If I remeber correctly, Yale A's other loss was to Emory, who won our bracket. It was Emory's one loss (to Michigan B I believe) that was to a lower-ranked team. My problem with power-matching is the delays it creates in between rounds, which forced us to miss the last round entirely and probably contributed to our poor play in the first two rounds. Penn Bowl is already rife with delays (as any 50-odd tournament would be), why exacerbate it by choosing a format that forces everyone to wait for further instructions *after every round*? And, from a theoretical standpoint, it is somewhat fishy that Yale won, despite having more losses in the same amount of games as Michigan. That said, I was not dissapointed with Penn Bowl this year. Except for disturbingly high number of repeats, the questions were relatively decent (if not quite up to, say, ACF Fall level), and it's always good to play against teams one rarely sees during the regular season (such as Emory and WUSTL in our case.) Frankly, it's kind of silly to expect uniformly competent moderators, a lack of delays, a calm Samer, and general good organization at Penn Bowl (or, for that matter, any similarly large tournament); the trick is to not get your expectations unrealistically high. (And, since we're only a 20-minute train ride from Penn, we'd probably still go no matter how bad it got.) Yeah, the packet mishap in our bracket sucked, but far worse has happened in the past, we took it in good humour, and moved on. As for the breakfast controversy, I wished more tournaments offered breakfast; the only teams in our area that regularly do it are Maryland and us. I understand it's not an obligation, and I wouldn't skip a tournament for lack of donuts, but it's a nice welcoming touch. Chris Viking Squirrel <geertgen22_at_...> said: > <html><body> > > > <tt> > "--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, lampdwellr <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:<BR> > <BR> > Huzzah to Samer etc. for a good tournament, if the power-matching<BR> > setup was a little confusing. Between NAQT '03 and PB13, can we<BR> > agree that power matching sucks? Please? Do something else. That's<BR> > my only real complaint.<BR> > <BR> > -Steve Bahnaman, Emory"<BR> > <BR> > Despite benefitting from power-matching at both tournaments, I have <BR> > to agree here.<BR> > <BR> > At NAQT '03, we didn't beat anyone who finished in the top seven, <BR> > lost to Michigan B, and yet somehow finished third, ahead of Michigan <BR> > A.<BR> > <BR> > As for Penn Bowl, I congratulate Yale A for defeating two outstanding <BR> > opponents (Rochester A and Michigan A) in the single-elim rounds to <BR> > win the tournament -- that's no easy feat. I have to question, <BR> > however, whether Yale A belonged in the semis in the first place.<BR> > <BR> > Granted, they racked up some impressive point totals throughout the <BR> > tournament. However, here is a list of teams they did not play en <BR> > route to their two-loss, semifinal appearance: Michigan A (14-0), <BR> > Rochester A (13-1), Yale B (12-2), Maryland A (12-2), and Chicago A <BR> > (11-3). That would be the other five of the top six finishing <BR> > teams. What's more, they lost to Swarthmore A and to a team that did <BR> > not even finish in the top four of its prelim bracket (not sure who <BR> > that was). Chicago, on the other hand, had to face Michigan, <BR> > Rochester, and Yale B in its power matching rounds.<BR> > <BR> > I'm not saying Yale A was less qualified than Maryland A and Chicago <BR> > A in reaching the semifinals, but I do not think that they were more <BR> > qualified either (at least our two losses were to Michigan A and Yale <BR> > B, in our weirdly stacked prelim bracket). This is just proof that <BR> > the power-matching system failed... though of course we could have <BR> > had the opportunity to face Yale A in the fourth scheduled power <BR> > matching round and make it a moot point. Unfortunately, we did not <BR> > get that opportunity because a moderator read Round 7's packet during <BR> > Round 6, but that's another matter.<BR> > <BR> > As much as I dislike the 16-team single-elim format, at least the <BR> > teams that qualified for it did so based on the same schedules (in <BR> > each bracket). Hopefully we can give power matching its proper <BR> > burial, and never have to see it again.<BR> > <BR> > -Adam <BR> > <BR> > </tt> > > > > > <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| --> > > <table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=2> > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFCC> > <td align=center><font size="-1" color=#003399><b>Yahoo! Groups Sponsor</b></font></td> > </tr> > <tr bgcolor=#FFFFFF> > <td align=center width=470><table border=0 cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0> <tr> <td align=center><font face=arial size=-2>ADVERTISEMENT</font> <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cg1e9ou/M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705080866:HM/EXP=1075228993/A=1945638/R=0/*http://www.netflix.com/Default?mqso=60178383&partid=4116730" alt=""><img src="http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/ne/netflix/yhoo0104_a_300250a.gif" alt="click here" width="300" height="250" border="0"></a></td></tr></table> </td> > </tr> > <tr><td><img alt="" width=1 height=1 src="http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=267637.4116730.5333196.1261774/D=egroupmail/S=:HM/A=1945638/rand=665049579"></td></tr> > </table> > > <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| --> > > > > <tt><hr width="500"> > <b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b> > <ul> > <li>To visit your group on the web, go to: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quizbowl/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/quizbowl/</a> > <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: <a href="mailto:quizbowl-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">quizbowl-unsubscribe_at_yahoogroups.com</a> > <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>. > </ul> > </tt> > </br> > > </body></html> > --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST
