First, who am I debating with? I would like to know -- I don't like to refer to people as "bitchass". In response: Point 1: "There are other teams [besides Imperial College] that make the Top 25 despite not playing too much." Name one. Any team for which I vote for the Top 25 plays a number of tournaments against circuit opponents. West coast teams don't play too much in a national field, perhaps, but (a) they still play against other circuit teams, (b) they have individuals which many experienced poll-voters have seen in the past, (c) they rack up stats against those teams which are considerable no matter what the field. Imperial College is not part of our circuit; neither are the Canadian teams unless they play in the US. No one ever said this was a World Quiz Bowl Top 25 -- that would be a greater exercise in futility than the poll itself. Point 2: "What about the Rochester Raging Rhinos? (who beat every MLS team). Should they not be ranked ahead of MLS teams just because they play in a different league?" Well, first, European soccer has a different character to it than American soccer (i.e. defense is played, field more open, etc.) . European (American) football has a different character than US football. But that's a bad example, I admit. Let's say it would be like ranking the former Baltimore CFL Stallions with the Baltimore Ravens. The CFL plays a similar but different style of football than the NFL -- three downs instead of four, wider football field, twelve players, and of course the rouge. (Note that these same Baltimore Stallions won the Grey Cup within the CFL, despite being an American team). But it is hard to compare CFL to NFL. If the Toronto Argonauts played four NFL games against the Patriots, Lions, Giants, and Vikings, and won three of those, I would consider them better than most NFL teams. Point 3: "How imperialist of you. What if we defined the circuit as narrowly as the Mid-Atlantic and the Northeast?" The fact remains that Stanford and Berkeley are still part of the circuit, mainly for the reasons I listed above. We know something about them. Plus they play on the national scene at least 3-4 times (NAQT, CBI, ACF, Penn Bowl). All I can use for the Canadian teams is what little I have seen, which consists of Queen's and Waterloo teams which usually finished .500 or so at regular invitationals, and a Western Ontario team which failed to reach the Top 25 of NAQT Nationals. Point 4: "Check the records -- there are schools that don't have winning records against Canadian schools that are still ranked in the Top 25." The burden of proof is on you, since you attempt to legitimate Canadian inclusion in the Top 25. If you can find viable records of this occurring, please let me know, and I'll retract this point. Point 5: "How much do [Canadian teams] have to cross over? Seems like you want Canadian schools to waste a lot of money strengthening the US circuit while ignoring their own before you recognize them.... Hey, when the US lost in '98, at least they went and trashed a few hotel rooms -- they didn't pretend it wasn't happening." Wow, you found my motive -- I am a capitalist, imperialist pig who wishes to drain all of those precious "dollars" out of the coffers of Canadian quizbowl programs. That gave me a laugh... The Canadian game, I repeat, is similar but different. In golf, Colin Montgomerie is not ranked on the US money list. But Jesper Parnevik is, because he plays on the US tour. I will recognize Canadian teams when I play them or have actually heard of some of their players, then I will rank them, provided they beat some US opponents in the US game. Similarly, as an American on an American team, I would not wish to be ranked in a Canadian Top 25 unless I played a tournament in Canada, with Canadian rules, and beat Top 25 Canadian teams. -Adam Fine UMCP 1998, JHU 2004
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST