> teams scored over 200 points in a round (for the bracket seeding > rounds). On the other hand, only 8 teams went to ACF Fall, of which > 5 were Berkeley teams, comprising various freshmen with minimal QB > experience. Uhhh ... unless there were some massive name switches going on, Berkeley's top talent was spread out pretty evenly: Berkeley DC: Seth Berkeley Atilla: Jeff Berkeley Kids: Nick, David, Juliana Berkeley Nominalists: Brendan, Kenny, Jerry Berkeley Untitled: Paul and Martha Only Berkeley Untitled was composed of players not on teams contending for national championships this year. The grad students (at least by NAQT definitions) were fairly well distributed. The non-Berkeley teams were pretty experienced too. UCLA and Stanford O&B are hardly neophytes, and only Stanford Y&B is really a team of "inexperienced frosh." I'm not arguing that ACF Fall isn't easier; I would be the first to agree with that. But this isn't the appropriate method to make the comparison. ACF Fall had teams from relative QB powerhouses (UCLA and Berkeley won NAQT titles this year, and Stanford isn't chopped liver), while Technophobia had many teams that don't come out for ACF events (this year, at least) like Cal Poly Pomona, Mudd, Riverside, Irvine, USC, etc. So while averages were certainly lower at Technophobia, that is not just a function of the more difficult packets. It's also the teams involved. I think the more interesting question is why ten schools were at Technophobia and three were at ACF Fall. It obviously isn't difficulty, since it's fairly obvious that ACF Fall is easier. Is it geography? Distribution? Reputation? Inertia? My money is on a combiation of the first two ... -Jordan Formerly of Caltech, but certainly not speaking for them
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:48 AM EST EST