Two and half years ago, I floated a very similar idea - a single national organization - by way of e-mail to several folks across the country to get their suggestions. The responses ranged the spectrum of opinion. After some filing cabinet digging, I found the original text I sent out then and it follows this introduction. ***VERY IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER***: This is posted for discussion's sake only. PLEASE don't flame or spit fire at me for anything said in this composition - NOTHING in this is meant to be taken as hard & fast and not open to discussion. I just thought it might be an interesting read considering this thread. Suggestions and comments are strongly encouraged :)... I've been around academic competition for about half my life now :). I started playing in 1988 when i was in 7th grade and played up until last fall [1999] when I was 24. Other interests have taken over. But I am still concerned with the "state of the game". I probably could still play for Tech if I really wanted to, but the state of the game is such that it makes me NOT WANT to play. There are three organizations, each crowning their own champion, much like the alphabet soup of organizations that boxing has become. We've got teams at schools scrounging for money to run their programs. Collegiate academic competition hasn't been on TV for years now and the game has very little respect outside of those who play. We've got grad students hopping from school to school and playing on collegiate teams up into their 40's - the problem is so bad that tournaments now have 2 divisions for undergrad only and teams with grad students, ad nauseum. We've got constant flame wars over formats and personalities that run the 3 organizations, etc. etc. etc. Granted, there may not be a simple solution to all these problems. But I am reminded of a certain political cartoon by Benjamin Franklin showing a dissected serpent representing the 13 North American British colonies with the saying "Join or Die". I propose the creation of a new organization - ONE national governing body of academic competition. I propose that the name be the National Scholastic Comeptition Association or NSCA. At the present time, I think the NSCA should be formed by the union of the three major formats in existence - ACF, CBI, & NAQT. Many think this is impossible and admittedly, the challenge is tremendous. But weighing the benefits of such an idea against the present chaos, I would much rather choose this idea. NSCA would be to academic competition what FIFA is to soccer or what the NCAA is to collegiate sports. It would establish ONE format for the game, produce guidelines for regular season tournaments, and conduct ONE national championship tournament to determine ONE undisputed national champion. ORGANIZATION I think the NSCA should have a Board of Directors with membership being determined on basis of geography and service to, knowledge of, and experience in the game. A board of say, 12-13 members, would do. The Board would be headed by an executive director who could be chosen by the Board for a specified term. People like Robert Hentzel, Carol Guthrie, Albert Whited, Gaius Stern, Daivd Levinson, Eric Hillemann, Dave Frazee, Peter Freeman, Tom Waters, Richard Reid, etc. would be the sort up for consideration - people who have been around the game for a long time and work for the best interests of the game for ALL teams across the country. The Board could also appoint regional directors to help oversee and promote the game in the country's various regions. The Board would modify the rules, select the teams for the annual national tournament, write questions for the national tournament (a "blue ribbon panel" of writers), and simply govern as the "elders of the game". FORMAT I forsee format and question breakdown as being the two main points of controversy in any "grand unification theory". In engineering, a common rule is to keep things as simple as possible and I think that rule fits here. I started playing in the Huntsville, Alabama school system and their original rules were the image of simple and it is on their original rules that my proposed format is based; I'll call them the "Old Huntsville Rules" for conversation's sake, much like the "Queensbury Rules" created to unify all boxing. In any event, I believe the format should be AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE to allow the outcome to be determined BY THE PLAYERS. FIFA keeps the rules of soccer as simple as possible *on purpose* and it is for this very reason (allowing the outcome to be determined by the players) that they do so - I think the NSCA should follow the same example. A match will consist of 2 halves of 10 minutes each or 25 toss-ups, which ever comes first. [Most matches in Huntsville got through 20-21 toss-ups.] All toss-ups will be 10 pts. each and all bonuses worth 30 pts. There will be no recognition rule after buzzing in, unless NSCA decides to institute one for any TV tapings, and you'll have 5 seconds to begin your answer. Time outs could be used. Power toss-up scoring could also be used but personally, I wouldn't like to do that because it just seems to add an element to the game that isn't necessary (thus in a way defeating the purpose of simplified rules :). All ties at the end of regulation are solved by a single, non-bonus toss-up question. I think this format could appeal to everyone, even the diehard ACFers who hate the clock. Personally, I don't like a clock in the game but I think 10 minute halves are satisfactory and should provide enough time to produce good under-pressure play without compromising the number of possible questions a match can go through. I think the rules are sufficiently in the vein of NAQT and CBI to appeal to most schools. THE POINT IS THIS - FOR EVERY OTHER SPORT, THE SCORING AND IN MOST CASES THE PLAYING SURFACE DIMENSIONS AND RULES ARE ***ALL*** THE SAME - ACADEMIC COMPETITION SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT. Question breakdowns shouldn't be too difficult. Again, I looked to the Huntsville example. In Huntsville play, the 25 toss-ups & bonuses came in five categories: history/social studies, mathematics, literature, fine arts, and science. There were five of each category in a round. Using that as an example, a breakdown for the NSCA could go like this: *history/social studies -2 US history -1 European history -2 world history, concentrating on Latin America, Africa, & Asia (after all, most of the world's people live in these areas) *science -1 chemistry -1 biology -1 physics -1 astronomy -1 of any of the above *literature -2 US lit -2 European lit -1 world lit, again, concentrating on Latin America, Africa, & Asia *fine arts -1 painting -1 sculpture -1 architecture -1 music (CLASSICAL ONLY) -1 any of the above or dance *general knowledge -1 anthropology or economics -4 or less questions on current events, general knowledge, etc., with NO MORE THAN 2 being considered "trash"; current events questions must be written so that they're playable 2-3 years from now (it CAN be done); "trash" questions, it might be suggested, should be placed in the first 10-12 questions so that one doesn't decide a match late in the 2nd half NOTE: A specific goal of "multiculturalizing" the current canon of question-writing material should be done. Writers should realize that there is more history & fine arts in the world than in just the U.S. and Europe. This will help bring in historically Black colleges & universities if they so chose to play with "us". Now this is a basic breakdown and can be flexible but it gives the general idea. I would strongly suggest that the questions in the first four categories be strictly academic in nature but no longer than three sentences in length (the lead-in, the cinch clue for good teams, and the giveaway). The general knowledge category would satisfy the CBI types. In this way, you have a round that's 4/5th academic, so that even your diehard, blueblood ACFers could play on it and as long as they played well on 4/5 of the round, they would probably win, while CBIers would go for the inclusion of current events and trash. This should test all facets of knowledge well enough and in correct proportions to determine the better team - which is the ultimate goal. REGULAR SEASON PLAY & MISCELLANEOUS RULES I think that the importance of regionals are overrated. Just because you do well (or not so well) in one specific tournament doesn't necessarily mean that you should be granted or denied a bid at a national tournament. I believe that play during the whole of a regular season should decide who gets bids to a national tournament. Therefore I think the NSCA should not conduct regionals. In there place, the NSCA should designate certain regular season tournaments that (1) are held regularly, and (2) that play on a format that is either straight NSCA or very close to it as "gold star" tournaments. The "gold star" designation would mean that the NSCA Championship Tournament Selection Committee will weigh more heavily teams' performance in those tournaments than in other tournaments when they meet to select the field for the NSCA National Championship Tournament. Several well-established tournaments (e.g.-Maryland's Terrapin, the Berry Southeastern Cup, Michigan MLK, Berkeley's fall tournament, Penn Bowl, etc.) THAT ARE SPACED OUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE WHOLE REGULAR SEASON could be designated "gold star" events. This way, teams have a better shot at earning a bid as they improve over the season as opposed to an all-or-almost-all-or-nothing deal at a regional. This would also serve to increase the importance of school- run tournaments and could lead to more schools choosing to play in regular season events - perhaps putting more money in the form of tournament entry fees into school's coffers. It would also give the smaller/newer schools a better chance to make the "Big Dance" by giving them several chances to show their worth instead of just one. And it would pacify the regions where there are two or more bigger/more established programs in close proximity, as it would give them a chance to make it to the tournament without necessarily having to go through each other. The only real stumbling block could be getting these tournaments to accept the format. But if these school's could be convinced of the overall benefit of standardizing their format of play, I don't think it would be a major issue, at least to try it out for say, one season. Another problem I see (in ACF mostly) is the 40 year old grad student that plays for years by bouncing from school to school and hears every major lead-in to every possible toss-up that can be written and so dominates a match that it makes competition bland, boring, and discouraging to other schools. There must be one set of eligibility rules in place to reign this in. **I think players should get a max of 5 (maybe 6) years eligibility, at which point they can no longer play. I also think one 4 man/woman team can have at most 1 (maybe 2) grad/co-op students.** This would eliminate any need for separate divisions between novices and "the majors". Collegiate ATHLETIC competition doesn't have separate divisions anymore and I don't see why collegiate ACADEMIC competition should either. Any grad students who wish to be involved with the game after their eligibility would be encouraged to do so AS MODERATORS, SCORE OR TIMEKEEPERS, AND AS TOURNAMENT OFFICIALS. Which leads to my next point... I don't like the prescence of "open" or so-called "masters" teams at regular season tournaments. To me, it seems to water down the integrity of real tournaments and discourages smaller/newer schools from playing (I know that if i had to play a team of masters at a regular season tournament - even if it didn't count - it wouldn't do much for my morale or for me wanting to ever play again). Entering "masters" teams in real tournaments is akin to NFL players suiting up an all-star team to play against college teams on Saturdays, even if they don't count in the standings. I think the idea is pretty crazy to be honest :). I would suggest this - those people who would want to play on "masters" teams should help out as moderators, score or timekeepers, and officials for the real tournament AND THEN on the Sunday after the tournament is over they can play amongst themselves (and with real team players) in a totally separate event [maybe they could organize their own "professional" league :)]. This way, tournaments would get quality help to help run their tournaments - the real event - and then the potential masters team players could satisfy their buzzer fix afterwards :). The NSCA could also make suggestions to programs on things to heighten the image of the game. I would suggest the NSCA stongly suggest that teams see about investing in some sort of uniforms to wear when they play. These same schools' athletic teams wouldn't dare go on the field or court without uniforms. It builds team and school pride and comraderie and makes outsiders take notice and they command a certain level of respect (just look at school uniforms for proof of that). I would think the NSCA should also strongly encourage schools to set up a coach/advisor system to run their teams if they can arrange it that way. Having a coach/advisor makes for a better organizational arrangement and cuts down on confusion and politics and gives the appearance of being an actual "team" (last I saw, teams that compete in anything major have coaches :). The NSCA could also serve as an archive of past records and be the official historians of the game - something else quiz bowl is in BAD need of. THE NATIONAL TOURNAMENT Again, simplicity and fairness rule here. I would suggest a field of 48 (or some other number divisible by 4 without having too big a field). All 48 teams in the field WILL BE **AWARDED** BIDS to play in the national tournament. Too many times I think organizations these days put out what amounts to a "cattle call" on the Yahoo quizbowl club page and their organization's web page/e-mail for teams to enter their NCT. I think this is hogwash. THIS IS THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP YOU'RE PLAYING FOR!!! You should have to EARN a bid there based on how you played in the regular season. Issuing a cattle call for teams is no better than getting signatures on a petition - it waters the field down and reduces emphasis on regular season performance. If teams knew they had to EARN a bid to the Big Dance, they would be more likely to try harder to win, which increases the competition, which makes for better matches and a better Game as a whole. This is what the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament is all about - you have to EARN your way into one of the 64 spots and you won't get there because the NCAA asked schools to "come on down" Bob Barker- style. I would convene the Board of Directors, acting as the NSCA Championship Tournament Selection Committee after the last "gold star" tournament and over the course of a weekend (whether in person or over e-mail or private on-line chat or whatever) hammer out a field of 48 teams that deserve to play for the national championship. B teams should be included, but only if they demonstrate exceptional worthiness of being there. I would leave out teams from schools not in the United States - this should be a national tournament for the U.S. (if other nations' champion teams came to play the U.S. champion in an exhibition afterwards, that would be good) I would suggest that the committee break the 48 into 4 pools of 12 teams and seed the teams in each pool. This will help produce 4 pools that are each balanced in strength from top to bottom - this is the reason the NCAA seeds teams 1-16 in the regions in the NCAA Tournament. You then play round-robin in each pool on the first day of the tournament and the top 2 teams in each pool advance to the 8-team championship round on the second day. This championship round could either be round-robin or DOUBLE-elimination bracketed playoffs. I would then award the championship team a "traveling" cup or trophy that will have the school and team members' names engraved on it, much like the Stanley Cup in hockey. One national tournament determining one national champion would be a boon for the game. One could easily envision TV tapings of the final rounds of the national tournament for broadcast (the recent popularity in TV quiz shows testifies to the fact that there is a sizeable portion of the public that would watch something like televised quiz bowl, especially if something that represents something they were once a part of - like colleges & universities - are participating); the 20 minute game format of the "Old Huntsville Rules" would fit television perfectly, since 30 minute TV programs are actually 22 minutes long without commercials. The national champion team could make guest appearances on late night talk shows (like CBI did for their national champions one year in the 1980s on Johnny Carson) and could even possibly make a White House visit - just as athletic national champions do. And most of all, school alumni - many with lots of money :) - will (and presently do) beam with pride at speaking engagements, social events, etc., that their alma mater are the "reigning national quiz bowl champions". It would heighten the profile of the game and give it the dignity and respect it deserves. A single national tournament would be the crown jewel of the NSCA and would benefit the game beyond anything we can conceive now. In closing, those in the game need to start respecting what they do more, else those on the outside will never respect what they do. By getting our act together and organizing and putting dignity in the game, we command the respect - and sometimes dollars - of those on the outside and we make the game a "big deal" like it is and should be. Academic competition should be the showpiece of colleges & universities because it shows off the top examples of what higher education is supposed to do in the first place - produce scholars of incredible mental power; schools shouldnt really be known for the basketball or football players they produce - they should be known for the top-level **minds** they produce. Quiz bowl is a prime way to do that. But schools aren't going to it this way or want to negotiate or work with teams when those sometimes struggling programs don't have a national governing body to point to for collective strength. The prescence of an NSCA - and ONLY a body like it - lends automatic credibility to what we do and it gives school administrators one voice to deal with in matters pertaining to quiz bowl. This is why NAQT, CBI, and ACF need to unify. There is a LOT more to be gained in standing together than in fighting amongst ourselves over format and question breakdowns.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST