As someone who *was* at the tournament, let me offer a few observations. 1. Let us consider the following facts. [a] NAQT game play is eighteen minutes, plus the last question in each half [Let us call it nineteen]. [b] The standard buzzer/name checks and breaks between halves take one to two minutes, so the total "formal game" takes approximately twenty-one minutes. [c] The tournament was being held in multiple buildings. [d] On byes, teams had to break up into multiple rooms and even multiple buildings to scorekeep. Anybody who honestly believes that rounds could be run in 25 minutes is at best hopelessly optimistic. 2. Moreover, the policy of having team players scorekeep other rounds led to multiple delays in the tournament. In my own room, I know I had to wait as much as fifteen minutes for team players to show up after being drafted as scorekeepers, and in other rounds, scorekeepers failed to show up altogether, which made life even more inconvenient. Under other circumstances, I would be able to say "they're late," and start the match, but this was patently the fault of the tournament, and therefore it would be unconscionable to penalize the teams for their inability to be on time. 3. There were complaints that not all of the moderators were "up to par." To what extent the drafting of the other Harvard players as moderators or scorekeepers would have helped is unknown, but, in spite of Mr. Pahk's comments, I believe that hosting a tournament obligates you to put all available resources toward the staffing of that tournament before you field *any* team whatsoever. 4. In spite of #3, however, Harvard may, in fact, be entitled to multiple bids at NAQT nationals, and it would be unfair to deny teams bids appropriately earned. Consequently, it behooves NAQT to come up with appropriate techniques to determine how to award bids to host schools that could justifiably qualify multiple teams at Nationals. 5. Right now, AC in general seems to be too "player-heavy." That is, there do not seem to be as many people who are willing to moderate as when I first started. To some extent, I think the community would benefit by trying to recruit club members who would serve as moderators, rather than as players. From my undergraduate days, I know such people do exist, and their recruitment and participation would offer significant benefits to the community. 6. Finally, I would be most interested to see how Harvard's A and B division 1 teams will be composed, in light of Mr. Ricci's observations. Not being familiar with the procedure, is there any requirement that rosters be submitted in advance? If not, then how does NAQT determine if an "obviously inferior" team has been assembled, and how does it penalize those teams, while allowing teams on the waitlist the opportunity to attend instead? --AEI
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:42 AM EST EST