The Circuit

• From: caz801 <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 15:56:53 -0000
• Message-ID: <ap3sg5+nhdf_at_...>

The Future of the Circuit

Just so everybody understands my perspective – I am a 3rd-year law 
student at Villanova who has been playing since 1994. I guess you 
could call me a dinosaur.  I played while an undergrad at Georgetown, 
and currently can be seen at various trash tournaments around the 
country, or reading at events.  Even though I am a so-called 
dinosaur, I will scare no one at an academic tournament.  I do serve 
as the advisor for Villanova, as we try to integrate ourselves into 
the circuit.

The circuit has cockroach-type survival ability, and I suspect that 
in five years, it will still be around, with the 50 or so schools 
that are always around being there, and the 30 other sporadic schools 
dropping out and other ones catching on, with a few exceptions.

Almost all invitational tournaments are too hard.  There are several 
reasons for this.  One is the one-person written set, in my 
estimation, largely an exercise by a good player to try to get even 
better by doing all the research and legwork, but further squeezing 
what should and should not be asked.  Another is existence of 
tournaments such as Michigan's Kleist/Artaud, whatever you wish to 
call it.  Please do not posit the argument that if you don't want to 
play, don't show up, that's not what I'm driving at.  My point is 
that people get the idea to write the hardest questions they can 
find, and this directive from one of the most successful and 
prominent programs (Michigan) permeates the circuit.  It's a 
difficult to measure trickle-down effect, but I think it is there.

The biggest reason for difficulty skyrocketing is TD's desire to 
please only the best players.  Anyone who understands basic marketing 
can tell you that you should shoot to please the greatest number, so 
let's say the aim is to please the middle 50%, not the three best 
players/teams, or the top 25%.  It seems to me that the infamous Chip 
Beall may have figured this out, and CBI has to a degree.  I am not 
arguing we should mimic them, but I think there is a way to structure 
circuit packets/activities in the same way.

Graduate students are needed.  Think of the tournaments you attended 
in the past year, and who was running them.  I attended 2 NAQT 
tournaments, Penn Bowl, JCV, and Pitt's Omar Bongo.  NAQT largely 
grad students and beyond, PB is run by Samer T. Ismail, and Tim Young 
is at GW.  Only Pitt was undergrad-free, and the finals were bastard 
teams made up of grad students and beyond.  My point is that's who is 
running the circuit these days.  I would love the idea of the Masters 
Competition Circuit.  Every year I've read at ACF, some older hangers-
on invariably play.  It's bothersome and should be stopped.  

I've argued for a schedule before, I do think it would help.  
Basically, a central body would schedule the tournaments.  Attendance 
is very sparse at many events, causing a waste of extremely limited 
resources.  More stuff seems to be cancelled than ever before.  If 
fundraising is the issue, high school tourneys provide much better 
margins.

So, in conclusion, the circuit will remain, but no one seems to have 
the vision to move it forward.  The qb community are largely not 
salespeople by nature, and some degree of marketing will be needed to 
ensure its expansion.  It's a great game, and it survives through 
dedication by people; I'd like to see their efforts go more rewarded.

Phil Castagna
JD/MBA 2003
Advisor, Villanova ACC