Josh wrote: "Just want to congratulate Virginia on running an excellent tournament -- timewise and especially moderater-wise (best I've seen at a non-National tournament). Also kudos to Penn State, who ran the field. Just think, this could have been their third win in a row, if they had brought the same strong team that won Michigan's MLK and this weekend's tournament to Penn Bowl. Makes you wonder. " I'd like to echo the previous comments on Virginia running a good tournament. The moderating was excellent - the moderator for our match against Josh's UMCP A team got through all 28 tossups with a minute to spare, WITH a broken buzzer! I don't know who he was, but he was great. One problem which was beyond UVA's control was that 2 teams in division I and 1 team in division II didn't show up. The solution in Div I was to play all the games against empty seats. I never saw the point of this (other than to get us our guarranteed 12 "games"). The TD said we would replay games should the teams show up later, but that was impossible since we heard the packets. I'd encourage any team that isn't going to make it to call as soon as they know so that the organizers can make alternate arrangements. It was particularly anticlimactic to be told we HAD to play our last game against empty seats (or suffer statistics penalties for NAQT ICT seeding) after finishing undefeated. Thanks for the compliments from everyone. As Doug mentioned, we did not win Michigan's MLK (slaughtered by 400+ points by Chicago) and suggesting that we could have won Penn Bowl ignores the great pool of talent that went there. It is very interesting that our Division II team at NAQT MidAtl went 6-6, but that same team went 9-5 at Penn Bowl... Congrats to the other teams in a no-easy-win field. I hope the NAQT powers-that-be recognize that when allocating ICT bids. Rob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST