Re: ACF-lite

• From: gensedgwick
• Date: Sat, 14 Apr 2001 00:27:55 -0700
• Message-ID: <000TDFUVR.001270E7G.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

First of all, I'm delighted to see the civil tone
of messages on the ACF thread. I was afraid the
issues I brought up would generate a format flame war
instead of a serious discussion.
 As for ACF-lite:
FWIW, we've been running tournaments in Chattanooga for
the past 3 years that were both conceived and
described as "ACF-lite." Considering the fields we draw, it
seems to have a lot of appeal to newer schools on the
circuit, smaller schools, junior colleges, etc. while
still attracting the most active programs (witness the
fact that Kentucky and Georgia Tech have fielded teams
for every one of our tournaments, yet we've had at
least 7 different two-year schools participate.) So
yes, I think "ACF lite" is a viable format and a good
training ground for ACF Regionals and ACF Nationals, which
should be more challenging. (And I repeat: in my opinion
this year's ACF Regionals were a fine combination of
challenging yet accessible -- well done, Subash.)

Southern colleges in particular seem to prefer the untimed
format. Maybe it's because so many of us grew up on it,
maybe it's because we hate to have to read that fast.
And as Julie and others noted, the timed/untimed
issue does affect a lot of things, from team strategy
to question length. As much as I enjoy NAQT, I don't
think it and ACF are redundant.
 Also, when we have
two divisions, both divisions compete on the same
questions; it's just that the foes are closer to the same
level of experience. I agree that adding a second
division to ACF Nationals would encourage broader
participation without undermining the basic ACF mission.