Reply to SDH

• From: Durham_Devil
• Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:48:05 -0700
• Message-ID: <000TDC545.000F762FB.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

Shaun, I'll give you credit for this much:
perhaps Maryland deserved to be there more than the team
we sent. Perhaps. (I base this on the fact that,
while we were near the bottom in rank and in bonus
conversion, we were almost exactly the median in just about
every tossup category. This may explain the difference
between our Penn Bowl performance and our ICT performance
-- tougher bon[uses/i/era].)

At the same
time, though, you have to realize that there is a
difference between "stereotype" and "reputation". Whether it
is through your doing or not, the University of
Maryland has a reputation for arrogance that may or may
not have been well-earned in 1996. Similarly, I have
a reputation as a hot-headed irrational person
which has stemmed from freshman year.

Now, the
"me" of today and the "me" of then are different
(mostly), as are the UMCP of 2001 and the UMCP of 1996.
Nevertheless, I am assured by others that my name on a post
opens it to criticism, just as the name "MAQT" or the
name of one of its members does the same.

So,
when Matt was commenting on UMCP, he was commenting on
its reputation. I know this reputation to be unfair
(I have met you in person several times over the
years, and you have never seemed anything but open,
fair, and kind to me -- a shock, considering what
everyone assumes about Duke-Maryland relations). This does
not prevent it from existing.

I did make a
claim that the Duke SCT team was slightly more
deserving than the Maryland one, and I did back it up. The
claim was still dubious, but evidence existed. I can
appreciate this evidence you have presented, though I will
argue that the Southeast is stronger than you give
credit for -- While they may have only had one of the
top ten, they did have three of the next four, not to
mention the Undergraduate #2. As for the Midwest
"winning" -- well, it's not like the results were a
surprise to anyone (except maybe Illinois ahead of
Virginia, but one spot is one game), so what did they win?
They performed as expected.

The big winner, I
would argue, is Oxford, who was still alive entering
ladder play. (On a side note, you should have seen me as
I was watching the names being called --
apparently, my facial expressions made for quite the comic
relief.) Based on this, I would consider that Britain's
second team would have done equally well or close to it,
and that if at all possible, when a British team
drops, a second British team should replace
it.

Hopefully, this is more constructive than destructive to the
debate of ICT bids.

Andy P. Goss
Duke
University (28th :p)