Moi: <<< The major downside though about Panasonic format though is that many of the kids that have competed in this format really don't like it all that much (sampling from the people who compete in college that have memories of their Panasonic experience). The other problem is that the best team can get screwed out of winning a match very easily. The "meet-play" of Panasonic is very difficult to satisfy, and you won't see too many college programs recommend running it for high school (much less even college) competitions. >>> I have seen a copy of the questions they [Brain Teasers <a href=http://www-curriculum.inst.pcsb.k12.fl.us/InstructionalServicesDiv/AcademicCompetitions/BrainTeasers target=new>http://www-curriculum.inst.pcsb.k12.fl.us/InstructionalServicesDiv/AcademicCompe titions/BrainTeasers</a> ] provide. For the format, the questions are acceptable since their 5-pointers are buzzer-speed questions, their 10's are a bit more elaborate, and the 15's are definitely more involved. The determination of what makes a "difficult" clue difficult is worth critiquing though, not to mention my dislike for multiple choice or multi-match questions. I won't argue about having a panel of experts on hand, but I suspect that's more the influence of the fact the competition is underwritten and supported (to some extent) by a Board of Education and that they can draft coaches or teachers to act as those experts. At the college competitions and college-run HS comps, while we may not have as many "credentialized" experts onhand as judges, we generally have the question-writers in attendance who could resolve protests. At least speaking about the PACE NSC (which I'm sure holds up as well for NAQT), as a whole the volunteers who help staff the comp have a good wealth of experience and knowledge to resolve issues that may come up. However, the game format itself is different and (as you point out for Decathlon) I believe the preparation is different compared to other qb competitions since you have to play against as many as five different teams, which most teams seldom (if ever) do in regular match play. That is very frustrating for teams that compete in match play much more. At least back in 1998, Texas won the Panasonic tournament. Obviously many of the teams that I talked to had "sour grapes" complex when they said that clearly Maryland played "desperate" down the stretch, while Texas wound up getting less than 4 15-pt questions to win the game (if I recall that correctly). I don't discount Klein Forest winning Panasonic; they clearly played that game the best in the championship round. But many coaches felt a bit dissatisfied that a team can really win a quiz bowl tournament without being the best or most aggressive on the buzzer (i.e., win tossup questions). That is antithetical to the nature of qb as most of us play it. In addition, the questions themselves do not always reward early knowledge. Many of the questions when it comes to listing items have strategically placed blanks that screw people who are used to playing on "impulse" or "second nature." We can debate whether this should be rewarded in qb, but nevertheless, that's what we reward on tossup questions for the most part, but asking a question to "fill in the blanks in the following quotation... I pledge allegiance to the <blank> of the United <blank> of America... (example)" when some people will ring in on the first blank and say "flag" and get screwed out of the rest of the blanks in the quote... Maybe it's just a difference in preparation, but to work for 8 months of the year and then change gears in this format is a like forcing a qb team to play AD for its state or national championship. (Not like certain teams I know aren't forced to doing that already.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST