<<I do have a few complaints though. The layout of Williams Hall is incredibly asanine. People should not have to take an elevator to go one floor. Before lunch on Sat., it took me 10 minutes to get from the ground floor to the 3rd because the elevators were slow and, upon trying to go up the stairs, I ended up on the wrong side of the alarmed doors. Is there no other building on Penn's campus that could accomodate PB? Here, we're lucky to have our College of Arts and Sciences, but surely there must be something easier to get around in at Penn.>> I think that considering the alternatives (which have been the case for Penn Bowls past), to have the entire tournament in one building is a great benefit. The security measures (why doors had to be kept locked, why you had to take elevators between floors) is most likely an issue that should be taken up not with the Penn Bowl staff but with security or room reservations. I'm sure there are other buildings on campus, and I'm sure we could have spread out the tournament between different buildings, but having teams within a division be forced to go between buildings is a big hassle, especially if something goes haywire. Code numbering system for players and teams was supposed to make it easier for the statisticians to keep up with individual statistics. The reason why it didn't work before the playoff meeting was that some of the moderators still submitted scoresheets that didn't provide the codes for each person, not to mention some of the scoresheets didn't come in at a timely manner. As for questions, I suppose we could all be given license to see the ORIGINAL BU packet as submitted and determine why it was summarily rejected for the first run. I think overall the questions were better, shorter, and more informative than many tournaments past. /// etc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST