Re: ACF Regionals thoughts

quizbowllee <*charolee_at_quizbowllee.yahoo.invalid*> · Mon, 16 Feb 2004 16:44:03 -0000

Charlie, 

I hope you know that I had no complaints about moderators (except 
one who kinda pissed me off when he made a rude comment about our 
team).  As always, I think UTC tournaments are the best.  I was 
attributing the length to the longer questions which - and I thank 
you for doing so - you PROVED by doing the word count.  

When I said "14 hours of quiz bowl" I was referring to the fact that 
we arrived a little before 9:00 am and left around 11:00 pm.  That's 
14 hours.  I failed to include wait time for late teams and lunch.  

So, what I'm trying to say is: Moderators were great as usual.  
Charlie did a great job.  Wally kicked ass at entering stats (no 
wait at all between the end of the last round and the awards).  I 
apologize if earlier comments insinuated that Charlie or the UTC 
staff did a bad job.  They did not.  I was merely commenting on the 
ridiculous length of some of the tossups which, whether you like 
ridiculously long winded tossups or not, obviously caused the 
tournament to run longer.

-Lee

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, Charlie Steinhice <steinhic_at_b...> 
wrote:
> At the risk of sounding not-so-genial: bullshit.  And I can prove 
it.
> 
> Our rounds did not last an hour; they lasted 45 minutes.  I know; 
I was 
> keeping close tabs on it all day long.  We began play at 10:10 
(due to 
> two late teams), took a lunch break of just under an hour and a 
half, 
> and finished the last round at almost exactly 11 PM.  Guess what?  
15 
> rounds at 45 min. per round = 11.25 hours, which fits almost 
exactly 
> within the times stated.  Say anything you like about me, but 
don't 
> insult my moderators.  We had a veteran crew, a house reader in 
every 
> room, the least experienced of whom has been a full-time reader in 
at 
> least 10 tournaments.  I had exactly zero complaints about our 
readers 
> Saturday.
> 
> As one of the few people who has both this year's and last year's 
ACF 
> Regionals questions on my computer, I checked.  I used MS Word to 
do a 
> word count of each round from both sets of regionals.  Here are 
the 
> stats (anyone who wants to see round by round numbers can e-mail 
me 
> privately:)
> 
> Mean words per round
> Tossups 1-20, 2003 Regionals: 1936.67
> Tossups 1-20, 2004 Regionals: 2125.47
> 
> Bonuses 1-20, 2003 Regionals: 1923.47
> Bonuses 1-20, 2004 Regionals:  2134.07
> 
> I leave it to others to debate whether the increased length was a 
good 
> thing or a bad thing, but there's no denying its existence.
> 
> Chris White wrote:
> 
> > I thought that the tossups were mostly accessible, though I 
agree that
> > the boni were tougher than expected.  Our team's bonus 
conversion this
> > year was virtually the same as last year, even though we've 
improved
> > quite a bit since then.  It was frustrating for the first few 
rounds,
> > but then you just get used to it and know what to expect.
> >
> > But, (and this is the main reason I'm replying), I really have to
> > disagree with your condemnation of tossup length; your 
Regional's late
> > running time was not the fault of the questions.  We played 12 
rounds
> > at Rutgers and got to leave at 5:30, while it was still light 
out.  If
> > rounds last an hour, it's the fault of the moderator, not the
> > questions.  (Excellent job, Rutgers.  Probably the smoothest-run
> > tournament I've ever attended.)
> >
> > -Chris, speaking only for himself
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ******************************************************************
> Charlie Steinhice                 "Come, come!  Why, they couldn't
> Chattanooga, TN	                  hit an elephant at this 
dist..."
> (center of the known universe)              --  Gen. John Sedgwick
>    
> ******************************************************************