I applaud you for daring to think out the box. However, I think your theory is a bit flawed. Bonus randomness occurs for several reasons. One is that randomness is inherent if you have a diverse distribution. If you average 15 points per bonus, you will zero some and thirty others, not get 15 on every single bonus. If you average 10 ppg you will zero more bonuses and thirty less, if you average 20, then vice versa. Packet distributions exist as a weighted sample of all knowledge. If you understand basic statistics, you should have an idea of the randomness you can expect in packets. (And this would be why many teams these days seem strongly opposed to single elimination playoff formats.) Second, people disagree on what is difficult. That does not mean it is subjective. Objective evidence can be found by perusing scoresheets after the fact. Even when people set forth ideas and even numbers on what a novice, average, and top team should average on bonuses, question writers have different notions of what those levels of teams actually know. And when not stated, there are often different beliefs on what those numbers should be. Third, another way to mitigate bonus disparity is to increase the number of tossups rather than decrease bonus value. If you ared ecreasing bonuses point values, and therefore bonus length likely as well, you would ideally free up more time per round. I suggest a decrease in bonus point value be accompanied by using more tossups. If you accept the rough description of a distribution as a weighted sample of all knowledge, you can see how more tossups per round would decrease random effects. I acknowledge your desire to give greater reward to speed. However, note that the general trend in quizbowl has been to decrease the reward to speed and increase the emphasis on depth of knowledge which some people feel is best tested by the current bonus style. Finally, note that, while you may not have received any packets, that does not mean teams have not started writing them. Samer's suggestion of changing the tossup value might be more workable. In closing, I'd like to note that there is no particular logical reason why tossups are worth ten, negs minus-five, and bonuses a maximum of thirty. It's just that College Bowl did it that way and people adopted the most familiar form. I sometimes suspect the 30 point bonus was as much because people liked writing 30-20-10s as because 30 was the max in the old variable value bonus. Anthony, using his social science training for something
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:46 AM EST EST