Re: ACF Issues

thefamousohmslaw · Mon, 05 Nov 2001 21:00:20 -0800

"In the initial announcement for this set of
tournaments, I stated that there would be separate Div II
awards for both teams and individuals. In addition, I
also explicitly informed hosts that this needed to be
done, and as far as I can tell from the results posted
in this forum, this was indeed done, with the result
being more Div II teams in attendance and more Div II
players enjoying themselves. Or did I miss
something?"

Perhaps giving minor teams a reason to show up? We had
maybe four DivII teams show up. ACF has to do more than
talk about bringing in new players. You need actual
incentives. Remember, ACF has a reputation to overcome. And
from the posts on this forum, it would seem that
whether or not you actually got any DivII teams depended
on where you were.

"Div II recognition was
emphasized, in part to ensure that newer teams would have
many games against players with similar levels of
experience. The questions in this tournament were
specifically tailored to be readily accessable to Div II
players. It's good to know that the hundreds of hours
spent editing these questions is perceived as grand
scheme to treat newer players like crap."

I don't
recall saying the questions were designed to treat
players like crap. I said ACF treats newbies like
crap.

"3) "You can't have fun if all you're being allowed
to do is hold a buzzer while some grognard is
answering every question." Wow. How dare tournament editors
and directors simply stop at allowing you to match
your knowledge of academic subject matter against
others. You know, I'm coming up speechless on this one,
so I think I'l just allow the statement and its
Harrison Bergeron implications speak for
themselves."

I don't see any Harrison Bergeron implications
here. No one is suggesting that the best players be
restricted or held back, or that the new players be unfairly
exhaulted. The issue here isn't keeping the best from
shining, it's that the rest of the players never get to be
anything more than the Washington Generals. All they get
to do is get beaten. There were maybe 4 Div II teams
here, out of 13. That means each team had 3 games
against peers, and 9 games against teams they had no hope
against. Three games of enjoyable quizbowl, where you
actually can do more than hold a buzzer and watch, doesn't
make up for nine games of getting beaten repeatedly on
subjects you know because you're playing the top teams in
Florida. You think those DivII teams had much fun being
the whipping boys for 9 rounds and only getting 3
rounds of competitive play? All ACF has to do to remedy
this is attract more divII teams with dirt-cheap
registration, better honors recognition, and some marketing.
More DivII teams means more peer-on-peer games, fewer
exercises in buzzer warming, and more fun in tournaments,
while still honoring the best overall and providing
experience against the top teams.

"Prety well sums it
up."
No, I didn't play the questions, but I read them,
talked to players and readers about them, and watched
the scores as they came in, and I thought them to be
much more accessible than typical ACF questions. The
wosrt problems with the Q's themselves were the random
exclamation marks and lack of pronunciation guides where
needed, both of which were easily handled by quality
readers. The increased accessibility of these questions
did not help DivII'ers here, however, because it
merely meant that the advanced teams answered even
earlier. Had there been more DivII'ers, this wouldn't have
been such an issue.

ACF reform is due, or the
format will atrophy and die without the welcoming of new
talent.

"P.S. Who are you? You suprisingly failed to sign your
name"

Stephen D. Ohm