I've often thought that TRASH should do something about the whole dinosaur factor. Not to pick on anyone in particular, but it's astounding to me to play at a tournament and have to go up against guys who, in all seriousness, are old enough to be my father. Even though the best players aren't that old, I think the point holds in terms of whole teams. Not that these players should be disqualified, but maybe TRASH should consider running some events for undergrads only. I appreciate the thought of the TRASH junior birds, but the fact is that doesn't help me (as a junior in the first year of that program) at all. At the very least TRASH might want to consider a D-I/D-II mentality along the lines of NAQT, where undergrads can play in DII through their first TRASHionals, and then are bumped up into the open D-I field. (This wouldn't even help me either, as I've now played in three TRASHionals, lest anyone think I'm being totally selfish about this.) As for the other complaints in the message to which I'm semi- replying - I can't really bitch about the questions. When have you ever been to a tournament where your team wasn't foiled by a bonus you just didn't know (or conversely, where the other team was helped out by an easier bonus) at some point during the day? I found there to be more bonuses that I would have called too-easy-30s than those that were too-hard-0s... and anyway, that's what the lame is for. Finally, as to the playoff format - at least CBA rules weren't in play. I found this playoff determinance method to be much fairer than last year's, and as for the idea of "lucky" teams, I think the top bracket played quite evenly. We snuck into the top bracket in 2001 and got pounded all Sunday; this year we went 1-3-1 against the remainder of the top six but lost the three games by an average of just 67 ppg (instead of the average 140-point loss in five games in 2001) and were competitive in all of them, leading or tied in each game at the 15th tossup. Of course I can only speak for our team (and even then I'm speaking 90% for myself), but I enjoyed this TRASHionals probably the most so far. Keep up the good work! Robert Flaxman A Charitable Grant from the Jeremy Goodwin Foundation, aka NU+Alums --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Samer Ismail" <stipenn_at_y...> wrote: > > I'll simply throw this out to the floor-- > > Much as there is something to be said for playing against the grizzly > dinosaurs, do you think TRASH would be better off splitting the field > into two divisions ("Open" and "Collegiate")? > > I applaud TRASH in their attempt to keep the questions accessible for > the younger players. OTOH, the job seemed to be rather incomplete: > while there were numerous boni in each packet that most of the top 12 > teams could 30, there were some that essentially no team was going to > 30 (e.g., some of the lit boni). Especially in close matches, the > game seemed to hinge not on how much the teams knew, but who got > which boni. > > The other problem is that, with the current 3x12 format, almost any > playoff method is going to be unfair to several teams. For example, > by taking only the top two teams in each bracket--in a field with > several good teams--almost inevitably results in one or two teams > getting robbed of a chance to win the tournament, and a "lucky" team > getting clobbered in the playoffs. > > Also, counting only the match among the top teams doesn't seem > particularly fair: you could easily argue that a team that goes 9-2 > should not have a one-game advantage over a team that goes 10-1. > > I think that by splitting the field into two smaller divisions, there > would be more time to differentiate among the top teams, and fewer > clobberings as well; also, it would be possibly to ratchet the > difficulty--either up or down--to make the questions suitably > challenging for the more experienced teams and suitably accessible > for the younger teams. > > --STI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST