Disclaimer: My team was one of the #4 seeds, which upset Michigan A. However, the fact that we beat Virginia in the second round, and lost by ten in the semifinals to Cornell (Damn that Celine Dion) suggest that the victory, while certainly an upset, was no fluke. I take issue with the idea that because the favorites lose, a system is automatically bogus. That seems to be the main gripe: we lost and we shouldn't have, so there must be something wrong with the system. Rules, question distributions, playoff schemes, and the like seem to be designed with the idea that certain teams must win. Any packet which technically fulfills a distribution, but in anyway deviates from preconcieved notions of what a round should feel like is automatically dismissed as bad. I also think that randomness is not necessarily bad. Now, I'm not talking about CBCI-esque random knowledge questions, but the packet-to-packet variation is always going to be there. Regarding lack of exposure, given the field size and the quality of bottom teams, I just don't see how you can adjust the number of good teams you see. Sure, you could go to power-matching or Swiss pairs or whatever, but that only allows the good teams to see more good teams. The middlin' decent teams won't be guaranteed a chance to test themselves against the best and the bottom teams won't see what they have to aspire for. Finally, regarding boredom, isn't that just an incentive to do better next year? It sucks to lose. If you don't want to stand around, get tossups, convert bonuses, and win games.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST