Re what Nathan said, I have one minor dissenting opinion, one strong agreement, and one correction: > 2. Plenty of people enjoy CBI...that's fine. I don't know of > anyone who would assert it's an "academic" tournament. It's not exactly ACF or NAQT, but it's not exactly what it used to be either. It's certainly fair to call it academic. > 3. No one has any business making judgments about ACF off of > tournament experiences or packets dating back to 1996. Hear, hear. > 4. If you didn't play CBI you'd be able to attend far more > tournaments, trash or otherwise. Not necessarily. That's certainly not the case at UTC. Our team has the freedom to make its own arrangements for ACF, NAQT, independent academic tournaments, and both upper- and lower-case trash. But CBI has to be arranged through the university itself. When UTC has participated in CBI, it's come out of a separate budget and thus had no bearing either way on how many other tournaments we could attend. Our intermittent participation in CBI during my coaching tenure has been due to frequent changes in the university's person serving as the ACU-I contact. Some of them knew us and supported us; others haven't returned our calls. Fortunately, we've had no such issues with our main administrative contacts, who have been very supportive over the years. But even if that's not the case at Georgia and it all comes out of one budgetary pot, remember that the CB-or-not-CB decision may not rest with the UGA team anyway.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST