Re: Penn (was Tournament: Brandeis' etc.)

Michael Angelo Sorice <*msorice_at_theinfamoushairboy.yahoo.invalid*> · Thu, 26 Aug 2004 21:05:03 -0000

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "nicolas_walters" <Sywolf_at_a...>
wrote:
> I won't bother responding to your whole post, because I don't
> really have the interest, and I don't care whether you get the last
> word on the argument. However, I will just point out one thing and
> then hope that we can put this whole argument to rest. I really did
> not start the thread with the intention of making this a discussion
> on grad participation.
Well, I'm certainly glad that you've deigned to speak with us once
again. I'm so sorry that this conversation that you started doesn't
adequately hold your interest. All apologies.
Anyway, again, it was you who, for no obvious reason and not in
response to anything more than tangentially relevant to the matter,
decided to say that grad participation is bad for the circuit. This is
an inexorable matter of public record, and I really wish you'd stop
pretending like everyone else keeps misrepresenting your position. You
said what you said and, frankly, if you didn't expect the reaction
that you got, you haven't been paying attention to more that just the
number of tournaments in your region for which you're eligible.

> ... When you think of every competitive sport AND activity that are
> contested at colleges and universities across the country, most of
> them are not open to undergrads and grads together. Obviously, the
> NCAA has restrictions on this for all of its sports, but if you look
> at Model UN, Mock Trial or just about any college activity, grad
> student participation is limited or non-existant as far as my
> knowledge. Furthermore, I don't know of any sport or activity which
> caters a large amount of tournaments exclusively for 1st and 2nd
> year participants, and then prohibits juniors and seniors from
> participating in those tournaments.
Your characterization is, at best, a severely limited and slanted
representation of the status of activities on the average college
campus. Whether this is willfully so, or from a lack of information on
your part, I neither know nor care. The simple facts are these: you're
wrong about the NCAA's eligibility rules, and you're also wrong about
those of other activities, and about the existence (or lack thereof)
of novice divisions in those activities' competitions. Moreover, even
were you right, quizbowl really isn't very much like any of these
other activities (in how it's run, in how it's played, etc.) nor
should it be and nor should we pretend it is.

> Again, I don't say this to make any comment on grad partcipation in
> quiz bowl.
Why, then, pray tell, do you say it? I'm absolutely serious with this
question. While I'm sure that the eligibility rules of other
activities are of great interest to some, you are currently engaged in
a discussion of quizbowl on the quizbowl group. Moreover, you began
your analogy to other sports by noting that you don't think that a
proscription for quizbowl applies to the other situations that you
mentioned. So, if not as a commentary about how you think that grad
participation doesn't make sense in quizbowl, what purpose did what
you just said serve? Why did you say it?

> We all know that it's inevitable, and I'm just going to reserve
> commentary on whether I think it's good or not, because it's
> obviously a complicated issue.
You have already made commentary on whether you think it's good or
not. Nor have you, at any point, sought to rescind (in a
straightforward manner) what you said. You cannot, at this point,
chose to exercise reserve in order that you not say what you have
already said.

> I just point this out because drawing a line after sophomore year to
> exclude people from competing in tournaments IS a much more
> arbitrary standard (by any non-quiz bowl standard at least) in my
> opinion than drawing that line after somebody receives their
> undergraduate degree. That is all.
No. The distinction between novices and experienced players is, in no
way, shape, or form, more arbitrary than any other, and capitalizing
your verbs won't make it so. In fact, I would argue that (and most
tournament rules would agree that) the distinction between novices and
experienced players is the most meaningful one, and that any other
distinction (based on age, year in school, etc.) is arbitrary, as
those things do not necessarily correlate to quizbowl skill. Remember
that most junior birds aren't for "freshmen and sophomores" but rather
for people in their first two years of quizbowl competition.
Therefore, the eligibility rules are not, and cannot be construed to
be, arbitrary; they are thought-out and designed to produce a
desirable effect, as I explained in my previous post.

MaS