Re: DII Eligibility - A Point About Missing the Boat

• From: valenciaqbowl <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:10:13 -0000
• Message-ID: <c0dgkl+i689_at_...>

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, caz801 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> Phil Castagna


Your analysis of my logical error is accurate, Phil.  But I 
definitely wasn't trying to imply that "the goal" of having UCLA in 
(or whomever) was to increase studying (that would, indeed, be a poor 
argument) or to suggest that the rules have no bearing.  I was simply 
being pragmatic.  It seems that UCLA is going to play DII regardless 
of any moaning about fairness on this board, and it's certainly 
NAQT's right to include them, even if in this case it contradicts 
their normal rules/procedures.  They have admitted making a mistake, 
but it would not be right to renege on their promise to UCLA.  Those 
who are sufficiently outraged by this situation certainly don't have 
to play in the ICT.

This all being so, I am not one for moaning.  If they're playing, we 
must attempt to whup them, so I'm having my folks hunker down and 
bone up.  And bone we shall!
--chris