In defense of CBI [was: Re: CBI Region 9 Results (LONG)]

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, Matt Weiner 
<darwins_bulldog1138_at_y...> wrote (among other things):

> Less rigorously, I assert that College Bowl has, for
> decades, shown its explicit contempt for the idea of
> the players as the customer and attempted to undermine
> other, better tournaments at every turn. Also, in my
> opinion, their questions are a joke, but I don't wish
> to create a tangent: even if CBI questions were
> perfect, their format would still be unfair.

I have no interest in starting a format flame war, but I'd like to
say a few words in defense of CBI.  We weren't at this year's 
Regionals, so I can only judge this year's regionals second-hand. 
But the posts so far this year have said a lot, mostly by omission. 
There have been far fewer complaints about the quality of the 
questions, and I don't recall seeing any about the officiating (which 
was the weakest aspect of CBI the last time I was able to attend.)  

There was a time when I would have agreed with much of what Matt
says, but the worst offenses of CBI are long past.  They no longer
try to squelch other tournaments or keep HCASC teams from playing 
elsewhere. True, their questions are easier, and that's a choice CBI 
has made consciously.  It may not suit most of us in this forum, but 
it's still an accessible entry point for non-circuit schools and 
players -- hey, that's how *I* got here.  And for the past few years, 
Mary Oberempt and regional coordinators like Tom Michael have
listened to what the circuit has been saying, and taken steps to 
improve their product accordingly.  So I for one disagree with the 
idea that today's CBI shows contempt for the player as customer.  
Criticize their product if you see fit, but please give credit where 
credit is due.

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