To follow up on some of Willie Chen's points, I also have to applaud CBI for the quality of the questions this year. While it seemed like this year's IM packets were a step backwards, the question quality for regionals was quite high, and I have to compliment Michael Decker and all for that. Having played CBI for four years, I can honestly say that each year their questions have improved, in some cases dramatically. Listening to the occasional packet from the mid-90's in practice it is understandable why people were becoming quite tired of making the investment of time and money to participate. I would now wager that many of those problems with question content have been remedied. For the most part CBI seems to have brought its questions up to a level which corresponds to where the circut is today. I know all of my teammates had certain expections for the content level of the questions, and we were all surprised to hear questions on Mannerheim, O'Casey, Southey, Von Neumann etc... The portion of their distribution that is devoted to academic question areas (i.e. not trash, current events or sports) has been improving each CBI tournament I've been to in four years. So while I can't suggest that everyone starts playing CBI again like they did four of five years ago, realizing how cost is still a major factor, I think people should honestly look at where most CBI tournaments are before making judgements and pronouncements. I also recognize that the "form" of CBI is also a problem for some people, with the emphasis on speed, short tossups, bonuses of varying length and large amount of non-academic questions and the like contributing to their decision not to play. I sympathize with those people, and would definitely recommend CBI change some things (especially the LOOONNNGGG bonus lead-ins being number 1), but complaints of this type revolve around form, not content matter, and complaints about NAQT and ACF are equally valid. As CBI now essentially recognizes that the circuit exists, is quite vital and that it even helps CBI by encouraging interest in quiz bowl generally, the idea of there being reasons other than simple preference or cost for not playing CBI (cf. Al Whited's "quizling" post of two years ago) seems pretty silly now. Finally, I'd like to make this assertion. Given my expectations and knowledge of how CBI and NAQT write questions and how they reward knowledge and how they are different, I'll say quite confidently that the questions for CBI Regionals were simply better this year then NAQT Sectionals, accounting for differences inherent in the two formats. I remember only one true clunker from CBI during the whole weekend, while NAQT seemed to produce two or three a game. I doubt that I'm the only person who feels this way, while many others can attest to their disappointment with NAQT. To sum up this overly-long post, I think it's time we should start putting the past behind us when judging CBI. They have genuinely improved their product, and seem to have changed their attitudes as well. That way we'll be making fairer, more accurate judgements of how to use our precious resources of time and money, which will inevitably make the circuit better as a whole. Michael Davidson University of Michigan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:43 AM EST EST