> (1) To imply that UCLA won the D2 title yesterday _because_ of having > played in last year's ICT is simply misleading. No one is implying that, for two reasons: a) The argument that eligibility is dependent on whether past experience provides an aid is a non-starter. I'm sure the Berkeley team that won D1 yesterday would not do any better in D2 than if they had skipped the ICT; does that mean that Berkeley's A team should be allowed to play D2 next year? b) The implication is that UCLA won the D2 title because they did not have to play certain other teams who met the same experience criteria as they, since most of the teams who played D2 last year are now ineligible. If last year's Michigan or Stanford D2 teams played again, UCLA may not have won. > (3) While some may find NAQT's handling of the 2003 situation and > subsequent explanation unsatisfying ... it's a dead thread. There is > nothing more that NAQT, UCLA, or anyone else can do. At this point, no. But up until sectionals, UCLA could have done the honorable thing and realized that this "exception" business was a terrible idea, and moved up to the adults table. They chose to be hardware whores instead. It doesn't mean they cheated, but it reflects on their character nonetheless.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST