Re: Quizbowl Circuit Participation and Fundamentals

sdrossboss <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Thu, 09 Oct 2003 04:40:53 -0000

Thanks for the great responses to my questions from both Jordan and 
Steve. 

Jordan, you are right to say that a club should not be judged a 
failure if it lacks the ability to be in position to be competitive 
nationally. What I was driving at was that there are specific points 
relevant to the Berkeley and Stanford club which explain why they are 
competitive nationally. I think it's something to strive for 
definitely but not a proxy for success or failure. That of course is 
measured within. What I was hoping to drive at was setting the bar 
high so as to increase the average strength among clubs in the 
region. I think that's really my point there.

Steve is right to point out that perhaps it was unecessary to single 
out a certain club the way I did, I can't say with certainty that all 
Nothern California tournaments in recent memory were run smoothly but 
certain instances which stick out in my mind I feel strongly about. 
That's just the truth. 

I do appreciate it being pointed out.

I also apologize for forgetting about activity amongst Fresno State 
and I am of course thrilled to see participation amongst Cal Poly and 
of course UC Riverside. Jordan should be excited, this is great news.

Steve brings up the point that rightfully so, quizbowl should 
accomodate casual players in settting such as an NAQT Juniorbird. 
What again we're hoping to avoid is an ACF regional where 3 Berkeley, 
3 Stanford and one So Cal team compete. Were such a tournament held 
in southern california then why not have Stanford and Berkeley play 
somewhere in the bay area on the same questions so as to cut out the 
travel expense altogether? Logistically it makes little sense but 
again the only way to develop talent to the point where the majority 
of schools can be competitive in such an ACFish competition is to 
write questions. It'd be nice to see a tournament out there where you 
have a 9-1, 2 8-2's and then a bunch of 6-4s and 4-6s. Not a 5-0, a 4-
1 and then 1-4s and an 0-5. 

Again thanks for the comments and criticism. My intent was in being 
rather poignant in certain places was to challenge schools to run a 
better tournament and not be insulting. I apologize if I came off as 
such.

I would certainly assist in organizing that event. I think a nice 
discussion over steak (or enchiladas) at Harris Ranch right smack dab 
in the middle of California would be ideal.

-Ross
--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, berkeleykaplan <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> I think Ross raises some important points, many of which have
> specific relevance to the west coast and some of which may be
> interesting to the rest of the country.  I'll respond and
> elaborate on those I find particularly important (so as to keep this
> somewhere short of gargantuan).
> 
> > While not having seen the composition of every club at every 
school 
> > on the West Coast this year, it seems to me that again the
> strongest 
> > clubs in terms of ability to reasonably compete in a national 
> > tournament reside in the 650 and 510 area codes. I am uncertain as
> to 
> > the strength of the CalTech club but with the recent departure of 
> > nearly 100% of graduate students I'd say it is in question.
> Similarly 
> > with UCLA, a club which has plenty of up and coming undergraduate 
> > talent (Matthew and Charles) and at least one experienced 
graduate 
> > student (Steve). After a few years of absence it's nice to see
> signs 
> > of life at USC. UC Irvine, HELLO, where are you? After a few years
> of 
> > activity at Scripps and Harvey Mudd that duo has gone into hiding.
> I 
> > know of at least 2 bay area students who now go to Pomona college 
> > (also part of the Claremont Colleges) and were active participants
> in 
> > the Bay Area High School circuit. There was hope that someone 
would 
> > poke their head above water at UCSD but that's still waiting to 
> > happen. I hope someone from UC Davis reads this because you guys 
> > really suck for going to one tournament and then playing CBI 
only. 
> > Not to mention the 0 penetration Quiz Bowl has with the 23 campus 
> > CalState system, the founding campus (SJSU) within stone's throw 
of 
> > Stanford.
> > 
> The strength of the west coast circuit is indeed in the north.  That
> being said, I see no reason to call out programs publicly, such as
> the comments made about Irvine and especially Davis in the third
> paragraph of Ross's post.  If the goal here is to increase
> participation I can't imagine this will achieve it.  Also, Ross
> is plain wrong on the state system comment as Fresno State was 
active
> last season.
> 
> > To further that thought, I'd also like to mention something I 
don't 
> > feel certain clubs may understand about quizbowl. We are actively 
> > funding each other's ability to participate in the circuit. 
> 
> Ross's reciprocity argument is a powerful one.  In west coast
> terms this boils down to Northern California teams (especially
> Berkeley) regularly sending multiple teams to Southern California
> tournaments and then having trouble getting a critical mass of teams
> in order to hold solid tournaments up north.  I have some opinions 
as
> to why this occurs but its not particularly germane to the point
> being made.  Basically I agree its bad form to hold college
> tournaments and then not reinvest the proceeds into attending other
> tournaments within the region.  That practice is a sure way to kill 
a
> circuit.  
> 
> Ross then goes on to additional bashing of the Irvine club without
> making clear that his polemic is directed at them.  I don't
> really believe that will serve to build region wide consensus and
> harmony and thus I will refrain from commenting further than to say
> that tournaments should be well run.
> 
> Ross follows with questions about the effect of the proliferation of
> NAQT junior bird tournaments on the college circuit.  I would 
suggest
> anyone interested in a fairly good discussion of this very topic 
take
> a look at hsquizbowl.org under "Collegiate Qui
> zbowl"-"Discussion".  My feeling is that these central
> source tournaments are good for new players, or players who like 
easy
> tournaments, but they are not a very good substitute for an ACFish
> packet submission tournament.  There should be room for both
> varieties, but I fear on the west coast there may not.  The fact 
that
> people don't have to write questions for NAQT JBs doesn't
> bother me at all, since there should be room in the game for casual
> players, as well as for small teams that don't have the capacity
> to write and edit their own questions at a high quality level.
>  
> > I also believe that if ends like this are to be achieved, it would
> be 
> > beneficial to a circuit to have some sort of meeting to 
coordinate 
> > goals and expectations. 
> 
> To echo Ross's general sentiment, I think the west coast circuit
> is a disaster right now.  In 2003, ACF regionals had seven
> teams—three Berkeley, three Stanford, and one from southern
> California.  That's alarming.  Stanford held a mirror of Wildcat.
>  It drew six teams—three Berkeley, one Stanford, and two from
> southern California (including one team that averaged 11.5 points 
per
> game).  That's alarming.  Stanford held a FUCT mirror.  It had
> four teams.  Stanford held a Buzzerfest mirror, it drew five
> teams—three Berkeley, one Stanford.  USC announced Ghetto Warz a
> few months back and had to cancel due to lack of teams.  Berkeley is
> hosting WIT in a few weeks, and I gather they have very few 
confirmed
> participants.  This is a problem.
> 
> People are doing two things out here.  First, they are not traveling
> to tournaments.  Second, they are not bothering to gauge interest
> before announcing new tournaments.  This leads to very poorly
> attended tournaments that wind up draining the funds of those teams
> that do travel, without delivering a satisfying tournament in 
return.
>  Something does need to be done about this, and I commend Ross for
> suggesting some sort of meeting of the minds among various club
> leaders in the west.  For lack of a better idea, I suggest that
> anyone on this coast, or anywhere else if you're especially
> interested, who wants to work on this send me an e-mail at this 
yahoo
> address.  I'll try to get an e-mail list going of interested
> people.
> 
> Steve Kaplan
> despite the handle, of UCLA
> berkeleykaplan at yahoo.com