Re: Trash and its relationship to qb

Sean Phillips <*allythin_at_allythin.yahoo.invalid*> · Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:10:09 -0000

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Molteni" 
<nathan.molteni_at_...> wrote:
>
> I feel the need to post this in light of the recent discussion 
taking
> place and the spin-offs related to it.
> 
> I've only been in this group for a year now, having taken over my
> school's Quiz Bowl program this fall. It is my fourth year though, 
both
> high school and college, playing in tournaments, so please don't 
write
> me off as unexperienced. I'd like to bring a different angle to 
this
> discussion, something that we, as a team, find important to our
> participation in Quiz Bowl. 
> 
> This question about Trash, while an on-going issue, suggests deeper
> questions then just whether or not Trash and pure academic 
tournaments
> can get along.  I agree with Sean Phillips on his points about the
> legitimacy and importance of TRASH to the competition as a whole. 
But I
> have a greater concern beyond that- about the exclusivity of 
tournaments
> and the program. First of all- and I'll admit, I am unfamiliar 
with the
> situation that is being discuused- why do we not celebrate the 
fact that
> there are in fact two tournaments being run simultaneously, 
instead of
> griping about one impacting the other. If they were two similar
> tournaments, I could understand not wanting to run two ACF 
tournaments
> in the same region, but one appeared to be academic and one TRASH. 
This
> diversity should be good for competition as a whole, not a 
drawback. For
> young teams like ours, always looking for the right opportunities 
to be
> competitive, having the option between a TRASH tournament and an
> academic tournament is a great benefit. Who's to say a school 
can't send
> a team to both either? 

I think the problem is the fact that there simply weren't enough 
people to feed two tournaments and the people who initially called 
the date got left in the dust and had to reschedule.  If the 
hypothetical you described had occurred, yes that would be cool but 
simply it just didn't happen that way.

> My greatest concern is that as a collective whole, academic 
competition,
> whether TRASH, ACF, NAQT, etc... is limited, for the most part, to 
those
> and by those who write the packets. The limitations on such 
subjects as
> philosophy, mythology, theology, economics, geography and other 
social
> sciences in general packet writing, while certainly having
> justification, oftentimes limits the people who get involved in 
playing
> tournaments. An economics major, or an engineer, or an art history 
major
> finds themselves at a bit of a disadvantage to an english major, 
simply
> on fundamental knowledge, considering only courses taken. 

A distribution is set primarily to reward depth as a team, not as an 
individual.  Of all who play there are a select few who legitimately 
have heard of or had a chance to get all 20 tu's.  Instead of 
comparing individuals as being advantaged or disadvantaged vis a vis 
the distributions, the appropriate analysis is whether the team is 
diverse enough to handle the subject matter.

Sean