Re: ICT qualifications -- A Solution?

bucktowntiger <jdh22_at_bucktowntiger.yahoo.invalid> <*jdh22_at_bucktowntiger.yahoo.invalid*> · Thu, 06 Feb 2003 01:54:04 -0000

> 
> Perhaps I can offer an alternative.  If there are fewer than four 
> teams in any division, there will be no divisional play.  The 
> putative champion of the division with a quorum qualifies as under 
> current rules.  But, why not offer an automatic bid to the overall  
> tournament winner, regardless of division?  If the winner comes 
from 
> the larger division, no problem, as they would qualify anyway. 
> However, this would give the few teams from the smaller division an 
> opportunity to claim a bid outright.
> 
> This should satisfy everyone, and if it doesn't, I'd certainly love 
> to know why.  Shouldn't every eligible team attending SCT this 
> weekend have a shot at securing a bid by the end of the tournament?
> 

Hmmm... Okay, sure, let's make sure that *every* region is 
represented equally.  Let's ensure that every team at a sectional has 
a chance to win a bid to ICT at their sectional tournament.  Hmmm...  
My throat's probably gonna get pounced upon for this one, but yeah, I 
agree... Let's do it CBI-style.  That way, a region with five teams 
(i.e. ACUI Region 3) has just as "fair" a shot at nationals as a 
region with twenty-one teams (i.e. ACUI Region 12).  Sound familiar?  
So the problem of geographic isolation is reversed in this case, and 
the Southwest, again, is slighted, though surely not intentionally.  

Ok, let's do it ACF style then:  anyone who wants to come can come, 
pending two requirements:  playing at regionals and writing a packet 
for nationals.  Theoretically, I could enroll my cousin at East 
Arkansas Community College, get him to write two packets, and he 
could play in nationals without regard for skill.  Surely, he'll get 
thumped, but so?

For you sports buffs:  can a 10-1 Toledo beat a 6-5 Arkansas in 
football?  The Las Vegas Bowl didn't think so.  A better example:  
Can the Miami Hurricanes beat the Cincinnati Bengals?  An even better 
example:  Should Western Kentucky have been allowed to play Ohio 
State for the national championship?  After all, they did win the I-
AA title.

At least NAQT does attempt to get the best teams in the nation 
regardless of region.  If Arizona gets left out because they're not 
as good as the loser of Berkeley A vs. Stanford A, then so what?  The 
best teams qualify.

However, I do think that the formula should have a strong weight on 
wins (2 points for D1 win, 1 point for D2 win) or something like 
that.  This ensures that winning games still *means* something.  
After all, the object of a quizbowl game is not to answer 75% of 
tossups and get 20 on every bonus.  The object of a game is to have 
more points than your opponent when time runs out or 28 tossups are 
read.

If winning the game loses its meaning, then quizbowl will become a 
track meet, with the winner of the Missouri Valley Conference 100-
Meter Dash being left out in favor of the 8th-place finisher from the 
SEC.  "Who cares if I win the meet?  I just wanna run a 10.2."  
Analogous:  "Who cares if I win the tournament?  I just wanna score 
250 per 21 tossups heard."

Thanks for reading.  Discussion is welcomed.

--Joshua Hill (not speaking on behalf of Siberian tigers, only 
speaking as one would)