Difference between revisions of "2003 ICT"
Matt Weiner (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II. | Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by [[Berkeley]], whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by [[Subash Maddipoti]] for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player [[Jerry Vinokurov]] in Division II. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{Browse box|Tournament = 2003 [[ICT|NAQT ICT]] | ||
| + | |previous = [[2002 ICT]] | ||
| + | |next = [[2004 ICT]] | ||
| + | | }} | ||
[[Category: National championships]] | [[Category: National championships]] | ||
Revision as of 20:47, 11 December 2016
Subash really destroyed everyone.
This tournament was noted for using a bizarre team ranking format involving power matching, fractional wins, and a ranking formula that was not dependent on win-loss record. This procedure produced, among other results, a Maryland team which lost 4 games, all to teams out of championship contention, and never faced any of the other top 5 teams being ranked third, one spot ahead of a Michigan team which lost 3 games, all to the top 2 teams in the tournament. As a result of the backlash to this particular feat of mathturbation, the straightforward 4x8 + crossover ICT format was implemented in 2004 and remains essentially unchanged to this day.
Somewhat lost in the shuffle of Chicago's dominant win at this tournament was the amazing depth displayed by Berkeley, whose four teams finished 2nd, 8th, and 12th in Division I (albeit under the strange ranking system) and won Division II. This was the first of three consecutive ICTs to attract major controversy over the Division II results, as Berkeley was castigated by Subash Maddipoti for playing junior and experienced quizbowl player Jerry Vinokurov in Division II.
| ||
| | ||