A few comments. I was hoping this silly thread was finally coming to an end. We've learned that some teams near the lower half of an ACF field would like to have a separated Div II, and that there doesn't seem to be any strong objection to this if the field allows (i.e. if there are more than 2-4 Div II teams). Other than that, it seems to be just mild flames. Regarding Roger's post perhaps 100 messages back, the wording was too harsh, but ... well, big deal. When I first read it, I also thought Stan was complaining that his team lost by large margins because the questions were too easy, just as he's objected before to SLO questions he felt were too hard. Looked pretty silly when I first read it. Later posts by Stan (and perhaps other parts of the same post) clarified that his main objection (I think) regarded the lack of a separated Div II. Roger's comment was a bit harsh, and besides that, I'm sure I said more "retarded" things around Roger back in what I suppose might be called "the day." However, Roger Bhan is NOT the spokesman of ACF! (I too use only the shift key.) Nor is Kelly, Zeke, Hamilton, or anyone else, as far as I know. Do not take comments from any of these people as statements which represent the views of some monolithic organization called ACF. {{Roger, of course, has sarcastically emphasized this point while I was typing this message.}} There doesn't seem to be any other specific basis of recent list criticisms regarding ACF. Stephen Ohm eventually made a couple of good points about what ACF "should" be doing to attract young teams, but as Charlie Steinhice mentioned, those are things which are already being done -- deep discounts for newer teams, Div II, Div II individual recognition, more accessible questions, etc. The mere existence of an easier fall tournament is a good example of that. That really seems to be about it. Nate Meyvis made what I thought was a very good comment, that little of this criticism would have been offered if the letters ACF weren't attached to the tournament. This year, the so-called "ACF reputation" seems to be mostly that, existing only out of inertia. The fall questions were well-written and highly accessible, and I expect good sets at both regionals and nationals. ... Not unlike the rest of this discussion, I've run out of worthwhile things to say, so I'll shut up now. Bye. --Raj Dhuwalia P.S. One other note -- whoever wrote that question on the Great Gastby for ACF Fall, that was excellent -- good example of finding a new intro for a familiar topic.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST