I must agree with Nathan on this one. My team (Florida A) certainly would've had more powers (and more negs) in a regional like the West, where aggressiveness was essential to avoiding a pummeling (or perhaps a pummelling). In my case, I preferred to hang back on most science questions because there aren't too many strong science players in my region. We wouldn't have gotten 84(?) powers like Michigan, but we would have been well above 28 or 30. As for Nathan's specific example, however, I think his 72 negs in the same tournament may have had an impact on his final record. --Raj Dhuwalia --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, thefool75 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Jason: > > I have to disagree that power tossups are an entirely equal > measurement across sectionals. Although they are certainly 2nd only > to bonus conversion, unlike bonus conversion, one's power tossup > ratio will be effected by the quality of one's opponents to some > extents. Not only does one's aggressiveness on the buzzer change > when playing better or worse opponents (thus conceivably affecting > one's powers) but playing very good opponents may well lower one's > powers (though increased aggressiveness may raise the total) due to > their powering the question before you (I would guess that powers > are not randomly distributed but rather tend to clump on tossups > where the editors inaccurately assessed the difficulty of the given > tossup). For one example demonstrating the unreliability of powers > as a complete measurement (though for most purposes they're > certainly reliable), I recall playing solo in an NAQT regional a > couple years ago and putting up 40 powers through sheer > aggressiveness...and only managing to win 2 games.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST