DII Eligibility - A Point About Missing the Boat

caz801 <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:33:42 -0000

I find some of the reasoning of these arguments flawed.

I don't have the post in front of me, but I believe Mr. Hentzel said 
something to the ilk of NAQT not believing UCLA's players to be 
strong, and just wanting a team to fill out a bracket and avoid byes. 
If NAQT knew that Mr. Meigs and Mr. Sherman were relatively strong 
players, they would have not let them play and permitted the bye?  
That position is untenable. Why not just let the bye happen if only 
weaker players were wanted?

On a side note, I find it hard to believe that the NAQT personnel 
present, some of whom I know personally and tend to follow the 
circuit (and this board) very closely, would not know that these 
particular players were very good players.

Also, the DII eligibility rules have nothing to do with relative 
strength of a player.  Relatively weaker players could "ride the 
coattails" of stronger players and lose their Division II eligibility 
anyway.  Any debate over the strength of the players allowed to 
circumvent the rules is not germane to this discussion.

I admire Mr. Hentzel's forthrightness and contrition in saying 
something was a bad decision and will not be done again, but that is 
not enough, given the standards that other organizations are fairly 
or unfairly held up to in this forum.  NAQT understands that a large 
segment of their target market takes the game of quizbowl very 
seriously, and ad hoc alterations of the rules is something that 
should be avoided at all costs.  

Mr. Borglum's argument that teams now have an incentive to study is 
misplaced. By his reasoning, the rules have no bearing, so why not 
have an all-time all star team compete in DII, if the goal is to 
increase studying. The fact that UCLA appears to be a very strong 
team should not enter into the argument.  If two players from a 
weaker program's C team had competed, they would equally be 
ineligible, although I am fairly certain no uproar would be seen on 
this board.

The argument is with NAQT's alterations of the rules of eligibility. 
I understand NAQT was put in a bit of a situation where a team was 
needed to fill out a bracket, but that is still no excuse to allow 
ANY player to play DII more than once at the ICT, regardless of that 
player's relative strength. I do admire NAQT for their contributions 
to the game and their commitment to inclusiveness and high standards 
of play, but alterations of fundamental rules cuts at the very heart 
of what organizations and structure are meant to accomplish.

Phil Castagna