A few comments, particularly regarding Mr. Goss's comments on the joys of Penn Bowl: >>The great thing about Penn Bowl is the variety that populates the packets [...] Since you're almost never able to sustain "hot" or "cold", each round is a mini-tournament in itself -- fortunes can change in an instant. Your argument, then, is that the unevenness of the packets enhances the "fun" of the tournament? I would argue that a great tournament is one in which the best teams _can_ get a feel for the difficulty level of the questions and establish a hot streak. >> [...] Simply put, every game is winnable, and that's fun for all 64 teams. Probably not for the top teams, which might see their fortunes change not based on relative skill at the game, but on the random selection of a packet. While several of Mr. Johnson's remarks apparently pertained more to his own team's experience than that of the attendees in general (e.g.: low # of tossups heard), he did raise several legitimate points. Our organization's lack of attendance at Penn Bowl has been based more on financial reasons than anything else, but I recall the disappointment of our team with the general quality of questions when we attended in 1999. While the primary responsibility lies with the question-writing teams, I find it hard to believe that, of 70 submitted packs, 25 or so could not be edited to near perfection - particularly with the caliber of the teams attending the tournament. Just two cents from the QB wasteland that is the Deep South. -Daniel Nordby University of Florida Academic Team
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST