MW said: >>I've heard this argument often, and I've never been able to put my finger on what I found wrong with it. Now, I think I've found the words. >>An "upset" as in the team less expected to win pulling out the victory is not bad in and of itself. An "upset" as in the team with less academic knowledge winning is definitely bad. Interesting point of view. I played on the Berkeley C team at Cardinal Classic 12, and the only time we played Berkeley A, we beat them (by a meager 20 points). That was one of only two losses that Berkeley A had in the entire tournament. Now, in 99 of 100 matches, Berkeley A would have demolished us, but what happened was that the packet contained questions that favored us, not because the packet writer had intended it to be so, but just because that was the situation. Now, I will readily concede that Berkeley A has far more academic knowledge than Berkeley C, but on that particular packet, the questions didn't favor them. The point of this longwinded reply is that sometimes the questions go your way, and sometimes they don't. In the same tournament, my team played Chicago, and after the first half, I was basically a warm body because nothing that was coming up was in my field of knowledge. In short: No one writes to create upsets, they just happen because sometimes the knowledge in a packet is skewed towards one team.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0: Sat 12 Feb 2022 12:30:45 AM EST EST