Re: NAQT Div. II bids

quizbowllee <*charolee_at_quizbowllee.yahoo.invalid*> · Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:49:08 -0000

In trying to figure out the Columbia thing, it almost seems that 
maybe they got a bid in order to justify inviting Maryland who, 
while finishing below Columbia, posted better stats.  But still, 
Swarthmore, who was 5th in that SCT, is #1 on the waitlist, whereas 
we are #2.  It just looks like NAQT unreasonably favored the Mid-
Atlantic.  

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, tgallows <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> Of the teams Lee mentions, I think he may "have a case" for some 
but
> not for others.  Cal Tech went 7-6 in what was obviously a very 
strong
> field, having to play 3 matches against UCLA (that's 3 losses for
> almost any D2 team) and multiple matches against strong teams from
> Berkeley and Stanford.  Couple that with good bonus conversion, and
> Cal Tech was clearly worthy of a bid.
> 
> Lee makes a better case regarding Columbia (and maybe the other 
teams)
> from the Mid-Atlantic.  Athens State does have better numbers both 
in
> bonus conversion and in points per tossup heard than Columbia.  
While
> the bottom few teams in the Mid-Atlantic D2 field were stronger 
than
> those of the Southeast field, I don't see a large difference in the
> collective strength of the top 8 or 9 teams.  The two fields look 
very
> similar -- no single great team, but lots of pretty good ones 
capable
> of knocking each other off.  I could see Maryland or Swarthmore (or
> Yale C) being in front of Athens State based on the bonus 
conversion
> numbers, but I would have expected Athens State to be placed ahead 
of
> Columbia.  Even with regard to Maryland, the bonus conversion is 
only
> so important -- Furman, for instance, had better bonus conversion 
than
> Maryland.  Anyway, like Lee, I fail to see the statistical 
rationale
> of inviting Columbia over Athens State.  No offense intended to the
> Columbia team, of course -- I'm just going by the posted results.
> 
> I am a believer in bonus conversion as probably the most important
> stat for comparative purposes across regions, but given the number 
of
> trashy or GK questions in the NAQT distribution, there's some 
margin
> of error on the value of that bonus conversion stat.  And given 
that
> there doesn't appear to be a large difference in field strength
> between those two regions, it's rather unfortunate that the
> mid-Atlantic would have 4 at-large teams placed ahead of the top SE
> at-large team.
> 
> --Raj Dhuwalia, UF
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, "quizbowllee" <charolee_at_h...> 
wrote:
> > I would like to take this opportunity to address NAQT's Div. II 
> > bids.  
> > 
> > First, thanks to all of you who have taken the time to 
personally 
> > tell me that you believe we  "were shafted," "were done wrong," 
> > or "received a raw deal."  The fact that members of the quiz 
bowl 
> > community who I have never had the pleasure of meeting took the 
time 
> > and interest to contact me speaks volumes.
> > 
> > Now:  In all honesty, we at Athens State left the Southeastern 
SCT 
> > very confident that we had earned a bid.  I am notorious for my 
> > pessimistic nature, but there was no way I could fathom not 
getting 
> > a bid after placing 2nd at such a large and strong SCT.  
> > 
> > When the initial bids came in, I was thrilled because I received 
an 
> > e-mail that said quote: 
> > 
> > Congratulations!  If you are receiving this email, then, based 
upon 
> > the results of the 2004 NAQT SCT Tournaments, your school has 
had a 
> > team (or teams) awarded one of the 32 spots in the Division II 
field 
> > of the 2004 NAQT Intercollegiate Championship Tournament.
> > 
> > Then, I read further and saw that we were waitlisted.  In turns 
out 
> > that NAQT sent the wrong e-mail to the waitlisted team. They did 
> > apologize, but I still think that was really rough...
> > 
> > I do take quiz bowl seriously, VERY seriously... But I'm not as 
> > vindictive and confrontational as "some" of you (you know who 
you 
> > are).  Regardless of situations, I try to keep the peace and go 
with 
> > the flow.  However, after consulting with my teammates and 
taking a 
> > REALLY good look at some of the teams that got invited over us, 
I am 
> > a little more irked.  Please consider the following:
> > 
> > At the Southeastern ICT we went 10-2, placed 2nd, and had 15.84 
> > bonus conversion.  I was convinced that our bonus conversion 
hurt us 
> > bad.  We're not strong on bonuses, but we WON matches, and that 
> > should be what counts.  However, notice that Columbia got an 
> > invite.  Columbia placed 3rd in their SCT, went 11-2 and had 
15.51 
> > bonus conversion.  This ruins any theory that our conversion 
hurt 
> > us, as theirs was lower than ours PLUS they finished lower in a 
> > field roughly the same size (one team more).  Also notice that 
> > Maryland, who was 4th in that SCT got an invite.  And 
Swarthmore, 
> > who was 5th(!!!) is on the waitlist ahead of us!!!  
> > 
> > Then there is Caltech.  Caltech went 7-6 and placed 3rd in their 
SCT 
> > and got invited.  A 7-6 team over a 10-2???!!!  If the 
mysterious S-
> > formula allows a 7-6 team to get invited over a 10-2 team, it 
needs 
> > some serious revision.  NAQT says that its formula takes into 
> > account strength of field, but come on!  Maybe next year Athens 
> > State should go all the way to California to compete... then we 
> > could go .500 and get a bid for sure.
> > 
> > Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we found 12 tossups 
that 
> > we "powered" and didn't get credit for.  We didn't really care, 
> > because it didn't make any difference in any of our rounds.  But 
> > since we don't know how much powered tossups count in the S-
score, 
> > maybe we SHOULD care - as obviously Win-Loss record means little.
> > 
> > Our last gripe is the inclusion of the KCQRL SCT.  I didn't 
realize 
> > until speaking to Chad Money from Kentucky at ACF this weekend 
that 
> > it was a "Kentucky only" event.  While I have nothing against 
that 
> > per se, I do feel that giving an automatic bid to the winner of 
an 
> > exclusive SCT such as that is questionable.  Why couldn't 
Alabama 
> > have had one?  Athens State would have to host as we're the only 
> > Alabama team on the circuit.  We could've just played each other 
and 
> > gotten the automatic bid.  Or, if they didn't get an automatic 
bid 
> > for hosting, each member could've played solo so we would have 
the 
> > prerequiste 4-team field... then we would've qualified that way.
> > 
> > Anyway, this post is sort of against my nature.  I know that 
every 
> > year SOMEONE thinks that they got screwed over and wines like a 
baby 
> > about it. I hate to be "that guy" this year, but even people I 
don't 
> > know are crying foul on our behalf.  Therefore, I would feel 
remiss 
> > if I didn't speak our part.
> > 
> > Please know that I have nothing at all against any of the 
schools I 
> > mentioned in this post.  I have never met most of you, and I 
plead 
> > our case based solely on what I see on the "Results" page at 
> > NAQT.com.  Also, I would like to point out that I have had some 
> > correspondance with the folks at NAQT and they have been nothing 
but 
> > cordial.  We at Athens State still enjoy NAQT games and will 
> > continue to play NAQT for as long as our team exists.   We do 
feel 
> > like they strongly underestimated the strength of the 
Southeastern 
> > teams.  Berry College, Furman, Florida B, Wofford, NC State... 
these 
> > were VERY tough teams and it is a shame that the Southeast only 
> > deserved one bid in the eyes of NAQT.  
> > 
> > Anyway, thanks for the support and for reading my rantings.  
We're 
> > still keeping our fingers crossed that we get off the waitlist.  
> > 
> > Awaiting any and all declined bids, 
> > 
> > Lee Henry (speaking on behalf of teammates at ASU)
> > Athens State Quiz Bowl