Here's a collective response to various points brought up in this thread. As usual, I speak for myself, not Pitt or anyone else. First, perhaps the only issue here not previously discussed on this board is the behavior of CBI and Virginia after the 1997 tournament. To me, it boils down to CBI feeling no obligation to fulfill promises to anyone who criticizes them. While it's not "censorship" per se it probably does fit some legal definition of fraud. In any case it's extremely unprofessional and immature. Will I get bad judging decisions at NCT because I've criticized this year's regionals? After seeing this information, I can only expect as much. I know I came about as close to "renouncing" our R4 championship as one can without actually doing it. Anyone who wasn't there just doesn't know how coin-fliptacular the playoffs really were. Meanwhile, this alleged incidence of Mr. Yaphe being a "jerk" seems to indicate some new use of language. Apparently to CBI's defenders, "jerk" means "someone who had a different opinion about a tournament than I did four years ago." If you think that everyone who perceives CBI as illegitimate is a "jerk", than you ought to avoid the "jerks" who comprise the great majority of the QB community. I've bought questions by e-mail from Andrew Yaphe and been crushed by him at a tournament, and I've never experienced any problems with him. I'm really tired of people who act out their own impotence at this game by hurling unfounded insults. Moving on. Someone alleged that CBI was not inertial and resistant to change. This is the TWENTY-FOURTH year of CBI's operation. None of this year's problems, including clueless regional hosts, are new. If they were at all interested in fixing them, they would have done so by now. I will also bet $100 with anyone that CBI will go out of business before it gets rid of the absolutely indefensible variable-value boni. Contrast this with NAQT and ACF. ACF transforms itself often and has publicly solicited comments on its tournaments on multiple occasions just in the brief time I've been watching this board (~2 years). NAQT does the same. I've never seen a request for comment from CBI in an electronic forum, and it seems that the person-to-person discussions never amount to anything. *Of all the problems with CBI which led to the invitiational circuit, ACF, NAQT et al, how many has CBI corrected?* Andy insists on bringing up logically flawed arguments. He says that his team went 3-10 at ACF NCT as if that were conclusive evidence for ACF being unenjoyable or inferior. Guess what? SOMEONE has to do poorly at every tournament--is every tournament no fun for the bottom of the field? Is it impossible to enjoy oneself without winning? Andy also brings up the tired confusion of format and difficulty. There is hard and easy ACF just as there is hard and easy NAQT. The national tournaments for the two organizaions are of comparable difficulty. Judging from the fact that Duke's players seemed to be keeping their heads above water at ICT D1, I find the assertion that they can't answer ACF questions to be extremely puzzling. Meanwhile, CBI's defenders take their usual route, refusing to admit the slightest flaw in past or present while other formats accept and respond to criticism. We've heard some very illogical excuses for arguments so far--from "no one should dislike CBI because it hurts my feelings" to "preferring any one thing over any other thing is elitist." This sort of politically correct nonsense adds nothing to a discussion and only discredits the people who resort to it. --M.W. Who is only going to CBI nationals for the free trip to LA, and will not be returning to CBI play after that
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST