It is certainly not my custom to get involved in this sort of silliness, but since no one else has responded directly to Mr. Frankel's post at this point, I shall do so. No offense (or perhaps offense -- I don't care), but Mr. Frankel's criticism is quite inaccurate. I needn't bother addressing the appropriateness of the tone. Last year, as has been detailed at great length on Mr. Weiner's hsquizbowl board, UCLA got a last-minute offer to enter a D2 team in the 2003 ICT because of last-minute dropouts, with the stipulation that the players would not lose their D2 eligibility. The option, at _that_ late a date, was having an unnecessary bye for in the D2 field. The offer was far from covert -- as Jerry mentioned, it was widely known on the west coast, and I'd heard about it somewhere as well (I'm from Florida). As R mentioned in an earlier post, NAQT did not expect UCLA to be a contender last year. In any case, those are the basics. (1) To imply that UCLA won the D2 title yesterday _because_ of having played in last year's ICT is simply misleading. Anyone who saw UCLA's performance yesterday could tell you otherwise. They took an early loss to Harvard, but otherwise they ran the table, beating a good Illinois team by a wide margin in the final. They won because they were the best team, not because of having played in last year's ICT. One might argue that playing in the 2003 ICT would give them some kind of advantage, but the degree of that advantage would not come close to accounting for the gap between UCLA and the other contenders. (2) To imply that UCLA participated in "corruption" is unfair to the UCLA players. They did _nothing_ wrong. (3) While some may find NAQT's handling of the 2003 situation and subsequent explanation unsatisfying ... it's a dead thread. There is nothing more that NAQT, UCLA, or anyone else can do. This was all hashed out at excessive length in February. I've never seen this specific situation as some severe reeking-of-corruption thing, because, frankly, it isn't. Honestly, at _worst_, it was an ill-advised decision made by NAQT last year to try to fill in a gap in the field on a day's notice or so. Whether it was ill-advised has been a matter of debate (see February posts on both boards), but the suggestion that _this specific situation_ is one which reeks of corruption is simply inaccurate. There are more and presumably better arguments to be made in this respect (point #2 can certainly be better made), but I'm tired and I don't need to involve myself any further in this sort of silliness. Getting back to the actual tournament, my congratulations to the winners of the various titles, especially Berkeley on their dual stompings of us. Berkeley and Illinois A put on great performances in winning the D1 and D1 undergrad finals, as did UCLA in D2. My thanks to WUSTL, NAQT, and the various staffers for a tournament I enjoyed. --Raj Dhuwalia, UF *************************************** --- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, ater31337 <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: > I just wanted to say; congratulations to Illinois for winning both the > UG and D2 titles LEGITIMATELY, not as a result of favoritism, or > corrupt bargains made covertly with the NAQT insiders or as a result > of playing TWO STRAIGHT YEARS IN A ROW, but as a result of fair, by > the rules competition. I appreciate the way you guys play by the > rules, as opposed to camping out in the wrong division solely because > you know you don't have the skills to cut it in REAL competition. > Props to Illinoise, hopefully the real teams will learn to play > honorably and not to win fradulent games, solely by virtue of > bureaucratic bullshit that NAQT tries to practice and act like it's > not a problem, even though everyone knows better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST