NAQT ICT

• From: kactigger <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:25:29 -0000
• Message-ID: <a8subp+3bjt_at_...>

I think that the new Div I schedule was an improvement over ladder 
play. Ladder play had a lot of inherent disadvantages (playing the 
same team twice in the ladder, and the formula used for ranking the
teams) that the round-robin/bracket play eliminates. All of the 
brackets seemed fairly well-balanced. The only problem is that with
NAQT's insistence that head-to-head cannot break ties, that means 
that extra rounds are probably going to be needed to do that. I 
didn't like the fact that some teams had to play half-matches because
there were not enough packs. The two half-matches that were played 
that resulted in Michigan B facing Princeton for the undergrad title
both went down to the last question- except that that question was 
number 13 (15 in the case of Michigan/Harvard, which went to OT) 
rather than 24 or 25.

The Division I matches, at least, went very smoothly, and I thought 
that the questions were, if a little tough, wonderful- the best I've 
heard in five years on the circuit. Whoever wrote the God and Man at 
Yale tossup gets major props, and there were several other really 
outstanding and original questions.

Kevin Comer, UF College Bowl.