2003 ICT - Revision history

Jonah Greenthal: update link

2020-12-10T23:53:40Z

update link

Matt Weiner at 00:36, 14 July 2020

2020-07-14T00:36:22Z

Jonah Greenthal: The 36-format introduced in 2018(?) is different

2020-07-13T17:55:17Z

The 36-format introduced in 2018(?) is different

Tom Egan at 03:10, 12 December 2016

2016-12-12T03:10:43Z

Tom Egan at 02:47, 12 December 2016

2016-12-12T02:47:18Z

Matt Weiner at 07:43, 19 April 2014

2014-04-19T07:43:58Z

Zachary Yan at 21:23, 25 January 2014

2014-01-25T21:23:43Z

Nicholas Karas at 10:29, 30 May 2013

2013-05-30T10:29:44Z

David Reinstein at 23:06, 5 May 2011

2011-05-05T23:06:25Z

fix>QBWikiBot at 20:08, 24 January 2010

2010-01-24T20:08:27Z

New page

Subash [http://www.naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divi-results.html really destroyed] everyone.

[[Category:National championships]]
[[Category:Tournaments]]
[[Category:NAQT]]
[[Category:Stubs]]
[[Category:Original QBWiki Page]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 10 December 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	[[Subash Maddipoti\|Subash]] [~~http~~://www.naqt.com/~~Results~~/2003~~-ict-divi-results.html~~ really destroyed] everyone.	+	[[Subash Maddipoti\|Subash]] [https://www.naqt.com/ict/2003/ really destroyed] everyone.

	This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games and didn't defeat any team ranked higher than eighth being awarded the third-place finish, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004; since then, all ICT formats have been based on [[round robins]].		This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games and didn't defeat any team ranked higher than eighth being awarded the third-place finish, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004; since then, all ICT formats have been based on [[round robins]].

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Subash Maddipoti|Subash]] [http://www.naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divi-results.html really destroyed] everyone.
-This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games, all to teams out of championship contention, and never faced any of the other top 5 teams being ranked third, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004; since then, all ICT formats have been based on [[round robins]].
+This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games and didn't defeat any team ranked higher than eighth being awarded the third-place finish, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004; since then, all ICT formats have been based on [[round robins]].
 Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 [[Subash Maddipoti|Subash]] [http://www.naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divi-results.html really destroyed] everyone.
-This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games, all to teams out of championship contention, and never faced any of the other top 5 teams being ranked third, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004 and remains essentially unchanged to this day.
+This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games, all to teams out of championship contention, and never faced any of the other top 5 teams being ranked third, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004; since then, all ICT formats have been based on [[round robins]].
 Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:10, 12 December 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II.		Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II.
		+
		+	==External Links==
		+	*[https://www.naqt.com/stats/tournament-teams.jsp?tournament_id=1403 Full Results]

	{{Browse box\|Tournament = 2003 [[ICT\|NAQT ICT]]		{{Browse box\|Tournament = 2003 [[ICT\|NAQT ICT]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:47, 12 December 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II.		Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II.
		+
		+	{{Browse box\|Tournament = 2003 [[ICT\|NAQT ICT]]
		+	\|previous = [[2002 ICT]]
		+	\|next = [[2004 ICT]]
		+	\| }}

	[[Category: National championships]]		[[Category: National championships]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:43, 19 April 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Subash Maddipoti\|Subash]] [http://www.naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divi-results.html really destroyed] everyone.		[[Subash Maddipoti\|Subash]] [http://www.naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divi-results.html really destroyed] everyone.

		+	This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games, all to teams out of championship contention, and never faced any of the other top 5 teams being ranked third, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of [[mathturbation]], the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004 and remains essentially unchanged to this day.

		+	Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II.

	[[Category: National championships]]		[[Category: National championships]]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 [[Category: National championships]]
 [[Category: NAQT]]
 [[Category: Stubs]]
 [[Category: Original QBWiki Page]]
 [[Category: ICT]]

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
-[[Category:National championships]]
+[[Category: National championships]]
-[[Category:Tournaments]]
+[[Category: Tournaments]]
-[[Category:NAQT]]
+[[Category: NAQT]]
-[[Category:Stubs]]
+[[Category: Stubs]]
-[[Category:Original QBWiki Page]]
+[[Category: Original QBWiki Page]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:06, 5 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Subash [http://www.naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divi-results.html really destroyed] everyone.	+	[[Subash Maddipoti\|Subash]] [http://www.naqt.com/Results/2003-ict-divi-results.html really destroyed] everyone.