Re: ICT qualifications

R. Robert Hentzel <topquark_at_rhentzel.yahoo.invalid> <*topquark_at_rhentzel.yahoo.invalid*> · Thu, 06 Feb 2003 02:15:33 -0000

> Anyway.  I've always found that the best analogy for quizbowl is 
golf.
>  Our example here comes from Jackson State, an NCAA men's team that
> destroyed its competition a few years ago - but still didn't qualify
> for the nationals because of its poor Strength of Schedule.  JSU was
> restricted in who it could play (you didn't want to lose to a school
> no one had heard of), and had to play the SWAC championship rather
> than the SEC one (unlike men's basketball, golf conference winners
> didn't get automatic berths).  JSU was heavily restricted based on 
who
> it could schedule, and got hammered as a result.  JSU had the rules
> tilted against them from the start.

I don't mean to deny that it's possible for organizations to arrange 
their schemes so that such things happen, only to say that NAQT's 
system, to the best of our determination, is *not* set up that way.  
If a Division I team destroys its (Division II) competition at Texas 
A&M, it would be amazing unlikely for them to not receive an 
invitation.

> QB programs are in a similar bind.  A program at the University of
> Houston can't just say "screw this, I'm going to Chicago".  In many
> cases, lack of funds restricts who can go where.  Actually, this 
one's

Under the previous system, a good, but not great, team with more 
money could choose to fly to a weak sectional, stomp the local 
competition, and walk off with the automatic bid.  By eliminating 
that motivation, the principal geographic anomaly is resolved, and 
the team has no incentive to try to game the system through its 
choice of sectional.

> worse - a program can win Penn Bowl and ACF and go undefeated in its
> region and STILL NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT!  Even CBI doesn't do that
> badly.  Is Major Major running NAQT's qualification schema?

You seem to be arguing that qualification for the ICT should depend 
on an entire season's worth of play, regardless of the fact that 
formats, distributions, difficulty, and team composition will vary 
dramatically across those events.

I think that's a defensible proposition, but one that would involve a 
great deal more statistical study to ensure that all the variables 
were properly being accounted for.  I think it's unlikely that NAQT 
would adopt such a system because of the inherent difficulties in 
gathering and analyzing the data, but it might be interesting to 
discuss how it might theoretically work.

> NAQT continually preaches expanding the field.  By setting up
> qualification restrictions that are one-day dependent and fluid
> (giving that you're competing on the curve), they are setting
> themselves to alienate constituencies in numerous parts of the
> country.  This would be particularly amusing if a team that everyone
> thought "came from a poor region" went to Nationals and waxed the
> floor with people (particularly if the stats were off due to poor
> moderators or other mitigating factors).

NAQT wouldn't find that amusing; we set up our formula as best we 
could to compare teams that compete under different conditions 
against different teams at different Sectionals.  We look forward to 
seeing new teams emerge and want to do the best possible job of 
inviting the top teams in the country to the ICT.

I don't understand how this policy alienates constituencies on a 
geographical basis--could you explain that further?  Our goal is 
certainly the direct opposite:  To make only a team's performance, 
and not its location, relevant to determining whether it receives an 
invitation.  In what way do you disagree with this goal?  In what way 
do you think that the policy does not advance it?

> Admit you're wrong and give one berth to the winner.  I think that,
> despite losing those two or three additional wild card berths,
> Michigan B might just barely sneak in.

I don't follow the argument here; what is it that you would like NAQT 
to admit that it is wrong about?

The majority of our feedback on the qualification process last year 
indicated that teams disapproved of the way in which (ostensibly) 
weaker teams earned automatic invitations through attending small or 
weak sectionals.  We sought to minimize that this year by requiring a 
minimum size before an automatic invitation was available.

-- R. Robert Hentzel
President and Chief Technical Officer,
National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC