--- In quizbowl_at_y..., caz801 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > 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. This is just wrong. The 2001-2002 academic year was the most accessible year of questions (in all invitationals and formats) I've seen in a long time. There are tons and tons of junior bird tournaments and undergrad-only events in addition to Division II in both NAQT and ACF. I just can't agree with the idea that the questions are too hard. If anything, I think we should stop mollycoddling first-year players to such a large extent. I'm all for circuit expansion, but I don't think we need to treat freshmen like delicate babies made of butterfly wings. (Believe it or not, we've actually read tough questions to our freshmen in practice and NO ONE HAS DIED SO FAR.) I think there are a sufficient number of neophytes that have posted their views to this forum to back my claim. Maybe Webb and Riser aren't representative of all new players, but it still shows that not all of these kids want to wear QB training wheels. I agree that the Kleist a few years ago was too difficult -- due to the inexperience of its writers -- but those guys made up for it with the Artaud, which was at the upper end of difficulty, but not unreasonable by any means. (By the way, Michigan is a prominent and successful program BECAUSE they write tournaments like the Artaud. It's not the other way around as you puport, which brings me to my next point...) People who are good at this game get that way because they STUDY. Not because they are old. Contrary to popular belief, you are not handed The Secret Manual of Quizbowl Excellence with your undergrad diploma. If you don't put any effort in, you're not going to get better. Shooting for a sort of QB egalitarianism by making all the questions easy-ass is not going to fix things. The people who study are still going to blitz you on the George Washington and Richard Wagner questions. Then what will you complain about? Are you going to ban studying? How can you outlaw notebooks? Does that mean we won't even be allowed to practice? Maybe we should just cancel all the goddamn tournaments lest someone actually learn something and use it to his or her advantage next time that question pops up. The people who complain most about difficulty are the ones who put in the least effort at getting better. Complainers also tend to be old players who are really out of touch with the circuit. These people feel like they used to be good, but are bitter about the fact that they suck now and wish questions were easy and stupid like they were back in 1989. > Competition Circuit. Every year I've read at ACF, some older hangers- > on invariably play. It's bothersome and should be stopped. To my knowledge, there's only been one bastard team at an ACF Nationals since 1998. Even if they do play, the website specifically states that masters/bastard teams MAY be eligible to play (at the TD's discretion), but are NOT eligible for prizes or awards and such. > 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 With the advent of all the junior birds, division IIs, and accessible questions, I have to disagree. I think more is being done to expand the circuit than ever before. That's not to say that more can't be done, but I think we're about to embark on a really trippy inflationary period. I think it's going to be fun. R. Bhan (more than arrogant enough to make sweeping generalizations about the quality of questions on the circuit)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST