Advantaged final
- "Clearing the field" and "two-game final" redirect here.
An advantaged final is a two-game final series played in tournament structures employing a round robin in the top playoff bracket to handle the case where the first-place team's record is exactly one game ahead of second-place. It replicates the final of a double-elimination tournament, requiring the second-place team to win two games in a row to win the tournament and the first-place team to only win one.
When the first-place team is two or more games ahead and no final is required, they have cleared the field. When the top two teams are tied, a conventional single-game final is played. When the first-place team clears it is still possible to have an Eric Mukherjee final for second.
History
The term "advantaged final" was coined by Robert Hentzel - it does not exist outside of quiz bowl. The scheme is sometimes called an "ACF final" or "ACF-style final", even though it is used by many non-ACF tournaments (including, more or less, the ICT). Sometimes the term "advantaged final" is incorrectly used for the entire scheme.
Advantaged final on half-packets were briefly used in high school quiz bowl but are no longer used because it has the major disadvantage of being much less fair for little to no reason.
It was once the case that NAQT national tournaments mandated that a final be played i.e. a team could not clear the field. It is commonly believed that this has resulted in at least one team clearing the field but losing the tournament, but records for this period are incomplete.
Tiebreaking
If there is a tie for second place (i.e. two teams are one game behind first place) tiebreaking procedures will be necessary to determine which of the second-place teams faces the first-place team; this requires additional rounds and questions. If time is short and/or questions are not available, the top team may be declared the winner because there is no fair way to determine which second-place team should have the opportunity to play for first, or statistical tiebreakers may be used to determine which second-place team has that opportunity, though the latter is not a best practice.
National results
The following is a list documenting whether advantaged finals were used at various national tournaments where they were possible.
Collegiate
| Tournament | Winner | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 2026 ACF Nationals | Berkeley | Cleared the field by 3 |
| 2025 ACF Nationals | Stanford | One game final |
| 2024 ACF Nationals | Chicago | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2023 ACF Nationals | Georgia Tech | Advantaged final - disadvantaged win |
| 2022 ACF Nationals | Georgia Tech | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2021 ACF Nationals | Florida | Advantaged final - advantaged win (two games) |
| 2019 ACF Nationals | Columbia | One game final |
| 2018 ACF Nationals | Chicago | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2017 ACF Nationals | Maryland | One game final |
| 2016 ACF Nationals | Michigan | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2015 ACF Nationals | Penn | One game final |
| 2014 ACF Nationals | Virginia | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2013 ACF Nationals | Illinois | Advantaged final - advantaged win (two games) |
| 2012 ACF Nationals | Yale | One game final |
| 2011 ACF Nationals | Yale | One game final |
| 2010 ACF Nationals | Stanford | One game final |
| 2009 ACF Nationals | Chicago | One game final |
| 2008 ACF Nationals | Chicago | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2007 ACF Nationals | Chicago | Cleared the field by 3 |
| 2006 ACF Nationals | Texas A&M | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game)†† |
| 2005 ACF Nationals | Michigan | Advantaged final - disadvantaged win |
| 2004 ACF Nationals | Chicago | Advantaged final - disadvantaged win |
| 2003 ACF Nationals | Berkeley | Advantaged final - advantaged win (two games) |
| 2002 ACF Nationals | Michigan | One game final |
| 2001 ACF Nationals | Michigan | One game final |
| 2000 ACF Nationals | Chicago | One game final |
| 1999 ACF Nationals | Chicago | Cleared the field by 4 |
| 2026 ICT | Berkeley | One game final |
| 2025 ICT | Chicago | One game final |
| 2024 ICT | Chicago | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2023 ICT | Cornell | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2022 ICT | Stanford | Advantaged final - disadvantaged win |
| 2021 ICT | Columbia | Advantaged final - advantaged win (two games) |
| 2019 ICT | Yale | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2018 ICT | Yale | Advantaged final - advantaged win (two games) |
| 2017 ICT | Michigan | One game final |
| 2016 ICT | Chicago | Two-round single-elimination† |
| 2015 ICT | Virginia | Advantaged final - disadvantaged win |
| 2014 ICT | Virginia | One game final |
| 2013 ICT | Yale | One game final |
| 2012 ICT | Virginia | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2011 ICT | Minnesota | result changed |
| 2010 ICT | Chicago | result changed |
| 2009 ICT | Chicago | Advantaged final - advantaged win (two games) |
| 2008 ICT | Maryland | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2007 ICT | Chicago | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2006 ICT | Berkeley | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2005 ICT | Michigan | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
| 2004 ICT | Berkeley | Advantaged final - advantaged win (one game) |
† - four teams tied for first required a seeded semifinals before a one-game final
†† - the team with the disadvantage was selected without a play-in match
High school
This section is incomplete.
| Tournament | Winner | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 NSC | Barrington | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2017 NSC | DCC | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2014 NASAT | Team Texas | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2012 NASAT | Team California | Cleared the field by 2 |
| 2011 NASAT | Team Texas | Cleared the field by 3 |