Again, strictly opinion, but I do agree with Subash. Just because something is labelled as "ACF" or ACF-ish does not give one license to write the world's hardest questions (try to save that for Masters tournaments where people can tar and feather you for some of the obscure questions you want to write :) ). In principle, as much as I do understand, ACF was founded to provide questions that have more basis and relevance to the college curriculum than College Bowl was providing at the time. The idea (from my own perspective) is to create a tournament in which questions that really related to the college curriculum or the level of knowledge undergraduates and graduate students should know, rather than the "have you read all the Time magazines" current events/popular culture/"common denominator" questions that College Bowl had been writing (and for many, I know my description is being nice). Sure there were other issues, such as allowing more graduate students the opportunity to play, the difference of opinion on timed rounds, and dislike for variable-point bonuses (although those did exist at ACF for a time). But overall, the questions would be pyramidally structured and academically relevant. (Anyone else from the old days, please comment if anything I wrote here is not entirely accurate.) That being said, from the editorial side, yes, there is only so much we can do with extremely hard questions, much less with an entire packet of obscure items. As with all q-sub tourneys (like Penn Bowl and the ACF tournaments), the questions you submit will determine how good the tournament is. It is neither the desire nor the goal of any TD to have games in which only 100 points or fewer were scored by BOTH teams (on average).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST