1. I've never actually played in a CBI tournament, but have read enough CBI packets to at least what the questions are like. 2. This year's NAQT SCT questions and ICT questions were both subjectively and objectively outstanding, and when compared to the products that CBI has put out in the past, absolutely incredible. 3. Anytime an important figure for a format starts specifically badmouthing those who play another format, we all know it's time to boycott. I don't believe that anyone speaking for ACF (people I put in this category include Subash Maddipoti, Zeke Berdichevsky, Raj Bhan, Kelly McKenzie, or Jason Paik) or NAQT (Rob Hentzel et al.) has, in recent memory, publicly derided CBI or referred to those who play it in any negative sense. 4. The best way to get rid of a pox on the circuit is to not give it funding; that is, DON'T PLAY IT. There's no point in or reason for specifically insulting things/people without some sort of real impetus, and that's exactly what CBI has done in this case. 5. To any schools out there who only play CBI: y'all really should give ACF Fall a chance. I've played it the last three years, and question-wise, I've never heard better quality. Plus, I'd imagine that playing CBI would be troublesome...hasn't someone ever been down 40 points and gotten the last tossup to find that the bonus was only worth 20 points? Sudheer Potru Vice-President, UIUC ABT, And who, after this incident, will help to ensure that his university's team never plays CBI.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:47 AM EST EST