Re: A "Modest" Proposal

stephen_taylor_qb <*no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com*> · Tue, 06 Aug 2002 00:04:52 -0000

I have several problems with the centralized approach.  For the sake 
of brevity I will address only one at this time.  

When I was playing as an undergrad, there were invitationals and CBI, 
period.  Each invitational had its own "house rules," but most were 
untimed and tended to follow the same basic template.  Much of what 
we think of today as the "ACF format" was derived from the trial-and-
error experience of these invitationals.  But as questions became 
more difficult and more specialized, matches tended to get longer and 
slower, with the result that weaker players found the game 
uninviting.  Had that trend continued without any counterweight, the 
circuit might well have died out.  NAQT, with its briefer, generally 
more accessible questions and quicker pace, is more entertaining even 
for weaker players.  NOTE that I am NOT dissing NAQT or implying that 
the format lacks rigor, merely that it is appealing to a broader 
audience while retaining the integrity of the game.  CBI, on the 
other hand, was a hideous joke when I played.  It lacked academic 
rigor and accuracy, the officials were officious, clueless, and often 
unconscious of pace, and the administrative structure was roughly as 
efficient as that of the contemporaneous Soviet agriculture ministry, 
or General Motors.  It also claimed a legal monopoly over all types 
of buzzer games, timed or otherwise.  Though I haven't participated 
in any CBI events in fifteen years, I'm given to understand it's 
improved since then, at least partially in response to the success of 
ACF, NAQT and this discussion forum.

Each format, in isolation, would have become hidebound and 
unattractive.  I believe that the game has been made MORE exciting by 
the proliferation of different formats.  Each of the "big three" has 
its partisans and its detractors, and each also has its niche.  Timed 
or untimed, power tossups, one-on-one, shootout tiebreakers, trash-
only tournaments (or weekends with an academic tournament followed by 
a trash tournament), masters-level tournaments, and so on are, on the 
whole, good for the game.  Even the 30-20-10-5-1 boni seem to add a 
little character and amusement to the game.  At the risk of sounding 
downright Republican (something I hope I don't do very often), I fear 
that a centralized organization would likely stifle this spirit of 
innovation.

IN SUM: What some might consider disorganization, I regard as 
evidence of a healthy, vital, adaptive qb culture.  It ain't broke.  
Don't f**k with it.

Stephen Taylor
Georgia Tech '83-87 (1987 CBI Nationals runner-up)
University of Tennessee '88-93 (1991 ACF National Champions)
coach, Middle Tennessee State '98-99
moderator emeritus and nonresident reactionary, UT-Chattanooga