Good Afternoon, The message below just hit the inboxes of NAQT's contacts from among participants in the 2004 Intercollegiate Championship Tournament. Full tournament results are at http://www.naqt.com/Results/2004-ict- results.html - as Dom posted, the University of California-Berkeley won Division 1 overall, defeating Florida in the final. The University of Illinois bested Harvard for Division 2 undergraduate. UCLA won Division 2, with Illinois the runner up. Valencia (FL) Community College required two games in the final to clinch the Community College title over Bevill State (AL) Community College- Jasper. Everything below this paragraph is (of course) on behalf of NAQT. Speaking for myself, I'm fairly confident that the tournament ran well; however, constructive criticism is by far the way to ensure improvement going forward. The best place to direct feedback is to e- mail feedback-at-naqt-dot-com, though anything posted here will also be seen by NAQT members. Thank you for your time. --- Teams, First, on behalf of Chad Kubicek, Craig Barker, everyone at Washington University, and everyone else you worked with in getting to the ICT, we'd like to thank you all for your prompt replies, your quick movement through check-in, and (obviously) your great skill at and enthusiasm for quiz bowl. Second, NAQT is always on the lookout for compelling newsletter and web site content. In particular, if you took pictures this weekend that you'd like to share, write to us about what you have. Third, NAQT is always looking for new talent. Those of you about to graduate, talk to us about how you can stay involved in the world of quiz-bowl. Think about the worst question you heard this weekend and the much better question you would have written instead -- then write that question (and a few others) and download the New Writers' Packet (at http://www.naqt.com/jobs.html ) for more on our evaluation process and how to format your sample questions. Note that even continuing college players are welcome to write for us at the high school level; our production process ensures that no question you write will be used for college, at least not as long as you continue to play. As the last piece of the puzzle, we'd appreciate your own feedback on how things went. No point is too big or too small; even if we can't make every change people suggest, we can at least listen and learn. Open-ended feedback is fine. The questions below are here to jog your memory; although you're welcome to answer them all, in practice we realize your time is short and will cheerfully accept whatever form of feedback you find most appropriate. Have a wonderful summer and good luck in 2004-05! Sincerely, Matt Bruce Logistics Coordinator and Division 1 Bracketmeister, 2004 NAQT ICT SAMPLE FEEDBACK QUESTIONS Pre-tournament: Did you get all the information you needed in plenty of time to use it? Was this information easy to understand? Did we promptly and satisfactorily answer any questions you had? Transportation/lodging: Was the site easy to get to? If you stayed at the Sheraton, what were your impressions of the quality of rooms and service? Registration: Were the staff who checked you in helpful and courteous? Is there anything in particular you'd change about the registration process? Pre-game meeting(s): Were these appropriately run? Did you get the information you needed? Facilities: Were all of the game rooms appropriate for quiz play? Were any of them memorably good or bad? Was any equipment memorably good or bad? If any equipment failed, did we get suitable replacements set up promptly? (In Division 1, for example, two rooms' buzzer failures came to HQ's attention.) Campus/Host: Was the site (Washington University in St. Louis) a good place for a national championship quiz tournament? Was anything memorably good or bad about the campus? To the extent that you interacted with Wash U staff, were they helpful? Game Officials: Who were the best and worst of the readers and scorekeepers you had? Were there any specific instances where you believe someone made an incorrect judgment call or misapplied the rules? (For example, teams have five seconds per bonus part; was anyone distinctly too fast or too slow on prompting for an answer?) Questions: On balance, was the set appropriate? Was distribution appropriate, both within packs and across packs? Were questions too easy? Too hard? Did any specific questions stand out as memorably good or bad? HQ/Stat Rooms: Did the tournament run on time? Were standings and statistics posted timely and correctly? Were the Round 8 tiebreakers correctly explained and efficiently carried out? If you interacted with the bracket-meisters or our assistants, were we helpful and courteous? Championships: Were the finals conducted well? Were the competing teams treated appropriately? Was the audience? Was the transition from the other game rooms into the finals building handled smoothly? Awards: Was the closing ceremony conducted timely and with appropriate pageantry? Post-logistics: Was equipment returned to you promptly? If you ordered questions, was the question pickup process efficient and easy to understand? Is there anything in particular you'd change about the end of the tournament?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST