I think that, for the most part, age and
experience are both factors in how good a player someone is.
True there is a certain amount of talent, dare I say,
athleticism in quiz bowl. Young players with talent can often
be as good or better than older players with less
talent, but this is often only because the older players
don't put in as much work as they should. I think if
you asked around you would find that the truly
talented young players have put in quite a bit of work at
some point previous to their appearing as a seemingly
miraculously gifted young player. There are, of course,
exceptions to every example, but I offer as evidence the
fact that the only team that really destroyed me, a
freshman, at ACF Fall at UTC was Kentucky A, whose players
were a Senior and a Ph.D candidate.
Note: the
above may not be at all coherent, but there it is.