Re: ACF Powers

• From: rsbhan <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 22:00:09 -0000
• Message-ID: <a663h9+saq2_at_...>

Tom makes a few good points here, the most notable being 2 and most 
of 3.  The part of 3 I take issue with is the potential increase in 
scoring with powers.  I really don't think the extra 5 points you get 
from a power TU are going to add up appreciably.  I doubt there'd be 
more than a 20-40 point increase in average total points per round 
(that's probably overly generous).  The best way to increase scores 
is to write more accessible questions (which, I think, is what Tom 
was getting at).

While power TUs may seem fun, I don't think of them as anything more 
than a silly inflationary statistic.  I think the reward for 
answering a TU should be no more than the opportunity to earn an 
additional 30 points on a bonus.  The purpose of the TU, in my 
opinion, is to serve as the gateway to the bonus.  Some people might 
think particularly early buzzes (i.e. particularly deep knowledge) 
deserve a little something extra.  But the whole point to me is to 
learn more than your opponent so you can buzz earlier and I don't 
believe in giving rewards for something you're supposed to be doing.

These are all my opinions, not those of ACF.  Also, my thoughts on 
power TUs should not be construed as representative of my opinions on 
NAQT.

R. Bhan


--- In quizbowl_at_y..., etchuck <no_reply_at_y...> wrote:
> I obviously don't speak for anyone with any authority in ACF, but I 
> will just provide the historical perspective.
> 
> (1) The concept of untimed matches compared to the CBI timed stuff 
> was enough of a move back then.
> 
> (2) While powers may be player friendly, I don't think that power 
> tossups have necessarily resulted in improved question-writing when 
> it comes to submission/group editing questions.  It's easier to 
make 
> them player-friendly in my opinion whenever the questions are 
written 
> to a standard and edited to a standard.
> 
> (3) As with most sports, however, if power tossups improve the game 
> by providing for more offense, it should be considered.  We have to 
> dispel the notion of ACF games being won with < 150 points per game 
> combined as being "a good thing."  To me, I guess a bit more 
offense 
> isn't inherently bad, but I think that everyone submitting 
questions 
> for ACF Nationals should remember if they don't like the questions, 
> it's their own fault.  Putting power marks in doesn't necessarily 
> make question-writing or playing any better.
> 
> Of course, this is just what I think.