Re: "Covert" revision of D2 elligibility rules

• From: sdrossboss <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:13:37 -0000
• Message-ID: <c097nh+hpns_at_...>

Now that I've had the chance to read what was on hsquizbowl.org I 
understand the issue here. It seems to me that any issue as to the 
legality of what transpired should be directed at NAQT not at the 
UCLA players since they simply followed through with their end of the 
bargain. I do feel that given that they played in the ICT and thus 
have a true advantage over teams that will now see the tournament for 
the first time something should be said of that. I think that 
argument holds true if they went 15-0 or 0-15. But whatever, at this 
point those players have made it clear that they will be at St. Louis 
and it is extremely unlikely that NAQT will renege on its agreement.

-Ross

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, sdrossboss <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> I am not the expert here and my post should not be interpreted as 
the 
> end-all and be-all response but I was on the ICT staff last year 
and 
> my understanding is that it is in fact the case that UCLA's 
Division 
> II players, specifically the ones you mentioned, were on a filler 
> team whose purpose was to make the brackets work out evenly. They 
had 
> never intended on playing originally (again, according to what I 
> heard) and thus made an agreement with NAQT that they should retain 
> Division II eligibility because they agreed to play and in essence 
> served no other function than to help the tournament run smoothly. 
> Technically speaking then their names and team name should not have 
> shown up anywhere in the stats however I expect that this was a 
> more "clean" way to to do it as opposed to giving teams 
byes/forfeit 
> wins. 
> 
> Again I do not remember exactly what happened but since I remember 
a 
> discussion I had with Brendan Shapiro and Charles Meigs while they 
> were in my car I do believe this to be correct.
> 
> -Ross
> 
> --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, ater31337 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> > While looking at the stats from the West Coast SCT, I noticed that
> > UCLA put up some dominating numbers in the D2 bracket.  Further
> > examination of individual stats showed that the tandem of Charles
> > Meigs and Matthew Sherman put up some very strong stats against 
the 
> D2
> > competition... just like they did when they played D2 last year 
at 
> ICT
> > 2003, where Mr. Meigs was also the leading scorer.
> > 
> > In its official elligibility rules, NAQT affords D2 status to 
> players
> > who "Prior to the current competition year, [] have never played 
on 
> a
> > Sectionals team that qualified for the Intercollegiate 
Championship
> > Tournament nor played at the Intercollegiate Championship 
Tournament
> > at either the Division II or Division I levels."  Even in its most
> > recent official exception, NAQT states "Players on teams... remain
> > Division II ineligible, as do all teams that attended the ICT,
> > regardless of the date of their invitation."  Under the public and
> > official rules on D2 elligbility, UCLA's team was inelligible to 
> play
> > in D2 and broke the rules by playing.
> > 
> > When this issue came up on the hsquizbowl.org message board, 
several
> > UCLA members claimed that NAQT had, in private, offered UCLA's 
2003 
> D2
> > team an special exemption to elligbility rules whereas they could 
> play
> > in ICT 2003 and still retain their D2 elligbility.  I follow the 
> scene
> > pretty regularly and correspond often with several NAQT members, 
> yet I
> > have never heard anything of the sort.
> > 
> > If what UCLA is saying is true, however, then NAQT needs to do 
some
> > serious explaining, namely why they would grant such an arbitrary 
> and
> > fundamentally contradictory exemption, and why they would keep it 
a
> > secret that even the teams who would be paying money to compete
> > against UCLA would not be aware of?  If NAQT had gone to the 
trouble
> > of announcing and publicizing other exceptions to their 
elligbility
> > rules, why would they keep this case a secret?
> > 
> > I just wanted to bring this issue to light, because D2 
elligbility 
> is
> > always a spark of controversy and this issue seems especially 
> serious.