Re: Clemson tournament proposal (something a little different)

clemsonquizbowl <*clemsonquizbowl_at_clemsonquizbowl.yahoo.invalid*> · Tue, 19 Nov 2002 05:51:58 -0000

We're regulars at CBI, and we go to NAQT and ACF occasionally, UTC 
among them, but it's been around 2 years now since our last non-CBI 
competition.  Our union revived the CBI program here 3 years ago, 
found student interest in the other formats, and has been generous to 
give us ample support ever since.  We lost student leadership for a 
year or 2, and the faculty and staff advisors kept CBI on life 
support during that time.  Now we have a pair of 4th year veterans as 
student leaders, and beyond that we're trying to completely rebuild 
the support base from scratch with the help of the union's funding, 
with an eye to being self-sufficient in the long-term.

The "wonky" volunteer scheme has a reason.  We're trying to hold 1 or 
2 intramural tournaments a semester, and even after just 1 of them, 
our volunteer support drops very low for the rest of the semester.  
Without the outside volunteers coming in from 99.999% of the 
participating teams, I'd probably have a very hard time staffing the 
tournament.  We don't need the money.  The tournament's value as a 
recruiting tool for us is worth it.

Our younger players cut their teeth on NAQT in high school, including 
a number of players who haven't dedicated themselves but are 
potential recruits.  Giving them a chance for regional competition on 
a familiar format without dedicating a weekend to travel is a good 
recruiting tool to draw them in.  (And of course, allowing those guys 
to play means less volunteers available.)  Besides, even our veterans 
do poorly on the ACF questions we've stockpiled.

I'm aware of G. Tech's MLK, Sword Bowl, and the likelihood of Moonpie 
Classic, and I plan for us to pick at least one of them to go to in 
addition to the NAQT sectional.  But with my past experience and the 
level of this program, the style to focus on at the moment is NAQT, 
not ACF.  If I push ACF too hard this early, interest will die.  
Growing this program thrives on fun, not hardcore competition, and 
the necessity is to grow right now.  

--- In quizbowl_at_y..., jakea2 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> Geez, I've played here in the Southeast for 3 years now, and I 
didn't 
> even know you guys had a TEAM.  Where do you usually play?  CBI?  
> It's not all ACF, after all, there are plenty of NAQT and ACF-lite 
> tournaments around.  And by "around", I mean "mostly in 
Chattanooga", 
> but not always.  There's an indy tournament at GaTech like the 
second 
> week of January, I think.  But anyway, as for the actual tournament 
> itself.  I agree that the concept is a little wonky.  I tend to 
think 
> you'd be better off charging a fee (or a larger fee) for teams 
> without willing volunteers, plus the usual buzzer discounts and 
> whatnot.  But allowing those volunteers to cycle in and out of 
rounds 
> would get weird pretty quickly.  And as for interest, I can't speak 
> for my team (Emory), but I imagine that if you scheduled it away 
from 
> major conflicts, we'd be game.
> 
> -Jake
> 
> --- In quizbowl_at_y..., "clemsonquizbowl" <clemsonquizbowl_at_y...> 
wrote:
> > From what I've heard here this year, budgets seem to be rather 
> tight 
> > in the Southeast.  Virtually all the tournaments I've seen 
> announced 
> > in our travel range are ACF.  We have a different problem at 
> Clemson: 
> > our budget is ample, but we have a young program with very little 
> > interest in ACF and a lack of volunteers.  So my proposal is 
this: 
> an 
> > NAQT tournament at Clemson in the spring with no entry fee but a 
> > requirement for each team to provide a volunteer for the day.  
(We 
> > would eat the financial cost of hosting.)
> > 
> > To make it more attractive, I'm seriously considering allowing 
> > volunteers to play with their teams when they are not 
volunteering, 
> > and allowing teams to change their volunteer during the day. (I 
> > envisioned it as something along the line of a team brings 5 
> players, 
> > throughout the day they rotate who sits out a round, and whoever 
> sits 
> > out volunteers to help run a match in a different division.)  
> > Obviously, there are ways teams could manipulate this scheme, and 
> the 
> > quality of volunteers would essentially be beyond a TD's control, 
> so 
> > I have my reservations about this.
> > 
> > My questions to the board are:
> > 1.  Has anything like this been tried before?
> > 2.  Can the general quiz bowling population be trusted to submit 
a 
> > reasonable field of volunteers and be honest in not manipulating 
it?
> > 3.  How much interest would you have in actually participating?
> > 
> > Dates under consideration are March and early April.
> > 
> > This is still in the early preliminary stages and doesn't have 
> final 
> > approval here, but it will help to have some feedback from the 
quiz 
> > bowl population before proceeding with a rather unique tournament.
> > 
> > Roger Whitehead
> > Clemson Quiz Bowl co-chairman