Re: 2003 NAQT ICT to be held in Los Angeles

cooterchekov <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Sat, 12 Oct 2002 07:09:49 -0000

I'm detecting a disconnect in the logic here. Specifically, I'm 
having a hard time figuring how to go from 4 times about $200 in 
airfare, plus car rentals, multiplied over 75% of the circuit, comes 
out as a sufficiently small number that none of us Yanks have a 
motivation to complain.

Now, in principle I have no objection to a trial national on the 
West Coast. We can see what happens, and learn from it. If the 
tournament were at Hawai'i-Manoa or the Sorbonne, I would have more 
of an objection. BUT, it still represents a deviation from what's 
proven to work, and therefore we all, as good little empiricists, 
are right to speak up with whatever potential problems we see.

Furthermore, I feel I'm detecting a notion on the side of those 
favoring the California ICT that money for quiz bowl materializes at 
the snap of a finger. GW is an exception in this instance -- we host 
enough that, if we're careful about our expenses and lucky with 
revenue, we can afford to fly to one thing this year. However, 
whoever it was that said that some other teams would be able to 
afford to fly to ICT "just" by hosting a tournament needs a sharp be-
whacking with a stout oak Clue Baton. 

The east coast circuit bustles with life; the upshot of this is 
that, come Spring, a team has a tournament it could potentially go 
to every weekend. The downside of this, though, is that if a team 
wants to create a tournament, space is extremely limited, and even 
if a tournament were squeezed in it would have to compete with 
established events. I can't meaningfully speak to the state of 
affairs in the Midwest, but as far as out here goes, the idea of 
creating a tournament is at best marginal.

So let's do a little math: A team from around here can, all told, 
expect to spend $1000 or more on their ICT experience assuming a 
single team, and play at most 13 or 14 unique opponents. For that 
same money, the same team could send twice as many teams to twice as 
many tournaments and, depending on how divisions (D1 vs. D2) and 
informal regions stack up, play from two to four times as many 
opponents. Assume that about the top third of an average field 
is "ICT quality" (off-the-cuff guess based on experience and last 
year's invitations -- less than half, more than a quarter). If this 
is true, then in terms of quality games played, the only 
distinctions between going to ICT and not going to ICT are: 1. being 
in California and 2. the "NAQT Mystique". However, it is important 
to bear in mind: games against teams that don't qualify for the ICT 
are *not valueless*.

Now, something else, which demands calling attention to but which, 
in this hubbub, has slipped under the radar is NAQT's other 
announcement: that their HSNCT will be in Myrtle Beach, South 
Carolina, in a location not affiliated with any QB team. This 
represents an entirely new direction; one of my teammates referred 
to it as "Chip-ish". That comparison aside, there are valid 
questions to be raised, especially questions like "how did Myrtle 
Beach's bid stack up against other bids" and "Why break away from 
college-based HS tournaments"? I grant that the location of a high 
school tournament isn't something that affects us directly, but the 
long-term impact of a separation between a "by college players" QB 
organization and the colleges that support them can, in my opinion, 
be nothing but negative. It's a decision that, especially if it 
wants to become a trend, needs to be justified from its hat to its 
garters, not just in itself, but to the community as a whole.

Edmund

--- In quizbowl_at_y..., jeremycec <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> A quick glance at air fares on Travelocity reveals...
> NYC to LAX: $178
> Baltimore/DC to LAX: $198
> Chicago to LAX: $138
> Tampa to LAX: $188
> Boston to LAX: $180 (flying out of MHT)
> London to LAX: $392
> So, the UK teams are the only ones that should be bitching.
> 