Re: NAQT Div. 2 eligibilty

tak_seorangpun · Tue, 19 Feb 2002 01:42:55 -0800

In message 8551, Eric reports on a decision of
the NAQT eligibility committee:

<< For
2003 an addition to the rules (a new "4." under the
full rules) will make that summary:

 In short,
the policy is that an undergraduate retains Division
II eligibilty for up to a maximum of four years,
either until he or she is on a team that qualifies for
the ICT or has twice played in SCTs on Division I
teams. >>

I'm sure the committee would not
decide to make a change to D2 eligibility rules unless
it was convinced that it was definitely a good idea.
The rules are complicated enough as they are, and I
still meet players who have the mistaken idea that D2
eligibility lasts for only one year, as the policy was 3
years ago, before the most recent rule change in
1999.

The committee's rationale was explained in message
8554:

<< I don't believe anyone has in fact ever yet
played in Division II SCTs after twice playing in
Division I SCTs, but the hypothetical possibility seemed
to be a potential loophole we wished to close, in
the spirit of the division as being for novice
collegiate players. >>

I don't understand this.
The reasoning seems to be that if someone has already
played two SCTs in Division I, then they're not really a
novice anymore, so it would appear kind of unfair if
they went back to Division II.

It seems to me
that you've got this exactly *backwards*. Let's look
at the SCT histories of two hypothetical
undergraduate players, Alice and Bob. None has ever played in
an ICT or been on a team that was invited to one.
Alice has been to two SCTs and played in Division I
both times. Bob has been to three SCTs and played in
Division II each time. Now NAQT wants to say that Bob is
still a novice but Alice is not.

I would argue
that Alice is *more* of a novice, not only because she
has been to fewer SCTs, but because she has had to
face tougher competition and therefore hasn't been
able to answer as many questions as Bob has in
Division II.

The rule change affects people like
Alice who have been eligible for Division II but played
in Division I instead. Why do such people play in
Division I? From my observations, most D2-eligible players
*want* to be in D2, and their quiz bowl programs want
them to be in D2, because they're obviously likely to
achieve greater success relative to the field -- but they
end up in D1 because the numbers worked out that way:
there weren't enough people to have a(nother) separate
D2 team, and of course a mixed team of D1 and D2
players must compete in D1.

Now the exceptions may
be some new hotshots who are considered among the
best players in their program and who can back up the
top D1 players with a chance at winning a title. But
if these hotshots really are that good, then the SCT
performance of their team will very likely get them invited
to the ICT. So then the new rule won't have to be
invoked anyway.

In summary, if the rationale is as
written above, then this eligibility change sure doesn't
seem to be worth the trouble it will cause in having
to explain it, getting people to understand it, and
enforcing it. The practical effect is that it provides a
further incentive for D2-eligible players not to compete
in D1. That may be a good idea, but I think it's
misguided from the point of view of player development. If
a grad student with quiz bowl experience starts a
program at his new school and manages to get a couple of
undergraduate friends to come with him to an SCT where they
play together in D1, why would you want to make it
harder for the undergrads, once they can find more
teammates, to get back to D2 where they belong?