"How would a team go about running up the score? _Do_ teams actually do that?" I've experienced something similar at CBI. Here's the basic theory. At the halves of certain games, the fact that you're going to win against an inferior team is pretty much assured. There's a school of thought that says that, at this point, you pull in the reins and let the question go through a few more clues to give the other team a chance to get one or two questions rather than buzzing in when you usually would. This is a tossup approach, and it's relevant to both timed and untimed games - questions don't go unanswered, but you move to "ok, we're going to win - let's give the other team at least a small chance to score". It's not a universally accepted ethical approach - some may consider this to be demeaning to the other team - but it exists. The problem is that, if point differential is used, this strategy can be dangerous (even if someone hates references to it, this is analogous to college football polls that reward teams that win big). If they do get some tossups and bonuses, what could have been a 300-40 score becomes 260-130 - from 260 point differential to 130 point differential. If things are close at the end, that might make the difference between making the playoffs and not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST