Re: Quizbowl Circuit Participation and Fundamentals

I've been playing quizbowl in SoCal in one form or another for 7 
years now, going on 8. This is my fourth year of collegiate play and 
I too am concerned about the California circuit. It is unfortunate 
that more teams do not make the trip up to Berkeley and Stanford 
more often, but due to the relative sparsity of quizbowl schools up 
north, those are the only two programs currently able to put 
together a well-run collegiate tournament. We come down for a lot of 
SoCal games; just last week, seven people flew down from Berkeley to 
play at TWAIN, which by the way was extremely well run. In light of 
our good attendance, I don't think it's too much to ask teams to 
come up north once in a while.
   As for organizing more JB tournaments, last year I considered 
trying to put something like this together at Berkeley. After 
further thought, I realized that for the most part, this would not 
work for us due to our relatively remote geographical location and 
our busy tournament schedule. You just run into too much burnout if 
you have tournaments staggered every week. Last spring, the West 
Coast had ACF Regionals, FUCT mirror, Wildcat, Cardinal Classic, 
NAQT Sectionals, and NAQT Nationals. That's 7 tournaments, folks, 
and we sent a team to each one, not to mention a team sent to ACF 
Nats. With that kind of a playing schedule, where are we going to 
squeeze in more JB tournaments?
   The responsibility of creating a viable QB circuit in California 
lies with every participating school. I think Berkeley and Stanford 
do their fair share. CalTech and UCLA also contribute enormously. I 
am also very excited to see such a great turnout for TWAIN and a 
revival of some clubs I long thought dormant or dead. These are all 
positive signs and with WIT, Technophobia, and ACF Fall approaching, 
I look forward to an excellent season of QB on the West Coast. That 
said, I'd like to address Willie Chen's comment that UCI doesn't 
have the "gene pool" to be competitive in QB. I don't know for sure, 
but I'm afraid that this could be a popular misconception on the 
part of the QB community in California. It doesn't take any 
specific "genes" to do well in QB, just a desire to play and get 
better. Berkeley and Stanford have advantages because they are well-
established programs, but they succeed not because we're all 
brilliant geniuses with 250 point IQs but because we work hard at 
it. If you work hard, you will have a good team. If you don't work 
hard, you won't. I wish there were a different way to become good 
other than working at it, but sadly there isn't.
   One of the best way to improve is to write questions, which is 
why I think too many centrally-written tournaments such as NAQT 
events are not the best thing to have. This is not meant to 
disparage NAQT but rather to emphasize the importance of writing 
questions in the improvement process and to encourage teams to 
attend packet-submission events. QB questions are a little like SAT 
questions in that once you divine the question structure, you have 
an advantage over your opponent, and what better way to do that than 
to write your own questions?

In summary: play quizbowl, write questions, attend tournaments. 
Otherwise the circuit will die, leaving only Stanford and Berkeley 
to play each other in perpetuity, locked in a vicious struggle akin 
to that of the trench warfare that characterized World War I. Ok, 
maybe that analogy doesn't quite work, but I think everyone 
understands what I mean. Also, I write way too much.

Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST