NAQT SCT Results and ICT Invitations
NAQT SCT Results and ICT Invitations
NAQT has collected the statistics from its SCTs and CC SCTs here:
http://www.naqt.com/stats/sectionals.jsp
We will be announcing the ICT invitations on our website (and in this thread) no later than Friday. I apologize for the subject line that suggests they are available now, but I wanted it to remain accurate when people come looking for them tomorrow.
http://www.naqt.com/stats/sectionals.jsp
We will be announcing the ICT invitations on our website (and in this thread) no later than Friday. I apologize for the subject line that suggests they are available now, but I wanted it to remain accurate when people come looking for them tomorrow.
ICT invitations have been posted
The initial invitations to the 2008 NAQT ICT have been posted:
Division I:
http://www.naqt.com/ict/2008/invitations-di.html
Division II:
http://www.naqt.com/ict/2008/invitations-dii.html
Congratulations to everybody who made it!
Division I:
http://www.naqt.com/ict/2008/invitations-di.html
Division II:
http://www.naqt.com/ict/2008/invitations-dii.html
Congratulations to everybody who made it!
- Maxwell Sniffingwell
- Auron
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
- Location: Des Moines, IA
There were 95 four-year teams in Division II and only 20 spots available (after hosts' bids were awarded), so about one-fifth of each Sectional's field will qualify (assuming roughly equal field strengths).cornfused wrote:Hmmm... and only WuStL and Lawrence make it out of the DII Midwest craziness, with Northwestern scoring the 5th spot on the waitlist. Wow.
- DumbJaques
- Forums Staff: Administrator
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
- Location: Columbus, OH
I also don't see why Brown, who finished better than MIT isn't on the D2 list at all.DumbJaques wrote:Uhm, I'm probably overlooking something hilariously obvious, but didn't MIT's Division II team go 2-10? Is there something I'm missing here? How in the world are they listed ahead of those other teams?
Jordan Boyd-Graber
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2018-present
UC Boulder, Founder / Faculty Advisor 2014-2017
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2010-2014
Princeton, Player 2004-2009
Caltech (Pasadena, CA), Player / President 2000-2004
Ark Math & Science (Hot Springs, AR), Player 1998-2000
Monticello High School, Player 1997-1998
Human-Computer Question Answering:
http://qanta.org/
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2018-present
UC Boulder, Founder / Faculty Advisor 2014-2017
UMD (College Park, MD), Faculty Advisor 2010-2014
Princeton, Player 2004-2009
Caltech (Pasadena, CA), Player / President 2000-2004
Ark Math & Science (Hot Springs, AR), Player 1998-2000
Monticello High School, Player 1997-1998
Human-Computer Question Answering:
http://qanta.org/
It seems ridiculous to me that a 2-10 team would be on the waitlist at all, or that the 6-6 Princeton teams got bids over 10-3 Florida State and Georgia (who aren't even waitlisted!)
It only seems fair to me that you should have to have a winning record at Sectionals to be considered for a Nationals bid.
It only seems fair to me that you should have to have a winning record at Sectionals to be considered for a Nationals bid.
To add to the questions, we don't have stats for the Alabama Sectionals but they receive two D2 spots (Gulf Coast & Faulkner State) & two of the waitlist spots (Pensacola & Beville State Jasper).
Fred Morlan
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, CEO, co-owner
former PACE member, president, etc.
former hsqbrank manager, former NAQT writer & subject editor, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, CEO, co-owner
former PACE member, president, etc.
former hsqbrank manager, former NAQT writer & subject editor, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator
Chris, look at the bonus conversion and strength of schedule (for reference, their bonus conversion was higher than the entire D2 sectional West). 1-11 UCLA is the first team on the Division I waitlist, so I'd guess that the S-Value has a fairly high strength-of-schedule correction.DumbJaques wrote:Uhm, I'm probably overlooking something hilariously obvious, but didn't MIT's Division II team go 2-10? Is there something I'm missing here? How in the world are they listed ahead of those other teams?
This is patently ridiculous. I may be no expert, but I'd guess our ppth, tuppth and bonus conversion were somewhere near the top of the at-large D1 teams; would you prefer that we, MIT, and Dartmouth give up our spots to let in Illinois B, Ohio State, and Oklahoma, which have (no offense to any of those teams) a far worse statistical profile despite having winning records?jhn31 wrote:It only seems fair to me that you should have to have a winning record at Sectionals to be considered for a Nationals bid.
Yep.cvdwightw wrote:This is patently ridiculous. I may be no expert, but I'd guess our ppth, tuppth and bonus conversion were somewhere near the top of the at-large D1 teams; would you prefer that we, MIT, and Dartmouth give up our spots to let in Illinois B, Ohio State, and Oklahoma, which have (no offense to any of those teams) a far worse statistical profile despite having winning records?jhn31 wrote:It only seems fair to me that you should have to have a winning record at Sectionals to be considered for a Nationals bid.
-
- Rikku
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
NAQT has the complete stats from the Alabama CC SCT, but they were provided in a format that makes it inconvenient to load directly into our database. We'll get them in, eventually, but rest assured that the same data was provided--and used in the S-value computations--for teams from that Sectional as everywhere else.leftsaidfred wrote:To add to the questions, we don't have stats for the Alabama Sectionals but they receive two D2 spots (Gulf Coast & Faulkner State) & two of the waitlist spots (Pensacola & Beville State Jasper).
And maybe we should let the baseball teams with the most runs and hits make the playoffs.bjb87 wrote:I think the best thing to do might be to completely ignore a team's record when deciding who should and shouldn't get a bid to the ICT, and instead look at PP20TUH, Points Per Bonus, and Strength of Schedule.
The best bonus conversion among the DII teams at the South SCT who did not receive an invite was 13.76. The worst bonus conversion among any team to receive a non-automatic invite or a spot on the waitlist was Berkeley with 15.75. That is a pretty significant difference.
Incidentally, the only real surprise I had with the DII list was Berkeley getting the invite over Cornell B or Iowa, who both seemed to have more impressive stats.
Incidentally, the only real surprise I had with the DII list was Berkeley getting the invite over Cornell B or Iowa, who both seemed to have more impressive stats.
Trevor Davis
University of Alberta
CMU '11
University of Alberta
CMU '11
That was my point of concern - that NAQT was forced to make a decision using incomplete information.rhentzel wrote:NAQT has the complete stats from the Alabama CC SCT, but they were provided in a format that makes it inconvenient to load directly into our database. We'll get them in, eventually, but rest assured that the same data was provided--and used in the S-value computations--for teams from that Sectional as everywhere else.leftsaidfred wrote:To add to the questions, we don't have stats for the Alabama Sectionals but they receive two D2 spots (Gulf Coast & Faulkner State) & two of the waitlist spots (Pensacola & Beville State Jasper).
Fred Morlan
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, CEO, co-owner
former PACE member, president, etc.
former hsqbrank manager, former NAQT writer & subject editor, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, CEO, co-owner
former PACE member, president, etc.
former hsqbrank manager, former NAQT writer & subject editor, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator
- The Time Keeper
- Auron
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:26 pm
- Location: Michigan
jhn31 wrote:Down with stats!
everyone else wrote:haha what?
I think we're all overlooking the fact that this could be a great way to finally boost Pacific Northwest SCT attendance by convincing teams in the middle of the pack in their regions to fly up there so they can try to qualify under the new, really really bad rules.
Also, I'm going to have to disagree with Susan and call for more sports analogies about all things quizbowl because oh my god.
This completely ignores the fact that in baseball (or basketball or football or whatever), teams play multiple opponents from multiple regions, which allows for a larger sample size of results to use for comparison purposes. In quiz bowl, we have teams that have a sample size of opponents as small as three. I think it's clear as day that, at least on this day, UCLA was not as good as the Stanford teams or Cal-Irvine. But to ignore the fact that they scored more points against a deeper field than, say, Victoria, due to less wins in a game that's based entirely around scoring points is very flawed thinking.jhn31 wrote:And maybe we should let the baseball teams with the most runs and hits make the playoffs.
Also, your comparison ignores the fact that baseball worries about limiting points through actively playing defense, which quiz bowl, obviously, does not do.
Also, your comparison ignores this:
myamphigory wrote:Oh, were we all playing baseball last weekend?
Down with sports analogies.
Fred Morlan
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, CEO, co-owner
former PACE member, president, etc.
former hsqbrank manager, former NAQT writer & subject editor, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, CEO, co-owner
former PACE member, president, etc.
former hsqbrank manager, former NAQT writer & subject editor, former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator
-
- Rikku
- Posts: 475
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
I will provide an example of why strength of schedule is important.
There are five teams at the NAQT Dream Team Sectional
The results of the sectional.
Chicago 12-0 (Yaphe, Madipotti, Teitler, Koo) 20 PP20TUH, 26 Points Per Bonus
Michigan 9-3 (Berdichevsky, Kemezis, Lafer, Wolpert) 18 PP20TUH, 24 Points Per Bonus
Texas A&M 5-7 (Romero, Mitchell, Benefiel, Morris) 17 PP20TUH, 23 Points Per Bonus
Berkeley 4-8 (Hoppes, Farris, Lujan, Shapiro) 16 PP20TUH, 22.5 Points Per Bonus
Team Loser 0-12 (Whomever) 12 PP20TUH, 20 Points Per Bonus
There are five teams at the NAQT Other Sectional
Team Winner 12-0 5 PP20TUH, 8 Points Per Bonus
Team B 9-3 4 PP20TUH, 6 Points Per Bonus
Team C 5-7 3 PP20TUH, 4 Points Per Bonus
Team D 4-8 2 PP20TUH, 2 Points Per Bonus
Team E 0-12 1 PP20TUH, 1.2 Points Per Bonus
I know this is an extreme example, and I don't intend to come across as a jerk, rather I just wanted to illustrate how strength of schedule is more important than record.
There are five teams at the NAQT Dream Team Sectional
The results of the sectional.
Chicago 12-0 (Yaphe, Madipotti, Teitler, Koo) 20 PP20TUH, 26 Points Per Bonus
Michigan 9-3 (Berdichevsky, Kemezis, Lafer, Wolpert) 18 PP20TUH, 24 Points Per Bonus
Texas A&M 5-7 (Romero, Mitchell, Benefiel, Morris) 17 PP20TUH, 23 Points Per Bonus
Berkeley 4-8 (Hoppes, Farris, Lujan, Shapiro) 16 PP20TUH, 22.5 Points Per Bonus
Team Loser 0-12 (Whomever) 12 PP20TUH, 20 Points Per Bonus
There are five teams at the NAQT Other Sectional
Team Winner 12-0 5 PP20TUH, 8 Points Per Bonus
Team B 9-3 4 PP20TUH, 6 Points Per Bonus
Team C 5-7 3 PP20TUH, 4 Points Per Bonus
Team D 4-8 2 PP20TUH, 2 Points Per Bonus
Team E 0-12 1 PP20TUH, 1.2 Points Per Bonus
I know this is an extreme example, and I don't intend to come across as a jerk, rather I just wanted to illustrate how strength of schedule is more important than record.
Brendan Byrne
Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010
Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010
- DumbJaques
- Forums Staff: Administrator
- Posts: 3109
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
- Location: Columbus, OH
Yeah I fucking hate baseball, so whatever with the analogies. Obviously we can't just use W-L, even as the primary determination. But I still don't understand some of these evaluations. Cornell B is the top waitlist team and they put up not very impressive stats coasting to a middle finish against a pretty weak field. It seems to me that some southern teams - and every team in the circle of death from Chicago - should have at least finished above them.
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE
Your sports analogy is as ridiculous as the point you were trying to make.jhn31 wrote:And maybe we should let the baseball teams with the most runs and hits make the playoffs.bjb87 wrote:I think the best thing to do might be to completely ignore a team's record when deciding who should and shouldn't get a bid to the ICT, and instead look at PP20TUH, Points Per Bonus, and Strength of Schedule.
Also, since Berkeley is not on the D1 list, I'm inclined to think that it's a hosting autobid for D2 and not a wildcard qualification (most of their D2 staffers were still D2 eligible, and they probably just wanted to give their freshmen some experience before throwing them headfirst into ICT).
This makes sense. For some reason I had thought that a host couldn't claim a DII host bid if they entered a team in DII, but a rereading of the NAQT rules shows this isn't true.cvdwightw wrote:Also, since Berkeley is not on the D1 list, I'm inclined to think that it's a hosting autobid for D2 and not a wildcard qualification (most of their D2 staffers were still D2 eligible, and they probably just wanted to give their freshmen some experience before throwing them headfirst into ICT).
Trevor Davis
University of Alberta
CMU '11
University of Alberta
CMU '11
- Maxwell Sniffingwell
- Auron
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
- Location: Des Moines, IA
Uh, I'd love to see the stats fixed from the Lawrence-Ohio State game... it currently has Richard from Lawrence negging 9 times in a game in which we still put up 505. So, actually, Lawrence's overall line for the tournament is more like 29-148-17 or 29-148-18, not 29-148-26.
EDIT: Not that it matters.
EDIT: Not that it matters.
Here's the brief analysis by NAQT's statistician who did most of the work computing our S-values:DumbJaques wrote:Uhm, I'm probably overlooking something hilariously obvious, but didn't MIT's Division II team go 2-10? Is there something I'm missing here? How in the world are they listed ahead of those other teams?
I'll add that NAQT believes that strength-of-schedule does vary dramatically between Sectionals and that it should play a major role in the process of determining ICT invitations. Our goal is to have the best 32 teams at Nationals, and that often means giving disproportionately more invitations to one region of the country than another. It also may mean that, in extreme cases, a 1-11 team may get an invitation when a 9-3 team doesn't.In D2, the Northeast Sectional was incredibly hard. It was so hard that if they were a D1 Sectional, I would actually wonder if they used the wrong packet set. It was really a Lake Wobegone SCT -- every team was pretty clearly above average (the D1 analog was the West SCT). As a group, their points per bonus was 17.4 (no one else was above 15.1), they converted 87% of tossups (no one else was above 77%), they powered 20% more tossups than #2, and averaged 483 combined ppg despite slightly lower-than-average TUH (no one else cracked 400).
As for MIT specifically, their bonus conversion is right in line with the teams around them. Their tossups are obviously lower, though their power percentage is, again, similar. I suspect they were somewhat unlucky to go 2-10 as well. Their stats are just marginally worse than the two Princeton teams that went 6-6 and they actually managed to leap over a 3-9 Brown team that they beat twice pretty soundly.
We don't want to create a huge incentive for teams to travel around the country to weak Sectionals where they can put up lots of wins; in an ideal world, we'd have the formula tweaked so that it truly didn't matter which Sectional one attended. I'm sure we haven't achieved that, but I think we've removed most of the motivation to "venue shop," unless a team thinks it is good enough to win a weak(er) SCT outright and garner an automatic bid.
To which new (and bad) rules are you referring? I don't believe that any major changes were made to the ICT qualification process this year; was there a difference in the implementation of the Pacific Northwest SCT that affects things?Dolemite wrote:I think we're all overlooking the fact that this could be a great way to finally boost Pacific Northwest SCT attendance by convincing teams in the middle of the pack in their regions to fly up there so they can try to qualify under the new, really really bad rules.jhn31 wrote:Down with stats!
- grapesmoker
- Sin
- Posts: 6345
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I realize it probably doesn't affect anything at this point, but the 3-9 Brown team was Jacob Baskin playing solo in a vain attempt to qulify a DII team for ICT. That MIT leapfrogged him in stats isn't too surprising considering they had a full contingent.
Jerry Vinokurov
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
presently: John Jay College Economics
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance
ex-LJHS, ex-Berkeley, ex-Brown, sorta-ex-CMU
presently: John Jay College Economics
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance
- Auks Ran Ova
- Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
- Posts: 4296
- Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
- Location: Minneapolis
- Contact:
I think the "rules" to which Dolemite was sarcastically referring are those proposed by jhn, where wins matter far more.rhentzel wrote:To which new (and bad) rules are you referring? I don't believe that any major changes were made to the ICT qualification process this year; was there a difference in the implementation of the Pacific Northwest SCT that affects things?Dolemite wrote:I think we're all overlooking the fact that this could be a great way to finally boost Pacific Northwest SCT attendance by convincing teams in the middle of the pack in their regions to fly up there so they can try to qualify under the new, really really bad rules.jhn31 wrote:Down with stats!
Last edited by Auks Ran Ova on Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Rob Carson
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??, BHSU forever
Member, ACF
Member emeritus, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
University of Minnesota '11, MCTC '??, BHSU forever
Member, ACF
Member emeritus, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT
NAQT generally respects the order-of-finish from Sectionals, but is willing to invite teams out of order when there is a particularly large difference in statistics. A one-game or one-position difference is overcome by better stats relatively frequently, but it's pretty rare to see a team invited that finished two games below another at the same Sectional that isn't invited.ezubaric wrote:I also don't see why Brown, who finished better than MIT isn't on the D2 list at all.
- The Time Keeper
- Auron
- Posts: 1327
- Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:26 pm
- Location: Michigan
I was reffering to his hypothetical "Only teams with winning records should be considered" line, not to of any of NAQT's current real policies.rhentzel wrote:To which new (and bad) rules are you referring? I don't believe that any major changes were made to the ICT qualification process this year; was there a difference in the implementation of the Pacific Northwest SCT that affects things?Dolemite wrote:I think we're all overlooking the fact that this could be a great way to finally boost Pacific Northwest SCT attendance by convincing teams in the middle of the pack in their regions to fly up there so they can try to qualify under the new, really really bad rules.jhn31 wrote:Down with stats!
Wow, MIT was certainly not expecting this, especially not the DII team. That's pretty amazing, but ironically, it actually could be pretty bad for some of our DII players, particularly our frosh--does being on the waitlist disqualify the whole team from DII next year?
We initially had two DII teams of 4, one of which were frosh that just wanted to check out SCT and the other of which had stronger upperclassmen, but three people ditched the morning of (one of which was just late and got there eventually but didn't tell us), so we wound up with one team of 5 that became 6 (as the stats show). Frankly, we were not expecting to be invited to ICT with the team we sent, or even waitlisted, so this comes as something of a shock--we had a team that we thought was a reasonable contender for DII ICT, but it wasn't this chimera team we eventually wound up with. I hope for the sake of the frosh getting to play a non-depressing SCT next year (because let's face it, the NE DI competition was incredibly tough this year as well, with 8 of 10 teams invited to ICT and the 9th waitlisted) that we didn't just accidentally disqualify them for DII. Anyway, I guess long live the S score!
We initially had two DII teams of 4, one of which were frosh that just wanted to check out SCT and the other of which had stronger upperclassmen, but three people ditched the morning of (one of which was just late and got there eventually but didn't tell us), so we wound up with one team of 5 that became 6 (as the stats show). Frankly, we were not expecting to be invited to ICT with the team we sent, or even waitlisted, so this comes as something of a shock--we had a team that we thought was a reasonable contender for DII ICT, but it wasn't this chimera team we eventually wound up with. I hope for the sake of the frosh getting to play a non-depressing SCT next year (because let's face it, the NE DI competition was incredibly tough this year as well, with 8 of 10 teams invited to ICT and the 9th waitlisted) that we didn't just accidentally disqualify them for DII. Anyway, I guess long live the S score!
Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.msaifutaa wrote:Wow, MIT was certainly not expecting this, especially not the DII team. That's pretty amazing, but ironically, it actually could be pretty bad for some of our DII players, particularly our frosh--does being on the waitlist disqualify the whole team from DII next year?
So, if teams decline and you are invited, then your players' DII eligibility is gone (whether or not you attend). If teams don't decline and you remain on the waitlist, your players can compete in DII again next year.
- Wall of Ham
- Rikku
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:28 am
You can also ask NAQT for an exemption for the two frosh, which in this particular case I think is quite reasonable. Otherwise you might have to send that whole team to ICT, and really, who wants to play on a 6-man team at nationals?rhentzel wrote:Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.msaifutaa wrote:Wow, MIT was certainly not expecting this, especially not the DII team. That's pretty amazing, but ironically, it actually could be pretty bad for some of our DII players, particularly our frosh--does being on the waitlist disqualify the whole team from DII next year?
So, if teams decline and you are invited, then your players' DII eligibility is gone (whether or not you attend). If teams don't decline and you remain on the waitlist, your players can compete in DII again next year.
That's what I was afraid of. Well, I hope all the invited schools accept the Div II bids then (no offense intended at all to anyone below us on the Waitlist who wants to go). Some of the six people on that team deserve another chance to play in a field that won't crush them like this year's DI field would have.rhentzel wrote:Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.msaifutaa wrote:Wow, MIT was certainly not expecting this, especially not the DII team. That's pretty amazing, but ironically, it actually could be pretty bad for some of our DII players, particularly our frosh--does being on the waitlist disqualify the whole team from DII next year?
So, if teams decline and you are invited, then your players' DII eligibility is gone (whether or not you attend). If teams don't decline and you remain on the waitlist, your players can compete in DII again next year.
Incidentally, I think that the way eligibility for DII works is one reason why Northeast's DII may have been so skewed this year. Players are allowed to keep going in DII until they are on a team that gets a bid or they graduate, so you had some teams in DII with some reasonably experienced players in them for a variety of reasons.
For instance, one of our top scorers in DII this time around was a junior who didn't come freshman year and helped me help Harvard staff the tournament last year, for instance, and I noticed Brandeis had a lot of Quizbowl experience under their belt for a Div II team as well. And we have one player who is pretty much known for her incredible unreasonable flakiness and just missed it every year, but she's quite good. Because of her flakiness, she will be Div II eligible next year, her senior year, if she actually shows up.
I would think something like having played two years on the Quizbowl circuit might be a better DII determiner. True, it allows ridiculously good frosh to play in DII one time more, but I think that in total it would be more fair in both directions, since it also allows frosh who would be out of place in DI to remain in DII even if they are on a team wherein they do very little and an upperclassman ruins their DII eligibility.
Hmm, interesting idea, thanks!Modestly Sized Wall of Ha wrote:You can also ask NAQT for an exemption for the two frosh, which in this particular case I think is quite reasonable. Otherwise you might have to send that whole team to ICT, and really, who wants to play on a 6-man team at nationals?rhentzel wrote:Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.msaifutaa wrote:Wow, MIT was certainly not expecting this, especially not the DII team. That's pretty amazing, but ironically, it actually could be pretty bad for some of our DII players, particularly our frosh--does being on the waitlist disqualify the whole team from DII next year?
So, if teams decline and you are invited, then your players' DII eligibility is gone (whether or not you attend). If teams don't decline and you remain on the waitlist, your players can compete in DII again next year.
As it turns out, there were more than two frosh on the team, since the missing people were a combination from both teams, but you can see a fairly big drop from Carrot and Anqua to Fred and Nobby and then to Cherry and Sam, so I would guess the exemption line would be drawn in one of those two places (certainly I would hope Cherry and Sam, with less than 10 toss-up points per game played, could get a chance to stay in DII if possible).
-
- Wakka
- Posts: 180
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:10 am
- Location: Flomaton, AL
- pray for elves
- Auron
- Posts: 1061
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:58 pm
- Location: 20001
As far as experience on Brandeis's team goes, we had one freshman, two sophomores, and myself (a senior). One of the sophomores did not play last year at SCT, while the other did (as did I), but since we did not qualify last year, it's irrelevant. We hosted SCT my freshman year, and I did not play or attend ICT. Sophomore year was the Eastern Canada SCT disaster, which I was not in attendance for (althouth Brandeis did not qualify for ICT either, so it would have been irrelevant). As stated, last year, my team didn't qualify.msaifutaa wrote:stuff about Brandeis having experience
Of course, I can't make it to ICT this year anyway, so Brandeis's team will be all sophomores and freshmen (if we field a team).
Yep, I figured there would be something like that, and yep, I was thinking of you when I said that Evan. Honestly, it doesn't surprise me--it's similar to some of our stories of how people were still eligible (though your circumstances seem more interesting since they involve disasters). If I hadn't played along with a team of other frosh who totally outclassed me my freshman year and become DII ineligible thanks to our bid (for instance if I had missed that Saturday), I almost certainly would have graduated MIT without ever becoming DII ineligible.DeisEvan wrote:As far as experience on Brandeis's team goes, we had one freshman, two sophomores, and myself (a senior). One of the sophomores did not play last year at SCT, while the other did (as did I), but since we did not qualify last year, it's irrelevant. We hosted SCT my freshman year, and I did not play or attend ICT. Sophomore year was the Eastern Canada SCT disaster, which I was not in attendance for (althouth Brandeis did not qualify for ICT either, so it would have been irrelevant). As stated, last year, my team didn't qualify.msaifutaa wrote:stuff about Brandeis having experience
Of course, I can't make it to ICT this year anyway, so Brandeis's team will be all sophomores and freshmen (if we field a team).
- QuizBowlRonin
- Wakka
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 2:21 am
- Location: San Mateo, CA
- Contact:
- Matt Weiner
- Sin
- Posts: 8148
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
- Location: Richmond, VA
- Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
- Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
- Posts: 5647
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
MIT people -
Would emailing NAQT immediately and asking them to take you off the waitlist "because you can't travel" or something like that work?
Would emailing NAQT immediately and asking them to take you off the waitlist "because you can't travel" or something like that work?
Charlie Dees, North Kansas City HS '08
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs
"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White
"I won't say more because I know some of you parse everything I say." - Jeremy Gibbs
"At one TJ tournament the neg prize was the Hampshire College ultimate frisbee team (nude) calender featuring one Evan Silberman. In retrospect that could have been a disaster." - Harry White
- ValenciaQBowl
- Auron
- Posts: 2560
- Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
- Location: Orlando, Florida
I wasn't as surprised that Faulkner got a wildcard spot as I was that South Georgia did. I didn't even include them in the comparison of stats I did in the prediction thread, which says more about my stats stupidity than anything else, but here's a comparison of SGa's #s and those of the runner-up teams from the Florida SCT I hosted (from the NAQT site's posted stats):To add to the questions, we don't have stats for the Alabama Sectionals but they receive two D2 spots (Gulf Coast & Faulkner State) & two of the waitlist spots (Pensacola & Beville State Jasper).
PPTH PP20TU Powers/overall TUH
South GA 8.96 179.2 24/240
Broward 10.91 218.3 26/263
North FL 9.00 179.9 19/274
North Florida's (11-2) only two losses were both to Valencia Red (by only 30 in the championship game), and Broward (9-3) gave Valencia Red its only loss. Weirder still, South Georgia was 7-5. The overall strength of the Florida field sure seems stronger than that of Georgia, too. Very odd. I'm not just engaging in Florida boosterism, as I like Mike Butler of South Georgia and consider South Georgia as much a part of the general CC circuit we play in as Broward or NFCC. But I have a hard time understanding what happened here.
NAQT is always willing to listen to arguments in favor of exceptions or exemptions, but in this case we would be unlikely to accept them.Deesy Does It wrote:Would emailing NAQT immediately and asking them to take you off the waitlist "because you can't travel" or something like that work?
Our principal concern with DII eligibility is not ensuring that every player gets a chance to compete in a DII ICT (regardless of his or her schedule conflicts and preferences), but to elevate teams to DI when they have proven themselves ready to compete at that level. MIT's reception of an invitation would indicate, according to our system, that they had that level of skill.
True, and I readily agree that there were some people on that team who I think are definitely ready to compete at a DI level, so I would be more likely to expect a chance for individual exceptions like Great Wall suggested rather than a whole teamwide exception like the one Deesy mentioned. Since there were six people on the team and the two high scorers stayed in for 10 and 11 of the 12 games, perhaps the fact that some of the players only played 5/12 games (less than half the tournament) would help?rhentzel wrote:NAQT is always willing to listen to arguments in favor of exceptions or exemptions, but in this case we would be unlikely to accept them.Deesy Does It wrote:Would emailing NAQT immediately and asking them to take you off the waitlist "because you can't travel" or something like that work?
Our principal concern with DII eligibility is not ensuring that every player gets a chance to compete in a DII ICT (regardless of his or her schedule conflicts and preferences), but to elevate teams to DI when they have proven themselves ready to compete at that level. MIT's reception of an invitation would indicate, according to our system, that they had that level of skill.
If not, it's not a huge deal--it's just that the Northeast is a monster region these days, and there are not very many venues where our inexperienced or weaker players can play and improve against other teams closer to their level, so that just means this is one less. Well, I guess that just shows that we have demand for a JV tournament up here--maybe someone will pick that idea up (I know we had a Harvard/MIT freshman scirmmage this year with the same idea behind it).
- Maxwell Sniffingwell
- Auron
- Posts: 2164
- Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
- Location: Des Moines, IA
Also notable is that, based on the stats on NAQT's page, Broward was at 14.11 ppb while South Georgia was at 12.66 ppb. Not a huge difference, but not an insignificant one either.ValenciaQBowl wrote: ...
PPTH PP20TU Powers/overall TUH
South GA 8.96 179.2 24/240
Broward 10.91 218.3 26/263
North FL 9.00 179.9 19/274
North Florida's (11-2) only two losses were both to Valencia Red (by only 30 in the championship game), and Broward (9-3) gave Valencia Red its only loss. Weirder still, South Georgia was 7-5. The overall strength of the Florida field sure seems stronger than that of Georgia, too. Very odd. I'm not just engaging in Florida boosterism, as I like Mike Butler of South Georgia and consider South Georgia as much a part of the general CC circuit we play in as Broward or NFCC. But I have a hard time understanding what happened here.
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05