Re: ACF Fall Midwest Stats/Results

• From: mac4731 <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 21:44:10 -0000
• Message-ID: <bo3tra+31h8_at_...>

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Susan Ferrari" <srferrar_at_u...> 
wrote:
> I am curious as to why a third-year player who
> has 
> apparently played in a dozen tournaments (two of them nationals) 
was 
> allowed to play in Division II.  (Of course I have  a vested 
interest
> here; our C 
> team--who have, collectively, played in zero college
> tournaments--would 
> have won the title had they not had to beat the team with the
> questionable 
> player.)  I appreciate that ACF is trying to acknowledge new players
> and 
> programs in their tournaments, but I would like to see a clearer
> definition of 
> Division II.   

According to the rule that was used to define Div II eligibility for 
the Fall Touirnament, any player who was in their first or second 
year of intercollegiate competition was considered a Div II player. 
Several teams, including Carleton, wished to field teams that 
included players who began their touranament participation during the 
spring semester of 2002, and inquired whether these players would be 
considered Div II players. I ruled that they would for a number of 
reasons, including: 1) such a player fit the technical Div II 
definition, and 2) such a player, in my opinion, should not be 
limited to only one chance to play in ACF Fall when those who joined 
teams in the fall had two chances to play.

In a more general sense, I want to assure everyone reading this that 
those of us involved with the running of ACF strive to continue to 
improve all aspects of ACF tournaments, and that we take seriously 
the concerns and constructive criticisms presented by players and 
coaches. The Div II rule is no exception, and I have no doubt that we 
will continue to attempt to determine whether this or any other part 
of the ACF tournament experience can be improved in the future.

Sincerely,
Kelly