Eh, perhaps I was a bit harsher/more unclear than I could have been. My main point wasn't that I prefer 9-line tossups (6 or 7 is plenty long enough for even the most gradually sloping pyramid), nor did I wish simply to heap opprobrium on a Regional I didn't attend (though I did wish to single out Rutgers for praise). With 3 more rounds, and many more teams, you could hardly expect to be done as early as we were. It's just that, after attending a tournament with virtually half-hour rounds on long questions, I find it hard to believe that those extra words were the only factor. Perhaps the "chatter in between questions" alluded to can be targeted as the culprit, rather than the moderators themselves. I don't know. --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, Charlie Steinhice <steinhic_at_b...> wrote: > At the risk of sounding not-so-genial: bullshit. And I can prove it. > > Our rounds did not last an hour; they lasted 45 minutes. I know; I was > keeping close tabs on it all day long. We began play at 10:10 (due to > two late teams), took a lunch break of just under an hour and a half, > and finished the last round at almost exactly 11 PM. Guess what? 15 > rounds at 45 min. per round = 11.25 hours, which fits almost exactly > within the times stated. Say anything you like about me, but don't > insult my moderators. We had a veteran crew, a house reader in every > room, the least experienced of whom has been a full-time reader in at > least 10 tournaments. I had exactly zero complaints about our readers > Saturday. > > As one of the few people who has both this year's and last year's ACF > Regionals questions on my computer, I checked. I used MS Word to do a > word count of each round from both sets of regionals. Here are the > stats (anyone who wants to see round by round numbers can e-mail me > privately:) > > Mean words per round > Tossups 1-20, 2003 Regionals: 1936.67 > Tossups 1-20, 2004 Regionals: 2125.47 > > Bonuses 1-20, 2003 Regionals: 1923.47 > Bonuses 1-20, 2004 Regionals: 2134.07 > > I leave it to others to debate whether the increased length was a good > thing or a bad thing, but there's no denying its existence. > > Chris White wrote: > > > I thought that the tossups were mostly accessible, though I agree that > > the boni were tougher than expected. Our team's bonus conversion this > > year was virtually the same as last year, even though we've improved > > quite a bit since then. It was frustrating for the first few rounds, > > but then you just get used to it and know what to expect. > > > > But, (and this is the main reason I'm replying), I really have to > > disagree with your condemnation of tossup length; your Regional's late > > running time was not the fault of the questions. We played 12 rounds > > at Rutgers and got to leave at 5:30, while it was still light out. If > > rounds last an hour, it's the fault of the moderator, not the > > questions. (Excellent job, Rutgers. Probably the smoothest-run > > tournament I've ever attended.) > > > > -Chris, speaking only for himself > > > > -- > ****************************************************************** > Charlie Steinhice "Come, come! Why, they couldn't > Chattanooga, TN hit an elephant at this dist..." > (center of the known universe) -- Gen. John Sedgwick > > ******************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST