Andy Goss had the following to say: "Yes, but two of those bids are artificial. Harvard received 3 bids instead of the 1 they were entitled to because they chose to play 3 teams. This isn't bad if they can afford it, but indications from people there were that they couldn't. No team running a tournament where they are under no obligation to play should decide to stack more teams in and tell people to help staff during their bye rounds. A host school's first obligation is to running the tournament. However, if the reports I've gotten are overstated, I'll listen for Joon's reply." I'll do what I can not to fan the flames here, and merely make a reply. However, that won't stop me from inquiring why exactly it is Andy Goss' responsibility to pipe up about this sort of thing based on only second-hand knowledge, when (to my knowledge) Harvard has not actually received any complaints about the issue from people who were actually there. Those people--and NAQT--are the only ones who might have a legitimate complaint. Apparently they did not think it was worth complaining about. Indeed, I have heard from several that they appreciated having Harvard's teams playing because it made the tournament more competitive. That's that. Now I'll actually address the issue. It's a little long, so I'll stick it in the next message. Joon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST