Re: NAQT Div. II bids

tgallows <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:38:33 -0000

Of the teams Lee mentions, I think he may "have a case" for some but
not for others.  Cal Tech went 7-6 in what was obviously a very strong
field, having to play 3 matches against UCLA (that's 3 losses for
almost any D2 team) and multiple matches against strong teams from
Berkeley and Stanford.  Couple that with good bonus conversion, and
Cal Tech was clearly worthy of a bid.

Lee makes a better case regarding Columbia (and maybe the other teams)
from the Mid-Atlantic.  Athens State does have better numbers both in
bonus conversion and in points per tossup heard than Columbia.  While
the bottom few teams in the Mid-Atlantic D2 field were stronger than
those of the Southeast field, I don't see a large difference in the
collective strength of the top 8 or 9 teams.  The two fields look very
similar -- no single great team, but lots of pretty good ones capable
of knocking each other off.  I could see Maryland or Swarthmore (or
Yale C) being in front of Athens State based on the bonus conversion
numbers, but I would have expected Athens State to be placed ahead of
Columbia.  Even with regard to Maryland, the bonus conversion is only
so important -- Furman, for instance, had better bonus conversion than
Maryland.  Anyway, like Lee, I fail to see the statistical rationale
of inviting Columbia over Athens State.  No offense intended to the
Columbia team, of course -- I'm just going by the posted results.

I am a believer in bonus conversion as probably the most important
stat for comparative purposes across regions, but given the number of
trashy or GK questions in the NAQT distribution, there's some margin
of error on the value of that bonus conversion stat.  And given that
there doesn't appear to be a large difference in field strength
between those two regions, it's rather unfortunate that the
mid-Atlantic would have 4 at-large teams placed ahead of the top SE
at-large team.

--Raj Dhuwalia, UF

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "quizbowllee" <charolee_at_h...> wrote:
> I would like to take this opportunity to address NAQT's Div. II 
> bids.  
> 
> First, thanks to all of you who have taken the time to personally 
> tell me that you believe we  "were shafted," "were done wrong," 
> or "received a raw deal."  The fact that members of the quiz bowl 
> community who I have never had the pleasure of meeting took the time 
> and interest to contact me speaks volumes.
> 
> Now:  In all honesty, we at Athens State left the Southeastern SCT 
> very confident that we had earned a bid.  I am notorious for my 
> pessimistic nature, but there was no way I could fathom not getting 
> a bid after placing 2nd at such a large and strong SCT.  
> 
> When the initial bids came in, I was thrilled because I received an 
> e-mail that said quote: 
> 
> Congratulations!  If you are receiving this email, then, based upon 
> the results of the 2004 NAQT SCT Tournaments, your school has had a 
> team (or teams) awarded one of the 32 spots in the Division II field 
> of the 2004 NAQT Intercollegiate Championship Tournament.
> 
> Then, I read further and saw that we were waitlisted.  In turns out 
> that NAQT sent the wrong e-mail to the waitlisted team. They did 
> apologize, but I still think that was really rough...
> 
> I do take quiz bowl seriously, VERY seriously... But I'm not as 
> vindictive and confrontational as "some" of you (you know who you 
> are).  Regardless of situations, I try to keep the peace and go with 
> the flow.  However, after consulting with my teammates and taking a 
> REALLY good look at some of the teams that got invited over us, I am 
> a little more irked.  Please consider the following:
> 
> At the Southeastern ICT we went 10-2, placed 2nd, and had 15.84 
> bonus conversion.  I was convinced that our bonus conversion hurt us 
> bad.  We're not strong on bonuses, but we WON matches, and that 
> should be what counts.  However, notice that Columbia got an 
> invite.  Columbia placed 3rd in their SCT, went 11-2 and had 15.51 
> bonus conversion.  This ruins any theory that our conversion hurt 
> us, as theirs was lower than ours PLUS they finished lower in a 
> field roughly the same size (one team more).  Also notice that 
> Maryland, who was 4th in that SCT got an invite.  And Swarthmore, 
> who was 5th(!!!) is on the waitlist ahead of us!!!  
> 
> Then there is Caltech.  Caltech went 7-6 and placed 3rd in their SCT 
> and got invited.  A 7-6 team over a 10-2???!!!  If the mysterious S-
> formula allows a 7-6 team to get invited over a 10-2 team, it needs 
> some serious revision.  NAQT says that its formula takes into 
> account strength of field, but come on!  Maybe next year Athens 
> State should go all the way to California to compete... then we 
> could go .500 and get a bid for sure.
> 
> Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we found 12 tossups that 
> we "powered" and didn't get credit for.  We didn't really care, 
> because it didn't make any difference in any of our rounds.  But 
> since we don't know how much powered tossups count in the S-score, 
> maybe we SHOULD care - as obviously Win-Loss record means little.
> 
> Our last gripe is the inclusion of the KCQRL SCT.  I didn't realize 
> until speaking to Chad Money from Kentucky at ACF this weekend that 
> it was a "Kentucky only" event.  While I have nothing against that 
> per se, I do feel that giving an automatic bid to the winner of an 
> exclusive SCT such as that is questionable.  Why couldn't Alabama 
> have had one?  Athens State would have to host as we're the only 
> Alabama team on the circuit.  We could've just played each other and 
> gotten the automatic bid.  Or, if they didn't get an automatic bid 
> for hosting, each member could've played solo so we would have the 
> prerequiste 4-team field... then we would've qualified that way.
> 
> Anyway, this post is sort of against my nature.  I know that every 
> year SOMEONE thinks that they got screwed over and wines like a baby 
> about it. I hate to be "that guy" this year, but even people I don't 
> know are crying foul on our behalf.  Therefore, I would feel remiss 
> if I didn't speak our part.
> 
> Please know that I have nothing at all against any of the schools I 
> mentioned in this post.  I have never met most of you, and I plead 
> our case based solely on what I see on the "Results" page at 
> NAQT.com.  Also, I would like to point out that I have had some 
> correspondance with the folks at NAQT and they have been nothing but 
> cordial.  We at Athens State still enjoy NAQT games and will 
> continue to play NAQT for as long as our team exists.   We do feel 
> like they strongly underestimated the strength of the Southeastern 
> teams.  Berry College, Furman, Florida B, Wofford, NC State... these 
> were VERY tough teams and it is a shame that the Southeast only 
> deserved one bid in the eyes of NAQT.  
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the support and for reading my rantings.  We're 
> still keeping our fingers crossed that we get off the waitlist.  
> 
> Awaiting any and all declined bids, 
> 
> Lee Henry (speaking on behalf of teammates at ASU)
> Athens State Quiz Bowl