Re: Northeast Sectionals (1/2)

• From: lone1c
• Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2000 14:07:11 -0800
• Message-ID: <000SB0PCF.001GUO27M.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

With respect to my earlier comments, and Paul's
reply.

1. I am still opposed to the idea of the notion of
house teams at "qualifying" tournaments, and would
expect that NAQT revise its policies as soon as possible
to allow host schools one Div I or Div II bid
automatically, and present evidence that a bid in the other
division is merited--or to allow entrants in the field in
which they do not wish an automatic bid.

2. If
Harvard only wanted one team in each division, why were
two teams entered in Division I?

3. My
complaint was that players were late to arrive in my room
on several occasions because they were keeping score
in their previous round, and could not make it to
their next round on time, which propagated the delays
in the tournament. Of course, not having a full-time
scorekeeper, I don't know what delays I added to the
tournament, but I can only hope they were
negligible.

4. With respect to unevenness in moderating, I admit
that it is a problem, and I think I've suggested a
possible solution. Attempt to recruit moderators as well
as players. That would go some distance to solve
problems, if not entirely relieve them.

5. Harvard
did do a decent job in dealing with the situation as
it unfolded. Much of the blame is to be laid at
NAQT's feet--however, all that said, I respectfully
disagree with some of the choices made. This is not a
reflection of personal opinion of the persons involved--it
is just my reflections on what I've seen and heard
in the last week or so.

--AEI