Re: ACF Nationals

• From: raffi81 <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 01:14:42 -0000
• Message-ID: <aa50u2+8tap_at_...>

AS one of the few first year players I saw at ACF nats, I'd like to 
agree with everyone else who found the tournament fun and 
accessible.  I thought the science was by and large excellent with 
good distribution (and a lack of what i consider pointless earth 
science).  It was great to finally see a question on useful 
reactions like the Williamson Ether Synthesis come up.  I did think 
that some of the bonuses were unnecessarily hard given how many we 
bageled.  Maybe next year there could always be at least an easy 5 
point clue?

Dan Suzman (Harvard)




But I
> wonder how the younger/not-so-ACF-hardened folks found it. Any of 
you
> who might be reading this care to comment? 
> 
> Yeah, bonuses could have been a bit easier. Top bonus conversion in
> the round-robin was Michigan's, with a bit over 18. This could have
> been a bit higher, as could have the median, which was in the 10-11
> range. But this reflects on the packet writers rather than Roger; 
you
> know to write 'em easier (and earlier, and with more earth
> science/astronomy/pronunciation guides) next year.  
> 
> I was disappointed not to see the Tim Bowl schedule used. It would
> have been interesting to try, and would have prevented all of NAQT
> ICT/TRASHionals/ACF Nats from having (essentially) the same 
schedule.
> And it seemed wrong to have our round-robin win over Chicago carry
> over into the playoffs; they had the better record and should have
> been given the advantage based on that. These are minor points,
> though. Tim and Edmund and the UMCP folks and the other moderators 
did
> a good job. 
> 
> Overall, it was a lot of fun. All you less ACF-prone schools should
> give it a try next year. 
> 
> Dave