Re: Clemson tournament proposal (something a little different)

I haven't worked it out explicitly, but I'm pretty sure the 
probability that a given category decides a match is just that 
category's share of the total distribution. Figure that the average 
NAQT match goes to 24 TU, 22 boni...that's 46 questions all told. 
Off-the-cuff (ignoring tossup-bonus coefficient thingies), for two 
equal teams, ~2% of matches should be decided by a category that 
only appears once in a round -- and I don't think anyone here's 
arguinging that 1/0 or 0/1 is too high a trash fraction in an NAQT 
round. Now, figure that a medium-big tournament (16 teams) will 
involve over a hundred matches. That means that there's a greater 
than 90% chance that at least one match in the tournament will be 
decided, in the balance, by a microcategory. So after you've been to 
10 or so tournaments of decent size -- that's one spring semester 
for some teams -- there's a 50-50 chance that your particular team 
has lost a bitterly-fought round because of "that damn question 
about duck à l'orange".

So we can state this principle: Any given question in a match, no 
matter what category, can decide a match.

This is probably something one should keep in mind when writing 
questions, more than a theorem of distributions. Another off-the-
cuff figure: just *one* out-of-left-field question in the whole 
tournament, for a 16-team tournament, has about a 30% chance of 
causing an upset somewhere.

For heaven's sake, write good questions.

ERS

--- In quizbowl_at_y..., "Stephen Webb" <sdwebb91984_at_y...> wrote:
I 
> don't mind a little trash here and there, but NAQT has allowed it 
to 
> become a major field that can decide matches, which should never 
be 
> the case for anything that isn't a TRASH tournament (for obvious 
> reasons).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST