I'm not going to deal with the packet issue. That's irrelevant and is only asking for trouble. First, let me make it clear: I LIKE ACF. I want what's best for ACF. I only made these comments because ACF, as it is right now, is a very informal organization *to say the least.* If it wants the year-in, year-out credibility that NAQT has, it needs to be a little more formal. Perhaps it is the political scientist in me, but the governments that have the little formalities of process tend to engender a lot more credibility toward who they govern than the ones that don't. Re-read my post. I said specifically that neither you nor Andrew nor Hamilton did anything to rig the process. Perhaps there was confusion over the word "obviously," I don't know. I have seen enough of you guys in action to know you simply would not conceive of anything illegitimate. I *did* say that if someone wanted to level that charge, they could - and that's the problem with ACF. The rationale for breaking the circle of death changed somewhere between the last round and the awards ceremony. Michigan B walked into the room thinking they were playing in the final (I remember telling them, good luck, and how we'd hope to see them again at NAQT.) Maybe we were all mistaken. It was all rather chaotic - another problem. But *someone* did announce that point differential between the three teams was the standard that was going to be used, and from there Michigan B was to claim its place in the final. I think the fact that UVA ultimately benefited from the ultimate decision should show that I have a little integrity on this issue of criticizing how that decision was reached. Sure, now, looking back, stats can point to this or that. But *at the time* it was announced that Michigan A and Michigan B were playing in the finals. When there are no clear ground rules ahead of time, when decisions are made *seemingly* on the fly, someone very easily could cry "conflict of interest!" Does that mean I am impugning anyone? No. I am not even saying someone could "logically" draw out there was a conflict of interest. But with a completely opaque process, there's no information reaching we players, and these charges COULD BE MADE. We thought we got a raw deal, then Michigan B did. QBers loves to grumble and what happened made it easier. Maryland can claim that the NAQT tourney selection process screwed them. But NAQT at least has rules, before the fact, establishing a formula as to who makes it and who doesn't. NAQT can thus point to that and have a ready made defense. Thus, even if what NAQT did was horrible (and I kinda thought Maryland got screwed), they have at least something to fall back on. In sum, ACF has the feel of being an ad hoc committee, and that's dangerous. Some other controversy down the road could make ACF look bad if someone isn't careful. I like ACF. I think it's great competition. I thought the questions were well-balanced and well-written. So: Again, I like ACF. I don't think anyone in charge is capable of anything devious. I do think however that if people aren't careful, a bad decision favoring a certain team somewhere along the line could really hurt ACF's credibility. And that ain't good. I didn't mean to come off as brusque or imply any impropriety. My concerns for ACF are heart felt and I believe in it's best interests.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST