--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, tfmichael1 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > Now that the final results are posted, by my math the College Bowl > Regionals had teams from 170 different schools participating. That's > 170 teams from 170 schools. That's comparable to the total number of > D1 and D2 NAQT teams (including the KQRL but not including the CC > teams), and far more total schools. If ACU-I could be persuaded to > allow College Bowl to have multiple teams from any school, who knows > where the total teams would be? Without commenting on the > conclusions (see above disclaimer), I point out that conclusions > drawn from comparisons of sets assembled under different rules and > conditions are inherently flawed. Your latter point is true - I assume Fred was intending to make some comment on the number of circuit teams playing CBI when he made that point, though I don't want to speak for him here. But certainly quite a number of circuit teams have more or less given up CBI, for various reasons, and even more elite circuit players have done so (in Region 8, for example, a look at the stats shows that Chicago's two best undergrad players were not on their team, and neither Northwestern nor Wisconsin were in attendance). Part of this, I'd imagine, has to do with CBI's prejudice against both grad students and shorthanded teams, which lightens a field that already prefers other formats (I'm curious to know if there's any circuit regular who thinks CBI is the most enjoyable format) but would play CBI because it was another tournament to go to. Regarding the original point of discussion, I think most quiz bowl teams probably have a lot of younger kids and a smaller number of upperclassmen - it's just inevitable that most teams will have more freshmen who want to play than seniors who do. As a result, they'll have more D2 teams than D1 teams. Then the seniors will graduate, some of the underclassmen will leave as they become upperclassmen, and more freshmen come in, and you've got more D2 teams than D1 teams all over again. I'm sure there are some schools at which this is not the case - we at NU have had a depressingly low recurring freshman turnout this year - but it probably does work this way in quite a number of cases. It's just numbers. In addition to which, some teams take a while to get good enough to move into D1, but may get more interest and so more D2 teams before that happens, thus boosting that field. Also, I agree with whoever said that Fred's proposal for D2 eligibility sounded pretty much like what we have now. The only difference I see is that it sounds like it would actually keep *more* teams in D2 - if we only require teams who finish first or second to move up, that means more D2 teams and fewer D1 teams. It does sort of depend on who's right about why exactly there are more D2 teams. If Fred's right, that might work in the long run; but if a simpler explanation like mine is right, then we're only going to make the problem worse by letting more people stay in D2. Robert Flaxman Northwestern
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST