--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Eric Steinhauser <esteinhauser_at_u...>" <esteinhauser_at_u...> wrote: > Wow, nice to see that my post merits 4 replies. :-) Eric -- Well, there is a length limitation on posts... Beyond that, it is important to NAQT that players accept the fairness of its qualification procedure and that they feel that NAQT listens and considers their views when setting its policy. If nothing else, this involves responding to questions posed in public fora with as much detail as we can give out. > Honestly, if you wanted to determine pure, raw talent on the part of > each team, what you would do is have them play 15 packets against > empty chairs. This is the only way in which the S-curve can be a > true, unbiased representation of all team power. No, I disagree. This would eliminate much of the skill from playing tossups and would make all of their content save giveaways effectively worthless. Knowledge is most of being good at quiz bowl, but anticipation and skill are also valuable and this arrangement would negate those factors. > But, this is quizbowl, and we *play the games*. I maintain, then, > that the outcome of the games is wholly relevant. Obviously, NAQT > agrees (at least partially) with this assumption by sanctioning > automatic bids to teams declared the champion at sectionals. NAQT agrees almost completely that quiz is about winning games: 1. We will award automatic bids in nearly every division of nearly every sectional 2. Our tie-breaker policy effectively states as much: http://www.naqt.com/tie-breaker-policy.html 3. We specifically correct our statistics to take into account the wins and the brackets in which they occurred so as to not invite teams with good statistics before those that actually win (unless the difference is truly astonishing) from the same sectional. I think that it is misleading to characterize NAQT policy as generally disregarding that basic precept that "Quiz bowl is about winning, not scoring points." In this one instance, NAQT is not willing to say that the best of two Division I teams is automatically to be considered among the top 36 teams in the country. They will have to earn that invitation by putting up statistics comparable to those earned by other top teams across the country. It's unfortunate that teams are not evenly divided in ability across the country so that we could have six sectionals that each send six teams to the ICT, but given that that's not the case, we need to compare teams from different sectionals and it would be very unfair (and would invite attempts to game the system) were we to do so in a way that did not take into account the strength of the opponents faced. > There is absolutely NOTHING that either of the Division I teams at > this tournament could do to secure a bid by the end of the day. That is true. At-large bids cannot be awarded until we have collected the statistics. But, if you look at the average tossup conversion ratios and bonus conversion ratios for the top 30 (say) teams at least year's ICT and make that your goal, I guarantee you that choosing those as your targets and winning all your games will get you into the ICT if you, Texas, or another team needs a concrete goal to shoot for. > If this in any way makes you scratch your head as it does mine, I'd > really like to know. I mean, what's the point of offering automatic > bids in the other sectionals? On the other hand, I see the problem > with offering an automatic bid to a single D2 team in a field > otherwise made up of D2 teams, in which the single D1 team goes > winless. That would be laughable. > Perhaps I can offer an alternative. If there are fewer than four > teams in any division, there will be no divisional play. The > putative champion of the division with a quorum qualifies as under > current rules. But, why not offer an automatic bid to the overall > tournament winner, regardless of division? If the winner comes from > the larger division, no problem, as they would qualify anyway. > However, this would give the few teams from the smaller division an > opportunity to claim a bid outright. > > This should satisfy everyone, and if it doesn't, I'd certainly love > to know why. Shouldn't every eligible team attending SCT this > weekend have a shot at securing a bid by the end of the tournament? No, to be honest, I don't see the reasoning behind that. NAQT makes the alternative guarantee that we will consider teams' overall performance, to the best of our ability, against all of the competing teams and choose the top 36 to receive invitations to the ICT. I'm sorry that this doesn't strike you as a fair system, but it is highly unlikely that we would revise our invitation system two days before the sectional tournaments. We do, however, put it up for review each year. If, based on this year's results (or theoretical concerns), you and other players or coaches think that the system could be improved, please let us know by contacting us naqt-at-naqt.com. Certainly just about anything is possible for next year. -- R. Robert Hentzel President and Chief Technical Officer, National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST