A few points: (0) For the last two years, the model for Penn Bowl has been NAQT Sectionals, although there are some differences. Given the number of teams competing in the latter, I don't expect to change this fact, even though I expect Penn Bowl will likely remain untimed for the foreseeable future. (1) One of the big problems with editing Penn Bowl is that many of the questions are either poorly written, written at an inappropriate difficulty level--some too hard, others too easy--or both. Unfortunately, even the best-written packets invariably contain some howlers. For example, this year, I received one bonus that could be summed up like this-- Name these sports, 10 points each. A. <A regional baseball-like sport that many teams may never have heard of.> B. In this sport .... grapplers wrestle while covered in Turkish olive oil. ANSWER: _Turkish oil wrestling_ C. <A sport that appeared in a sketch on "Upright Citizens' Brigade."> And this was submitted by a team that made the top bracket of the playoffs. (2) While I understand the idea of not requiring packets from less- experienced teams, simply exempting them from writing any packets is not, IMO, a good idea; that is why I have required even first-year teams to submit packets for Penn Bowl, although I do not reject them so long as their submissions were somewhere in the ballpark (a packet solely on, say, the Bible and college football wouldn't fly). (3) Just three years ago (Penn Bowl 9), all A and B teams were required to submit packets of 32/32. This year, schools sending one team were required to submit 21/21, and schools sending more than one team 36/36. So, the last two years, I've had substantially fewer questions to work with than in years past. (4) I think having an open packet-submission tournament such as Penn Bowl serves a useful purpose. Even if I could have obtained all the questions from a single source, I don't think it would be a good idea. But if teams were to step up to the plate, and guarantee that I would receive, at least four weeks ahead of time, a total of 15-18 appropriately-written packets, I would have no problem with releasing the other teams from writing questions. [Obviously, there would be discounts and/or other incentives for teams that wrote questions.] The only concern I have about such a scheme is finding some way to ensure that teams didn't leave us scrambling for packets at the last minute, as has happened in years past. Feel free to post comments, or send them in private to <pennbowl_at_...>; especially let me know--at that address--if you would consider writing a packet or two under such a scheme. --STI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST