"They have plenty of data to mine from their tournament. Mr. O'Neal's example is flawed in the extreme as he provides no data set from which to draw any conclusions or do any real analysis within any acceptable level of confidence." That would be DOCTOR O'Neal to you, pal. And what was wrong with my example? It illustrates that turnarounds between two games involving the same teams at the same tournament can and do happen. So I didn't feel like doing a Kolmogorov-Smirnoff analysis while taking a break from the job I get paid to do. I ain't exactly planning to submit these posts to the Astrophysical Journal. "Interestingly, no one else has mentioned that the ETC round clearly failed to meet tournament guidelines. Ultimately, this is because our observers want to see an upset so badly that they don't much care how it happens. Next year, we can ensure the requisite quota of upsets by breaking buzzer fingers. That way those bottom bracket teams can learn to aspire to be 2nd or 3rd. They can be good enough to make and stay in the playoffs, but not so good as to be Player-Hated out of them." Wow, you are REALLY bitter and unappreciative of the hard work put in by others in the quiz bowl community -- in this case, completely without personal recompense. Try being a little bit less of an ass, will you? If you don't want to attend Penn Bowl, then don't, and make all the noise you want about how awful it was. Nonetheless I predict that next year they'll have another full, strong, and geographically diverse field. Doug
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST