ICT

sdrossboss <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:59:46 -0000

This would be a dead issue if UCLA have not had won.

But since they did this adds fuel to the fire and allows you to 
lambast them further.

Go ahead and put an asterisk by their name in your mind if that helps 
you sleep better at night. Or perhaps you could arrange a 
Illinois/UCLA match with the Sudheer, Sorice and Andrew on the 
Illinois team. 

As Charles's post stated "we would not have made the agreement were 
we not allowed to retain our eligibility" - what else do you need?

If you would really like something else to argue about then here 
goes: Berkeley held off the year before last on sending a D2 eligible 
team to ICT because NAQT's rule, by design, encourages such. Thus 
with a year more of practice under the belt, Berkeley's D2 team went 
all the way. Thus, is it likely that UCLA would have sat out a year 
on this premise and waited until this year? Oh I bet you the answer 
is a resounding yes. As such, UCLA would still, as you say be playing 
against "diluted" competition. Why don't you take issue with the fact 
that nothing prevents someone from staying at a community college for 
an extended number of years and winning that championship year after 
year after year?

For someone who continues to make "vitriolic" posts how could you not 
revive debate on the topic? I think it's beyond obvious that NAQT 
admits they regret their decision the first place. Obviously they did 
not know that UCLA was in a position to contend last year which is a 
mistake made due to lack of diligence on NAQT's part but it was made 
nontheless and here we are. 

You are not brewing lively discussion about legitimate issues but 
instead argue along the lines of: "I'm right and I can't fathom any 
state of the world different from my understanding." Others who post 
to this board are not going to sit and watch you make posts of this 
nature so, again, what else are you doing if not stirring up people 
to argue with you and resurrect this debate? Anyone who cares is not 
going to say "hmm, there's some food for thought - if this guy argues 
long and hard enough he's gotta be right." Right or wrong the elitist 
attitude of your post speaks for itself.

You could have just as easily made the point by 
saying "Congratulations to UCLA - I do still however believe that 
there was something a bit unfair about how they were able to compete 
in D2 this year" yet it seems that congeniality of that nature is 
lost on you. As for calling people "hardware whores" I think you'd 
better start thinking a lot more before you post - would you fault 
Subash M. for playing on Chicago's team last year and just 
incinerating the competition? Why play if not to win? Go ahead and 
interview everyone who took the time and spent money to go to ICT - I 
doubt anyone went there with the goal of losing or being mediocre.

As is oft discussed - what seems to need a real reworking is the 
design of NAQT's eligibility rules. Unfortunately when dealing with 
people there are always bound to be errors - it is my hope that NAQT 
is always looking for ways to mitigate the existence of such errors.

Ross Ritterman
Former President, Berkeley Quiz Bowl