I just figured I would chip in with my own thoughts on ACF. This is essentially only my second year of competition *ever* (I played at CBI regionals my junior year of college also), and this was my first year of ACF play. ACF isn't too hard. In fact, it could be harder. (I wrote the Anthony Hecht question. A good question!) Subash and Andrew raise good points about the national tournament being a lot less fearsome than some might make it out to be. I can only think of a couple of questions that I said "Huh"? on. Unfortunately, they were in the final, against Michigan. :-) ACF isn't too hard. With that said, however, I can see quite easily how the charges of elitism can be raised - and can stick. The people in charge are former circuit players... damn good circuit players. At ACF nationals this year, the feeling was that this was the Michigan A coronation - more than a couple of quizbowl luminaries would drop in to observe their matches. I have to say, as a player, that's an immense turn-off, to fly all that way, and get the sense that no one could seriously give a crap about the game between UVA and Kentucky, when those two schools are two of the top schools at ACF. Michigan A's entitled to strut. They kicked our asses twice, and by no means do I seek to disparage them. But Michigan A strutting isn't the point. ACF nationals felt like the baton was being passed, so it was little surprise that Zeke would be editing next year's regionals. So, yeah, it did feel like a little clique. Is it just me bitching? Well, no. The problem with that feeling is that, late in the tourney, when the whole nasty circle of death came up, that sense of "clique" shouted "conflict of interest." You could make a very good argument that, Michigan B, having beaten Michigan A, somehow got lost in the process. The thinking behind how to resolve the circle was not clear - it seemed at first that Michigan B was in good shape. Then Michigan A. No, I'm not saying it was somehow rigged. Subash, Andrew, and Dave would never do that, *obviously*. But someone wanting to grumble could pull that out against ACF. That's not a good thing for ACF's credibility. If ACF wants to have more credibility against the charges of elitism, it needs to be more polished, letting a little more sunshine in. Who exactly makes the decisions? Announce it, like Hentzel does at the start of NAQT. It needs clear rules before the tourney to resolve situations before someone grumbles "conflict of interest." A coat and tie or two wouldn't hurt, just ask NAQT. ACF is great fun. The questions this year were terrific. But if ACF is not careful, it's going to come off as a very insular affair - in essence, the best players in quizbowl taking turns writing questions for the other great players. Flame away. Steve Perry Team Loudmouth The Virginia Monologues
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST