The Undergraduate Title

• From: Durham_Devil
• Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 11:09:58 -0700
• Message-ID: <000TD1ABM.000959G53.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

There was a brief discussion between R. and
myself regarding the undergraduate portion of the
championship. One of the suggestions I made to Mr. Hentzel is
(since at each ICT, three or four packets go unused
anyway) that the top two undergraduate teams also have a
"final". The reasoning is that often, the two teams do not
meet (such was the case here, as Princeton and Berry
did not draw each other) and that the strength of
schedule has the potential to determine the winner rather
than help find it. Mr. Hentzel gave very good replies
as to why it wasn't at the time NAQT policy: first,
if the #1 or #2 team is undergraduate, then they
would have to be in two places at once; and second, the
undergraduate leader could be light-years better than its
runner-up (the example he gave was #2 vs. #28), which could
render the final anything from pointless to a travesty
(if an upset occurs).

I can see his arguments,
but also I see those I proposed. I wonder what the
general public feels about this. I discussed this with a
few others people, most of whom didn't really have a
quick opinion. Except, of course, for Dr. Carper, who
was all for it and wanted to do it right then and
there. :)

Just a thought to try and stem the tide
of bitching that usually seems to follow a
tournament.

Andy Goss
"Duke University" quizbowl