--- In quizbowl_at_y..., cooterchekov <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Now, something else, which demands calling attention to but > which, in this hubbub, has slipped under the radar is NAQT's > other announcement: that their HSNCT will be in Myrtle Beach, > South Carolina, in a location not affiliated with any QB team. > This represents an entirely new direction; one of my > teammates referred to it as "Chip-ish". This could be one of the most asinine things I've read on the newsgroup, and given the past week or so that's saying something. The lack of a college QB program in a city makes it, by default, invalid as a tournament site? I fear for Viva TRASH Vegas! Seriously, though, can we perhaps consider the number of high school and reasonably local college programs in the Carolinas who may be involved? I have no idea what's in Myrtle Beach's bid, but perhaps we should wait for facts before idiocy like "Chip-ish." > That comparison aside, there are valid questions to be > raised, especially questions like "how did Myrtle Beach's bid > stack up against other bids" and "Why break away from > college-based HS tournaments"? I've been struck the past week or so at how there is a percentage of people here who feel like there are questions that must be answered every time an organization does something that deviates from what we've come to expect as the norm. I realize you aren't demanding an explanation (like some of the more excitable types did regarding the ICT), but perhaps the question we all should be asking is, how did NAQT break out of the traditional mold? And is it something that we could learn from and use? At some point, it'd be nice to see someone thinking about the positive aspects of change, and perhaps R. and the NAQTers could fill us in for our own edification. > I grant that the location of a high school tournament isn't > something that affects us directly, but the long-term impact > of a separation between a "by college players" QB > organization and the colleges that support them can, in my > opinion, be nothing but negative. It's a decision that, especially > if it wants to become a trend, needs to be justified from its hat > to its garters, not just in itself, but to the community as a > whole. Last time I checked, the community weren't members of the NAQT governing board or writing staff or otherwise employed in such a way that a justification is required. I understand your feeling that the community transcends the notion of NAQT as a business, but I'd counter with the idea that NAQT is doing what it believes is best for its growth in the high school arena. And if it doesn't work, back to the drawing board. I'm also a little confused as to how this "separation" you speak of is only negative. Is it that only those of us that are members of the community have the ability to run these things? Are we worried that someone not affiliated with academia is going to come in and play with out toys? I do think that, if NAQT were to never host a high school national tournament in conjunction with a college program it would change relations between NAQT and college programs. But do you really think NAQT would freeze out a large segment of generally cheap to free labor who, at least in part, is helping at high school events to attract new blood? Bottom line, perhaps we need to embrace change rather than take after it with pitchforks and torches. Or at least wait to hear what change has to say first. Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST