Div 1/Div 2

• From: amber_sports
• Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 19:19:13 -0700
• Message-ID: <000TSV3D1.0015AD5UJ.12170551-quizbowl_at_...>

With the recent discussion, I felt like it was a
good time for me to sound off about something that
really bothers me about quiz bowl

To Preface: my
background is not in quiz bowl, its in athletics. What I
know about quiz bowl is limited to what Ive learned
from some good friends of mine that are quite involved
in it and from what Ive picked up in a year or so
on the MI HS circuit

With that said, I think
the main problem with respect to competitive balance
lies in the arbitrary dividing line between divisions;
that is, I think Div 1 should be for grad. Students
only and Div. 2 for undergrads. Witness, from the 2001
NAQT Div 2 Nationals:

Player Team Points/22
T.H. 
Weiner, Matt Pittsburgh 96.25 
Mikanowski,
Jacob Princeton 88.65 
Mathews, Wesley Occidental
63.34 
Reece, Matt Chicago 54.33 
Sausville,
Justin Sewanee 52.35 
Youker, Tim Stanford 47.29

Kailasanath, Vinita Stanford 45.23 
Hatti, Amar
Cal-Berkeley 43.20 
Nelson, Paul Missouri-Rolla 43.00

Greenstein, Dan Maryland 4 40.47

Should the top scorer
really be scoring 77% higher than the fourth place
scorer? Compare with the Div 1 nationals, where the top
scorer scored 17% higher than the fourth place scorer,
and the 2001 HSNCT, where the top scorer scored 19%
higher than the fourth place scorer. 

While it is
my personal opinion that these experienced and
advanced quiz bowlers should want to seek out the highest
level of competition, I suppose that they cannot
completely be blamed for not having done so. With their only
other option being to subject themselves to playing
against people 8 or 10 years older than they, they choose
to stay in Div. 2 and completely defeat the purpose
of such a division in the first place, which is, as
I understand it, to avoid freshmens being
completely scared away from quiz bowl by people much more
experienced than they.

While separate division for
undergrads and grads could, theoretically, contribute to
some scared freshmen, I think this would be much less
prevalent than all of the lost sophomores and juniors under
the current system. Additionally, a similar system
works in high school; that is, over the course of their
4 years, players advance through the ranks,
competing against those at least similar in age to
them.

Let me know what you think.


---Amber
Obermeyer, Detroit Country Day School