Michael Davies wrote: <<What's a VVB?>> >From the alt.college.college-bowl FAQ: << (16b) What are "VVB's"? (after Matt Colvin) "VVB" is an abbreviation for variable value bonuses. In other words, if a tournament uses bonuses with mixed values, the tourney uses VVB, whereas if the tourney uses fixed bonus values for each packet the tourney does not use VVB. VVB is an issue because several posters have questioned the fairness of rewarding teams that answer tossups with randomly-determined bonus point opportunities. Opponents of VVB feel that the only fair thing to do is equalize bonus values, so that bonus opportunities depend on how many tossups a team answer, not also on *when* the team answers. At least as many people have posted to say that VVB are not inherently unfair. In the end, it comes down to a question of how much randomness is acceptable in a game. Also, related to the debate are questions of how difficult lower-value bonuses should be relative to higher-value bonuses. For example, if the bonus conversion rate on 20-point bonuses is very high relative to 25- and/or 30-point bonuses, teams may not necessarily be at a disadvantage by getting a disproportionate number of 20-point opportunities. ******************************************************************** (16c) What are "CUR's"? (after Matt Colvin) CUR is the colorful acronym for "Colvin Unfair Result". The term was coined by Gary Greenbaum of the GWU as a name for a situation posited in debate by Vishnu Jejjala and Matt Colvin of Maryland. The name has stuck. Matt Colvin originally defined a CUR as a game in which: 1. Team A scores as many or more tossup points (tossups times 10 minus interrupts times five) than Team B. 2. Team A converts a higher percentage of its available bonus points than Team B. 3. Team A loses the match. (At first, it was believed that a CUR could only occur in matches using VVB's. However, it has been demonstrated by Colin Russell that the above definition can produce a CUR even if bonus values are held constant. Colin and Matt have both submitted alternate definitions.) Opponents of VVB's consider such a result unfair because they feel each tossup should carry the same point opportunities, and should not be affected by randomness in bonus value distributions. On the other side, it's argued that the result is not "unfair" because a loss cannot be solely attributed to any one factor. Although many, including the editor, scoffed at first that a CUR was a philosophical construct that could never happen in reality, in the 1995 CB NCT there were two documented CUR's by the above definition. >> Edmund
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:44 AM EST EST