ACF tie-break from this weekend

Matt Keller <*mkeller99_at_mkvandy03.yahoo.invalid*> · Mon, 21 Apr 2003 19:00:39 -0000

I was going to let this die because I frankly didn't care that much 
at the time, but after looking at the results, does anyone else think 
it quite odd that we (Vanderbilt) had to play a shootout against 
Harvard to settle our tie-breaker, whereas all others were resolved 
via head to head record?  We beat Harvard 170-125 during round robin 
play (we beat Mich. B as well, so even though they left, we 
theoretically would've had the edge over them too).  It's quite clear 
that they had a fairly big edge in total points over us, but I'm 
wondering how one clearly defined tie-break procedure was not used 
for all cases.  Here's basically what happened: Vic(?) from Harvard 
came up to me after the round robin and told me of the standings 
conundrum, and said that apparently Roger and Saurabh were 
disagreeing about which one of us should win the tie-breaker, so we 
should try to come to an agreement about what to do so they wouldn't 
have to deliberate.  After stating my opinion that we should use head 
to head since that is generally the preferred method, I saw that the 
discussion was going nowhere, so we agreed to Harvard's suggestion of 
a play-in game, which wound up being a 20-question shootout to settle 
it, basically b/c I didn't want to be an ass about it, and was too 
tired to argue any more.  I never actually heard Roger's point of 
view b/c Harvard was pressing us to make a quick decision, of which 
they informed him quite quickly.

It's not so much that I'm bitter about the results and the lowering 
of our standing, b/c we sucked in the playoffs anyway (in response to 
Adam, we did go 1-3...with all 3 losses by 20 pts or less, probably 
b/c Robert was half asleep, and it's never a good sign when I 
outscore him twice in four games).  So what this post really comes 
down to is why there was no clearly defined precedent for tie-break 
procedures to be followed in all cases, and why didn't we have more 
input instead of essentially having Harvard tell us what was going 
on? 

On another note, I only feel qualified to comment on science and fine 
arts questions, which I thought were pretty good for the most part.  
Some of the bonuses were ridiculously tough, especially the physics, 
but I guess that's harder to judge for most people.  Anyway, thanks 
to all for a mostly enjoyable experience.

Matt Keller
co-Pres, VU Quiz Bowl