad hominem to label people like Ben Chapman (Hunter College High School '21) "fossils of previous quizbowl generations."

Ben posted between when I started and finished writing my post, but I'll concede that this is an ad hominem argument. Still, though - shouldn't the hominems who actually are and will be playing collegiate quiz bowl be leading this discussion?

[Fado Alexandrino]

In particular, from my time staffing tournaments in the Great Lakes region, where games seem to go very slow for no discernible reason, a game is not worth the same amount everywhere. I was spoiled in college by a cabal of elite moderators and experienced TDs in the Midwest, who were able to make an 11-game tournament finish by 6 pm.

Seems like if the issue of "slow games for no discernible reason" gets fixed, this entire problem is solved, instead of trying to lower the minimum number of games.

[Liarr]

'Leading a discussion' in a forum thread selects for some very particular traits, such as attention to detail, a robust work ethic, and taking a firm tone.

[Oscario]

Personally I think 9 games minimum for Winter is reasonable. With 14 teams that's the difference between 10 rounds and 12, and I think requiring a 12 round schedule is excessive. With 22 teams it's the difference between 11 rounds and possibly 14 (!!). Particularly in a circuit where taking public transport is the norm, and sometimes the last train gets cancelled...

[Cody]

Personally I think 9 games minimum for Winter is reasonable. With 14 teams that's the difference between 10 rounds and 12, and I think requiring a 12 round schedule is excessive. With 22 teams it's the difference between 11 rounds and possibly 14 (!!). Particularly in a circuit where taking public transport is the norm, and sometimes the last train gets cancelled...

For 14 teams, it takes 11 rounds to get 9-10 games and 12 rounds to get 10-11 games.

For 22 teams, you can get 10-11 games in 12 rounds. In fact, the 22 team format that's 10-11 games in 12 rounds (brackets of 8/7/7) almost certainly works better than for 9-10 games in 11 rounds (brackets of 6/6/5/5) because you can use 7 submitted packets instead of 5. The format you choose for 22 teams is dependent on the number of submitted packets at a site. You move to brackets of 11/11 if you have too many submitted packets and in that format you move from 13 to 14 rounds if you have more than ~3 contending teams.

In general, the only field sizes where moving to 9 minimum games has more than a 1-round difference is 4 and 10 teams. I'm not digging into the effect of byes, but in general it shouldn't matter because byes extend any prelim format by one round.

I don't see a problem if there's a need to make accommodations for those two field sizes. But to generate an outsized impact on the number of rounds, you must move the minimum down to 8 games. And if you're going to do that, there's plenty of schedule changes with a higher priority than the end time of the tournament. So in the end, I don't see what difference this will make for tournament ending times.

[Cheynem]

At the risk of coming off coarse, it's hard not to notice that the dissenting opinions here are coming from fossils of previous quizbowl generations.

It feels like unproductive, not to mention incorrect, ad hominem to label people like Ben Chapman (Hunter College High School '21) "fossils of previous quizbowl generations."

Ben posted between when I started and finished writing my post, but I'll concede that this is an ad hominem argument. Still, though - shouldn't the hominems who actually are and will be playing collegiate quiz bowl be leading this discussion?

I think it would be great if people, especially active players, who agreed (or disagreed) with Reilly weighed in and extended their thoughts. I do think John and to some extent Naveed have perfectly relevant opinions, though--they are part of the corps of people who are writing, staffing, and running these tournaments and the organizations that produce these tournaments.

For what it's worth, I agree that tournaments that end post 8 PM like Winter are not great. But to me, this speaks of issues in running the tournament--not necessarily that anyone ran a tournament "badly," but perhaps there is a way to improve practices. I doubt that the people who ran things in the mid 2010s were inherently better at running a faster tournament--maybe they were more experienced?--but perhaps there are things we can do to speed things up. Because I think the best solution is to improve the tournaments so they don't run so long rather than cut rounds.

[bmcke]

I think if you start with "Should teams get fewer games?", the answer is no, but if you started with "What time should tournaments end?", you'd get a different consensus.

I don't like staying extra late when I staff. I don't think it's reasonable to assume fast round times and then blame the TD when it doesn't happen.

[chartong]

I think it would be great if people, especially active players, who agreed (or disagreed) with Reilly weighed in and extended their thoughts.p

I suppose I'll throw my hat into the ring. At the risk of sounding repetitive (as I believe Forrest and others have already articulated this take), I don't particularly mind it when tournaments run late, as I've accepted that this is an inevitable part of the hobby. Even well-run, punctual local tournaments on sets much easier (and shorter) than ACF Winter will see me getting home around 8:30-9, which for me is too late to reasonably make any other plans. Of course, I come with the perspective of someone who was already fairly accustomed to this in high school, so maybe I suffer from such a high degree of quiz bowl sicko-ry to where I'm unable to see the evils of overly long quiz bowl tournaments or something. Regardless, I don't think cutting rounds is an appropriate first step in solving the "problem" of late-running tournaments.

[emirps]

"There should be less quizbowl at quizbowl tournaments" seems a little off. More quizbowl is generally a good thing, I think, and people know what they're getting into when they sign up for a tournament. The argument seems to stem from "many people are saying this," which should always be regarded with caution. I tend to think the problem of finishing late can be solved with more efficient tournament management, rather than cutting out games.

User was reminded to enable a complete signature. --Mgmt.

[dni]

Anecdotally, before I was introduced to "good" quizbowl, I played a lot of tournaments through other formats like Science Bowl, VHSL and It's Academic. These finished in around 4-6 hours and many were half-day or even after-school events. I didn't have any issue with this and neither did anyone I played these with. When I played my first quizbowl tournament, I was honestly pretty shocked by how long it took. I didn't particularly mind it, but I did notice that my teammates, as well as all our opponents, were visibly exhausted several rounds before we finished. As I played more tournaments, it remained strange to me that this was apparently the norm.

As a sidenote, most activities do not take all day. To give some personal examples, swim meets take 4-6 hours and the Putnam takes "only" 6 hours plus a lunch break. There's definitely exceptions, but just at a very high level, a lower bound of ~8 hours (not including travel time) is objectively a long ass time to spend doing... anything? This is especially true of something as mentally demanding as quizbowl. I would obviously rather play non-zero quizbowl than zero quizbowl, but by the time any tournament I'm playing starts getting into late afternoon hours, any additional rounds I play are close to zero utility for me. It is extremely plausible to me that those last few games are negative utility for many others.

ACF Winter might not be the place to cut rounds, but shorter tournaments do already happen, seemingly without issue: IQBT has been doing two 8-game mirrors of UG Nats each year and one of the COOT mirrors was only 6 games. This is just based on my personal experiences, but I am confident a significant contingent of players would derive the same (if not more) enjoyment out these tournaments as they do "full" 10+ round tournaments. Again, I probably wouldn't start with Winter and I would expect to pay a slightly lower registration fee, but I don't think shorter tournaments are an unreasonable idea.

[Cheynem]

I agree that shorter tournaments are a perfectly fine thing if that's the expectation everyone has. ACF tournaments, even Fall to some extent, have to balance the needs and desires of a lot of different people, but *primarily* (although obviously not exclusively), the person who enjoys playing quizbowl a great deal.

Thus, I think Dan's point is correct--shorter tournaments have a great place in quizbowl. I just think (as their post seems to indicate) that the best place for such tournaments would be things like small opens, highly--highly regional tournaments where people would not expect to have a long travel time, and very casual events.

[Sit Quietly, Alone]

a lower bound of ~8 hours (not including travel time) is objectively a long ass time to spend doing... anything? This is especially true of something as mentally demanding as quizbowl.

this is very true, and perhaps underacknowledged. at the risk of leaning into "many people are saying this," a discussion in the uva qb discord once led me to me remark that i'm rarely tired at the end of 10 or so games, and i was roundly flamed. another set of anecdotes: 3-5 times in my college career, my team has turned down a finals game to get home earlier (taking into account the other team, whose members who were often riding with us). how seriously should the concerns of more casual players be taken? i don't know. the conventional wisdom is certainly that the core of the qb community is experienced writers & editors. still, i'm inclined to believe that those who could turn into sickos may start as casual players, that a club filled out with plenty of non-sickos is a more pleasant one for more serious players, that many very good players may come from hs environments with lower demands on their time, and that it's better when more people play qb. maybe we need to lower minimum round requirements for winter. mike is certainly correct that that last proposal is far from the only conceivable solution.

[RexSueciae]

Speaking as someone who does far more quizbowl staffing these days than I do playing, I don't mind reading more rounds. My throat is liable to not be happy but frankly, at a certain point one more round won't hurt any more than it already does. I am fortunate to exist in an ecosystem of largely competent tournament hosts -- if people start on time, keep it moving, and don't fumble things like protests or stats, 10 rounds is perfectly reasonable to finish in good order.

[RDNJ]

I definitely think it's a matter of end time, and not playing/reading more or less games. Dropping the minimum game requirement can result in schedules that cut a round or two off of the tournament as a whole. Lots of these events end up releasing the set/giving access to the packets after the event is over or shortly after, so I don't quite understand the "getting the quizbowl that you paid for" argument; if it's that big a deal to hear all the questions, read them at practice or on the drive back.

I'm not as experienced as everyone in this thread, but I have been playing consistently for 6-7 years now, and no matter how much of a QB sicko/addict you consider yourself, ending at an hour or two earlier has a monumental effect. Especially with lots of college players who are novice to intermediate caliber, rounds tend to take the full 40-45 minutes, and the stamina required to play through 11, 12, 13 rounds is a genuine factor. Not to mention that for teams that travel to and from tournaments, the time saved IS important when it comes to figuring out dining arrangements or not getting back to campus at 1 AM. Driving while tired is dangerous, and something like the minimum games required to play a tournament should not decide whether or not a club makes a tournament & trip an overnighter and have to shell out hundreds of dollars for lodging.

Lowering the required round limit allows for greater flexibility for TDs, travelling teams, and those who aren't 10000% QB-minded, and at the end of the day, IT IS A MINIMUM. If most teams would prefer more rounds and more play, the schedule and structure can reflect that. Reducing the minimum just allows for less opportunities for tournaments to run long and for people to play an appropriate amount of quizbowl.

[Evilshadow0]

Echoing Cole and Forrest, I'm of the opinion that quizbowl already tends to run late, plus there's usually a significant travel element, so getting out a few hours earlier doesn't provide much utility to me. I also view being able to play more games as a better use of my money (regardless of if it's club funds or paid out-of-pocket).

Lots of these events end up releasing the set/giving access to the packets after the event is over or shortly after, so I don't quite understand the "getting the quizbowl that you paid for" argument

Well, this is because I'm not paying to SEE the questions now am I? I'm paying to compete on the questions, and fewer rounds is definitely less worth the money from that point of view.

On the other hand, I am sympathetic to the idea that a lot of us choosing to post on the forums about this are "quizbowl sickos" and are more likely to share this viewpoint. With that in mind, I would agree with the growing sentiment that playing fewer rounds makes more sense in the context of other open tournaments and not ACF.

Because in my opinion, quizbowl's target market is rather intense, highly academic trivia players. It's what sets us apart from casual pub trivia players, or Jeopardy! fans. I definitely see ACF as catering to this crowd in particular, the "nutjobs" and "sickos" of the Anglophone quizzing world.

But if others would like to cater to a different market, there should absolutely be a place for that. I just wonder if cutting the schedule down from 10 games to 9 is actually impactful enough to appeal to other audiences, and if a tournament has to be shorter, if teams hosting would even find it worth their time.

But who am I to speak on that? Again, I'm probably not qualified to speak for that crowd and what they'd be willing to play.