The thing about it was this: This was a submission tournament. As several people in the community are aware, we had significant trouble getting organizations to send us packets, even after the deadline had passed. Given our limited personnel and extremely limited time, consistency of difficulty was as good as we could make it. I'm reasonably pleased with how we did, all things considered. After all, this was the first significant editing we had ever done as a group-- we are not PADT. Looking at the the total scores per packet, there was a range for sure, but most of the packets were within 100 or so points of one another in total scoring. While we did strive for the difficulty Tom mentioned, there's a certain variance in any set of packets; it just shows more in smaller tournaments because those outlier packets, whether super-hard or obvious bowl, make up a bigger percentage of the total. And as you all know, when you're working with packet submissions, you can only do so much without an entire rewrite. I was very impressed with the performance of the teams, in particular Michigan, but also some of the less experienced programs. The reasoning behind this tournament was to allow some of the schools with predominantly undergrad teams to go up against comparable programs and see how they do in comparision with folks of their own level. From our perspective as a nearly all-undergrad program, it gets awfully tiring to lose of the Yaphes and Nams of the world simply because they've had more years to hear the same things come up over and over. I'm not saying they don't beat us in knowledge, beacuse lord knows they do, but it's occasionally nice to feel as though everyone's on an equal footing. And really, the point is to have fun, right? For the most part, I think we had fun last weekend, and that's really what I cared about. -- aam
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST