NAQT SCT Results and ICT Invitations

Old college threads.
rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

NAQT SCT Results and ICT Invitations

Post by rhentzel »

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.

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

ICT invitations have been posted

Post by rhentzel »

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!

User avatar
jhn31
Wakka
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Starkville, MS

Post by jhn31 »

Wow, only 1 Southeastern team in d2, even including the waitlist??

User avatar
vcuEvan
Auron
Posts: 1086
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 5:49 pm
Location: Richmond VA

Post by vcuEvan »

Why is Cornell on the DII waitlist and main list... or is the second one a B team?

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

Adamantium Claws wrote:Why is Cornell on the DII waitlist and main list... or is the second one a B team?
The top team on the Division II waitlist is Cornell B.

User avatar
Maxwell Sniffingwell
Auron
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by Maxwell Sniffingwell »

Hmmm... and only WuStL and Lawrence make it out of the DII Midwest craziness, with Northwestern scoring the 5th spot on the waitlist. Wow.

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

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.
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).

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques »

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?
Chris Ray
OSU
University of Chicago, 2016
University of Maryland, 2014
ACF, PACE

User avatar
ezubaric
Rikku
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: College Park, MD
Contact:

Post by ezubaric »

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 also don't see why Brown, who finished better than MIT isn't on the D2 list at all.
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/

User avatar
jhn31
Wakka
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Starkville, MS

Post by jhn31 »

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.

Rothlover
Yuna
Posts: 816
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:41 pm
Contact:

Post by Rothlover »

essentially 200 PP20TUs is quite good, considering the strength of field I'm guessing.

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15434
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

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
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw »

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?
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.

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.
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?

User avatar
jhn31
Wakka
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Starkville, MS

Post by jhn31 »

cvdwightw wrote:
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.
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?
Yep.

Strongside
Rikku
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Strongside »

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.
Brendan Byrne

Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

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).
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.

User avatar
jhn31
Wakka
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Starkville, MS

Post by jhn31 »

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.
And maybe we should let the baseball teams with the most runs and hits make the playoffs.

Susan
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 12:43 am

Post by Susan »

Oh, were we all playing baseball last weekend?

Down with sports analogies.

User avatar
Pilgrim
Tidus
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:20 pm
Location: Edmonton

Post by Pilgrim »

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.
Trevor Davis
University of Alberta
CMU '11

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15434
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

rhentzel wrote:
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).
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.
That was my point of concern - that NAQT was forced to make a decision using incomplete information.
Fred Morlan
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

User avatar
The Time Keeper
Auron
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:26 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by The Time Keeper »

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.

User avatar
AKKOLADE
Sin
Posts: 15434
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:08 am

Post by AKKOLADE »

jhn31 wrote:And maybe we should let the baseball teams with the most runs and hits make the playoffs.
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.

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
PACE President, 2018-19
International Quiz Bowl Tournaments, co-owner
University of Kentucky CoP, 2017
hsqbrank manager, NAQT writer (former subject editor), former hsqb Administrator/Chief Administrator, 2012 NASAT TD

Strongside
Rikku
Posts: 475
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Strongside »

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.
Brendan Byrne

Drake University, 2006-2008
University of Minnesota, 2008-2010

User avatar
DumbJaques
Forums Staff: Administrator
Posts: 3084
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 6:21 pm
Location: Columbus, OH

Post by DumbJaques »

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

User avatar
cvdwightw
Auron
Posts: 3446
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Southern CA
Contact:

Post by cvdwightw »

jhn31 wrote:
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.
And maybe we should let the baseball teams with the most runs and hits make the playoffs.
Your sports analogy is as ridiculous as the point you were trying to make.

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).

User avatar
Pilgrim
Tidus
Posts: 637
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:20 pm
Location: Edmonton

Post by Pilgrim »

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).
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.
Trevor Davis
University of Alberta
CMU '11

User avatar
Maxwell Sniffingwell
Auron
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by Maxwell Sniffingwell »

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.

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

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?
Here's the brief analysis by NAQT's statistician who did most of the work computing our S-values:
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.
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.

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.

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

Dolemite wrote:
jhn31 wrote:Down with stats!
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.
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?

User avatar
grapesmoker
Sin
Posts: 6368
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:23 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by grapesmoker »

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
code ape, loud voice, general nuissance

User avatar
Auks Ran Ova
Forums Staff: Chief Administrator
Posts: 4121
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 10:28 pm
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Post by Auks Ran Ova »

rhentzel wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
jhn31 wrote:Down with stats!
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.
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?
I think the "rules" to which Dolemite was sarcastically referring are those proposed by jhn, where wins matter far more.
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 '??
Member, ACF
Member, PACE
Writer and Editor, NAQT

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

ezubaric wrote:I also don't see why Brown, who finished better than MIT isn't on the D2 list at all.
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.

User avatar
The Time Keeper
Auron
Posts: 1541
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:26 pm
Location: Michigan

Post by The Time Keeper »

rhentzel wrote:
Dolemite wrote:
jhn31 wrote:Down with stats!
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.
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?
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.

msaifutaa
Lulu
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:40 pm

Post by msaifutaa »

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!

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

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?
Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.

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.

User avatar
Wall of Ham
Rikku
Posts: 420
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Wall of Ham »

rhentzel wrote:
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?
Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.

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.
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?

msaifutaa
Lulu
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:40 pm

Post by msaifutaa »

rhentzel wrote:
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?
Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.

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.

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.

msaifutaa
Lulu
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:40 pm

Post by msaifutaa »

Modestly Sized Wall of Ha wrote:
rhentzel wrote:
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?
Being waitlisted does not, but receiving an invitation does, whether or not that invitation was part of the initial batch.

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.
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?
Hmm, interesting idea, thanks!

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).

geekjohnson
Wakka
Posts: 180
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:10 am
Location: Flomaton, AL
Contact:

Post by geekjohnson »

All I know is that Charlie Steinhice is going to Nationals, and that makes everyone happy campers.

User avatar
pray for elves
Auron
Posts: 1048
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: 20001

Post by pray for elves »

msaifutaa wrote:stuff about Brandeis having experience
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.

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).

msaifutaa
Lulu
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:40 pm

Post by msaifutaa »

DeisEvan wrote:
msaifutaa wrote:stuff about Brandeis having experience
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.

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.

User avatar
QuizBowlRonin
Wakka
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 2:21 am
Location: San Mateo, CA
Contact:

Post by QuizBowlRonin »

Why is Amherst on the Division I waitlist?

They did not play in any SCT.
Jason Paik
retired

Washington University 1998-2002
University of Alabama School of Medicine 2002-2011
Residency in Internal Medicine, Stanford Hospital and Clinics 2011-2013
Fellowship in Hematology and Oncology, Stanford Cancer Institute 2013-2018

User avatar
Matt Weiner
Sin
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 8:34 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Post by Matt Weiner »

QuizBowlRonin wrote:Why is Amherst on the Division I waitlist?

They did not play in any SCT.
They are the team erroneously listed as "UMass" in the naqt.com version of the Brown stats.

User avatar
Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)
Chairman of Anti-Music Mafia Committee
Posts: 5640
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:46 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Post by Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN) »

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?
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

User avatar
ValenciaQBowl
Auron
Posts: 2424
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Post by ValenciaQBowl »

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).
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):

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.

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

Matt Weiner wrote:
QuizBowlRonin wrote:Why is Amherst on the Division I waitlist?

They did not play in any SCT.
They are the team erroneously listed as "UMass" in the naqt.com version of the Brown stats.
That error has been corrected.

rhentzel
Rikku
Posts: 264
Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 4:20 pm
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Contact:

Post by rhentzel »

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?
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.

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.

msaifutaa
Lulu
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 6:40 pm

Post by msaifutaa »

rhentzel wrote:
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?
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.

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?

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).

User avatar
Maxwell Sniffingwell
Auron
Posts: 2163
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 3:22 pm
Location: Des Moines, IA

Post by Maxwell Sniffingwell »

As long as we're fixing stats: rhentzel, Lawrence has an extra nine negs in the Ohio State game... Richard's line for that game should be 1/1/0, not 1/1/9.

NotBhan
Rikku
Posts: 375
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2003 12:30 pm
Location: Parts Unknown

Post by NotBhan »

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.
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.
"Keep it civil, please." -- Matt Weiner, 6/7/05

Locked