Re: What's up with NAQT ICT Invitations

• From: dpucollegebowl <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:57:31 -0000
• Message-ID: <dtcvub+agkd_at_...>

I think Susan makes a good point -- award bids to the teams that 
seem like they can win games.  That said, I'd like to make a plea 
for NAQT to stop doing to teams what it did to DePauw's Div. II 
team.  

DPU finished with middling stats, but went 9-2, even finishing ahead 
(record-wise) of a Chicago team which gave it a sizable whooping 
during round-robin play.  So, Michigan and Chicago were DePauw's 
only losses and they averaged about 234 ppg and about 16 ppb.  UM 
and UC got bids for finishing first and third and DPU was left out 
in the cold for finishing second.  I mean no disrespect to Chicago, 
but aside from its loss to a very good Michigan team, how can you 
countenance two losses to teams which finished fourth or worse and 
had stats which were nowhere near as good?  

All the same, DePauw showed a marked tendency to find a way to win.  
In the end, winning is the best factor in deciding how good a team 
is, right?  If NAQT disagrees with me, then it should use a 
different structure to determine its first tie-breaker.

There are a couple teams in the ICT field (most notably CC teams 
which played on decidedly easier questions against what NAQT must 
assume to be easier competition since I believe it chooses to use IS 
questions at CC sectionals) against whose numbers DePauw's stats are 
similar or better.  Explain to me the logic there.  Anyone who knows 
my track record knows I'm in favor of expanding the game and getting 
as many schools to play as possible, but I'm also in favor of a 
level playing field.  

Don't disrespect the CC teams by making them play on high school 
questions, but also don't disrespect the teams which played on the 
harder questions and amassed the same stats by giving the CC teams a 
bid before them.

I know Susan hates sports analogies, but this seems remarkably 
similar in many ways to the BCS.  However, at least the BCS lets us 
know the formula it uses to have what some consider the wrong teams 
play for its national championship.

SPJ



--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Susan Ferrari" <srferrar_at_...> 
wrote:
>
> Oh, God, sports analogies.
> 
> All I'm saying is I think it would be ideal to issue ICT 
invitations
> to the schools that are most likely to perform the best at the ICT
> based on their SCT performance.  I don't place a high priority on
> having the ICT be "representative of every region on the continent"
> because I think that attempts to make national tournaments broadly
> representative in this sense can lead to having some very weak 
teams
> at those tournaments (CBI is the extreme case).  
> 
> I see that you do place a high priority on representing a lot of
> regions at the ICT (as does NAQT).  This is a difference of 
opinion,
> which I don't think requires a great deal of pearl-clutching about 
my
> opinion of the prowess of eastern Canadian teams (I really have no
> opinion in the matter, though I'm not sure how my saying that one 
team
> from that region had fairly low stats this year among teams that 
got
> ICT bids, and that another had pretty good stats last year,
> constitutes painting y'all as terrible, especially since I 
mentioned
> outlier teams from other regions as well.  Thanks for trying to 
change
> my "opinion" with your mention of beating a team of Michigan frosh 
on
> high school questions, though!)
> 
> I don't really have anything more to say about this, especially on
> this board.  
> 
> Susan
>