Announcement from Carol Guthrie
TNMasters
Dear Academic Competitors,
I meant to make this announcement prior to ACF Nationals, but decided to
wait. Life has been encroaching on my hobby for the past three years and
I have been unable to devote much time to ACF affairs. I was unable to
act as tournament director for the 1995 ACF Nationals because of
pregnancy, but was delighted to do so in 1996. I was, however, unable to
help much with the 1997 Nationals, though I did edit questions.
As a result, I have decided to announce my retirement from active coaching
and my resignation from the ACF organization. I begin law school at UTK
in Fall and Don and I hope to enlarge our family as well. I may continue
to be tournament director for the Tennessee Masters, at least until a
suitable replacement can be found.
I ran my first tournament at Berry College in 1979, and my departure from
the game will leave a hole in my life, but my lack of time will cause
increasingly shoddy work and I won't have that.
My husband, Don Windham, who has had minimal involvement with the
administrative side of the game will also be withdrawing as well. He
suspects his absence will not be missed.
As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
resignation will leave ACF as a defunct organization in 1997-98. ACF has
always been a philosophy more than an organization and though there will
be no organized ACF tournaments, I hope that the rules forthe game will
pass into public domain and still be used.
We won't be on the circuit much, but stay in touch, we will miss you.
Carol Guthrie and Don Windham
Eric Hillemann
In article <19970417041...@ladder01.news.aol.com> TNMasters,
tnma...@aol.com writes:
>As a result, I have decided to announce my retirement from active coaching
>and my resignation from the ACF organization. I begin law school at UTK
>in Fall and Don and I hope to enlarge our family as well. I may continue
>to be tournament director for the Tennessee Masters, at least until a
>suitable replacement can be found.
>As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
>resignation will leave ACF as a defunct organization in 1997-98. ACF has
>always been a philosophy more than an organization and though there will
>be no organized ACF tournaments, I hope that the rules forthe game will
>pass into public domain and still be used.
Thanks, Carol, for all you've done for the game over the years. I've
been playing at the Masters just about every year since 1987, and for
much of that time that was the _only_ chance I'd get to play in a year,
as that was the only post-student status tournament available. We were
fortunate you were able to put as much time and love into that, and ACF,
as you did, for as long as you were able to.
You'll be sorely missed.
Eric Hillemann
andy tin-an wang
It has been my pleasure, priviledge and an honor to have played in
1996's and 1997's ACF Nationals. I am speaking for the Illinois 'A'
team of 1995-1997(James Anderson, Martin Stroup,Alex Corlett, James
Cornelius, and myself) when I say thank you Ms. Guthrie, Mr. Windham,
and Mr. Dendy for putting so much time, effort and energy into ACF. You
all helped to create and run an excellent game format and alternative to
CBI when there was none. Participating in those two ACF Nationals created
some of the finest memories and war stories I have of my quiz bowl hobby.
For that you have my eternal gratitude. Thank you.
Andy Wang
On 17 Apr 1997, TNMasters wrote:
> Dear Academic Competitors,
>
> I meant to make this announcement prior to ACF Nationals, but decided to
> wait. Life has been encroaching on my hobby for the past three years and
> I have been unable to devote much time to ACF affairs. I was unable to
> act as tournament director for the 1995 ACF Nationals because of
> pregnancy, but was delighted to do so in 1996. I was, however, unable to
> help much with the 1997 Nationals, though I did edit questions.
>
> As a result, I have decided to announce my retirement from active coaching
> and my resignation from the ACF organization. I begin law school at UTK
> in Fall and Don and I hope to enlarge our family as well. I may continue
> to be tournament director for the Tennessee Masters, at least until a
> suitable replacement can be found.
>
> I ran my first tournament at Berry College in 1979, and my departure from
> the game will leave a hole in my life, but my lack of time will cause
> increasingly shoddy work and I won't have that.
>
> My husband, Don Windham, who has had minimal involvement with the
> administrative side of the game will also be withdrawing as well. He
> suspects his absence will not be missed.
>
> As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
> resignation will leave ACF as a defunct organization in 1997-98. ACF has
> always been a philosophy more than an organization and though there will
> be no organized ACF tournaments, I hope that the rules forthe game will
> pass into public domain and still be used.
>
Scott Coon
TNMasters wrote:
>
> Dear Academic Competitors,
>
> As a result, I have decided to announce my retirement from active coaching
> and my resignation from the ACF organization. I begin law school at UTK
> in Fall and Don and I hope to enlarge our family as well. I may continue
> to be tournament director for the Tennessee Masters, at least until a
> suitable replacement can be found.
[snip]
> My husband, Don Windham, who has had minimal involvement with the
> administrative side of the game will also be withdrawing as well. He
> suspects his absence will not be missed.
[snip]
> Carol Guthrie and Don Windham
My only interaction with Don and Carol was through the 1996 ACF
Nationals and Tennessee Masters. In a most unfair (to everybody but us)
bit of scheduling, Don moderated about six rounds in a row for Illinois
B at ACF Nationals. He is easily among the best moderators I have had
the fortune to play under. Carol's highly professional performance as
the tournament director at TN Masters that year should have been
recorded for the purpose of training future TD's. I think both of them
underestimate the loss this represents to the community.
Scott Coon
co...@math.uiuc.edu
jpg...@students.uiuc.edu
On 19 Apr 1997 05:17:10 GMT, tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J
Young) wrote:
>@ Declining attendance at just about all tournaments this year vis-a-vis
>last year, including CBI RCTs.
>@ A strangely high number of cancelled tournaments, particularly late in
>the season.
>@ The disappearance of a number of schools from competition.
I've got to agree with you here. Things haven't looked very good all
year.
>1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
>circuit this year?
Then again, I've seen a number of good new players this year at
Illinois and a few midwestern schools. Carleton, for example, is an
increasingly good but still young team. But I've only seen a sampling
from this region. I've heard of other programs in other places where
the older students/grad students are carrying things because the
undergrads are either not capable or not interested, so you may be on
to something.
>2. The questions on the circuit have, over the last three years, improved
>monumentally across the board. It's hard to play on 3-4 year old packets
>anymore since even the best of them are clearly below the current
>standards for tournaments.
I was going to ramble on about the ways people are still miswriting
questions, but I'll save that for another post. But compared to the
older packets we've read in practice, there does seem to be some
improvement.
>3. Co-ordination of events seemed to slip overall this year. Too many
>tournaments were announced with not enough notice, and too many scheduling
>conflicts arose. Previously reliable resources seemed to have lapsed.
>
>Related Point : The time may have come for a centralizing entity of some
>variety.
I'm still against centralization, but that's another issue. Clearly,
we need another archive for the FAQs, question archive, and tournament
list. How muc disk space does this really require? Does anybody have
a figure in megabytes? Does anybody out there even have the material
ready to upload to a new archive, or are do we have to wait for
papyrus.com to come back on line?
It would seem like a smart business move for CBI to volunteer to host
the material and offer a web-based calendar for tournament scheduling.
If they could lower themselves to deal with tournaments who don't pay
them a cent, they could start to re-assert some control over the
circuit. Perhaps NAQT would be more interested? Until something like
that happens, we need some people to volunteer some web resources.
How much space do people have for their team homepages?
There are a few other ominous signs you didn't mention. So I'll add
4. Where are all the B teams?
An indicator to me of the decreasing strength of many programs is the
increasingly poor performances of most B teams at tournaments. At the
NAQT championship, the highest B-team finish was 22 by Maryland B,
followed at 25 by Michigan B. Yes, the field was tough. But the
field was tough at the 1994 ACF national championship, which had at
least two and maybe three B teams in the top ten (Maryland, BYU, maybe
Georgia Tech).
5. Where are all the teammates?
Single-player and mixed-school teams might give some people a chance
to play who wouldn't be otherwise able to. But it looks like a
practice that's becoming increasigly common, and it seems to me a poor
replacement for program building. I'm not condemning any particular
instance of this, but taken as a whole it's a troubling sign.
My theory: being without a newsgroup for a year hurt us more than one
would expect.
Jonathan Green
Frederic Bush
In article <5j9kgm$boa$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J Young) wrote:
> TNMasters (tnma...@aol.com) wrote:
> : As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
> : resignation will leave ACF as a defunct organization in 1997-98.
>
> Hmmm... I wonder what this bodes for us as a community, in light of
> everything else that has transpired thus far in '96-97 :
>
> @ Declining attendance at just about all tournaments this year vis-a-vis
> last year, including CBI RCTs.
Yup, happened at QotC.
> @ A strangely high number of cancelled tournaments, particularly late in
> the season.
Yup again. However, those in the mid-atlantic should consider AD-HOC or
Swarthmore trash next weekend (!)
> @ The disappearance of a number of schools from competition.
Note region 3 regionals.
> 1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
> circuit this year? (Not to belittle any specific current first-year
> players, b/c there have been some fine rookies this year, or even those
> players taken collectively, but few new faces have really emerged this
> year.) This seems counterintuitive given the increased involvement of
> circuit members in HS academic competition in the last couple of years.
This isn't necessarily so. Of the local teams, Pitt, Maryland, us, and
Penn all have really strong frosh contributors to their teams... that's
off the top of my head...
> 2. The questions on the circuit have, over the last three years, improved
> monumentally across the board. It's hard to play on 3-4 year old packets
> anymore since even the best of them are clearly below the current
> standards for tournaments.
Yes.
> 3. Co-ordination of events seemed to slip overall this year. Too many
> tournaments were announced with not enough notice, and too many scheduling
> conflicts arose. Previously reliable resources seemed to have lapsed.
Not really. Scheduling conflicts mostly ffected tournaments in different
areas of the country. For instance, lots of D.C./Boston tourneys on the
samew day. Is that a problem? I think not. What conflicts were you
referring to?
I think the real problem is that all the available dates are booked, and
it's hard for a new program to start a tourney.
> Related Point : The time may have come for a centralizing entity of some
> variety.
Hello, NAQT...
Fred Bush
fbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu Dream. Imagine. Wonder.
Swarthmore, PA
Timothy J Young
TNMasters (tnma...@aol.com) wrote:
: As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
: resignation will leave ACF as a defunct organization in 1997-98.
Hmmm... I wonder what this bodes for us as a community, in light of
everything else that has transpired thus far in '96-97 :
@ Declining attendance at just about all tournaments this year vis-a-vis
last year, including CBI RCTs.
@ A strangely high number of cancelled tournaments, particularly late in
the season.
@ The disappearance of a number of schools from competition.
A few random thoughts :
1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
circuit this year? (Not to belittle any specific current first-year
players, b/c there have been some fine rookies this year, or even those
players taken collectively, but few new faces have really emerged this
year.) This seems counterintuitive given the increased involvement of
circuit members in HS academic competition in the last couple of years.
Related point : Anyone running a HS tournament this year is asked to
inform students about the Internet resources currently in existence for
college AC. If the college they go to has an AC program, they'll find out
about it and join it, and, perhaps, if its participation on the circuit is
limited or non-existent, they might help change that : if no program
exists, they might get some info on how to start one.
2. The questions on the circuit have, over the last three years, improved
monumentally across the board. It's hard to play on 3-4 year old packets
anymore since even the best of them are clearly below the current
standards for tournaments.
Related Point : Any program with questions from one of its tournaments is
asked, if they are a year or more old (i.e. the appropriate time for
seliing them to raide funds has passed,) to donate them to the question
archive.
3. Co-ordination of events seemed to slip overall this year. Too many
tournaments were announced with not enough notice, and too many scheduling
conflicts arose. Previously reliable resources seemed to have lapsed.
Related Point : The time may have come for a centralizing entity of some
variety.
: ACF has
: always been a philosophy more than an organization and though there will
: be no organized ACF tournaments, I hope that the rules forthe game will
: pass into public domain and still be used.
I'm sure they will. There are players that very much prefer them to other
rule formats currently available.
: We won't be on the circuit much, but stay in touch, we will miss you.
Though we have never met, I can assure you nonethless that you will be
missed.
: Carol Guthrie and Don Windham
-Tim, currently awaiting CBI NCT results from Friday night...
--
| Tim Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) Geo. Wash. U. Law School '99 |
| "If we do not succeed, we run the risk Dartmouth College '96 |
| of failure." - D. Quayle - rec.games.quiz-bowl Patrol |
| Opinions are exclusively mine, but can be rented free of charge. |
Eric Albert
In article <5j9kgm$boa$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J Young) wrote:
> Related Point : Any program with questions from one of its tournaments is
> asked, if they are a year or more old (i.e. the appropriate time for
> seliing them to raide funds has passed,) to donate them to the question
> archive.
Speaking of that archive, what's going on with it? If you're referring to
the one at papyrus-inc.com, it's been down for a while despite its claims
that it would be back up on April 13th. I've emailed q...@papyrus-inc.com
and received no response; does anyone have any more information on this?
Better yet, is there another archive online that I just haven't heard of?
-Eric
---------------------------------------------
Eric Albert ejal...@stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~ejalbert
Samer Ismail
On 19 Apr 1997, Frederic Bush wrote:
> In article <5j9kgm$boa$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
> tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J Young) wrote:
>
> > TNMasters (tnma...@aol.com) wrote:
> > : As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
> > : resignation will leave ACF as a defunct organization in 1997-98.
> >
> > Hmmm... I wonder what this bodes for us as a community, in light of
> > everything else that has transpired thus far in '96-97 :
> >
> > @ Declining attendance at just about all tournaments this year vis-a-vis
> > last year, including CBI RCTs.
>
> Yup, happened at QotC.
> > @ A strangely high number of cancelled tournaments, particularly late in
> > the season.
I can add that while at one point we had _16_ teams for Bulldogs over
Broadway last year, this year, the highest enrollment we ever had was _4_.
And this was the weekend _AFTER_ CBI.
> Note region 3 regionals.
>
> > 1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
> > circuit this year? (Not to belittle any specific current first-year
> > players, b/c there have been some fine rookies this year, or even those
> > players taken collectively, but few new faces have really emerged this
> > year.) This seems counterintuitive given the increased involvement of
> > circuit members in HS academic competition in the last couple of years.
>
> This isn't necessarily so. Of the local teams, Pitt, Maryland, us, and
> Penn all have really strong frosh contributors to their teams... that's
> off the top of my head...
Yale as well: four of our six players at NAQT were freshmen, and one is
our second highest scorer.
> > 2. The questions on the circuit have, over the last three years, improved
> > monumentally across the board. It's hard to play on 3-4 year old packets
> > anymore since even the best of them are clearly below the current
> > standards for tournaments.
>
> Yes.
Though there are still certain problems (e.g., biased Qs, etc.) that need
to be worked on, all in all, today's Qs are a lot better than those from
3-4 years ago.
> > 3. Co-ordination of events seemed to slip overall this year. Too many
> > tournaments were announced with not enough notice, and too many scheduling
> > conflicts arose. Previously reliable resources seemed to have lapsed.
>
> Not really. Scheduling conflicts mostly ffected tournaments in different
> areas of the country. For instance, lots of D.C./Boston tourneys on the
> samew day. Is that a problem? I think not. What conflicts were you
> referring to?
>
> I think the real problem is that all the available dates are booked, and
> it's hard for a new program to start a tourney.
Or for teams trying to get their already-existing tournaments established.
[Then again, since Yale has the odd position of being nearly three hours
away from any other AC teams, we may get out of the college tournament
business and do more on the HS side--we pretty much have a monopoly on
CT.]
> > Related Point : The time may have come for a centralizing entity of some
> > variety.
>
> Hello, NAQT...
Personally, I'm not sure that NAQT can solve the problem. In fact, one
could make an issue that they're _part_ of the problem when it comes to
scheduling conflicts. IMHO, what we need more than some central committee
to parcel out dates is communication, plain and simple--and a bit of
advance planning. What I would suggest is this:
1. Teams should decide _before the end of this school year_ if they
plan to host tournaments next year, and if so, what kinds of tournaments.
2. If they plan to host tournaments, they should make _rough
estimates_ of when they'd want to host (I'm thinking along the lines of
"early October" or "November/December", not necessarily specific dates).
3. Inform people of their intentions.
That way, if two teams want to host a tournament the same weekend, either
one can reschedule, or, if they're far enough apart, they can work on
packet swaps, etc. (provided, of course, they're using the same format).
I don't see why this can't be done. In fact, how about this: if teams at
least make _tentative_ plans, and inform me by May 10, I'll send out a
mailing to everybody on or about May 15, listing all the tournaments that
have been planned for next year (HS, college, trash, etc.). [All I'd need
is School Name--Planned tournament format (ACF, timed, etc.)--Approx.
Date; the rest can be worked out later.]
--STI
Samer T Ismail (Yale U, TC 98)
**** President, Yale Student Academic Competitions
**** PO Box 204873, New Haven, CT 06520-4873
**** "There is something fascinating about science. One gets a wholesale
return of conjecture out of a trifling investment of fact."--M. Twain
Timothy J Young
Samer Ismail (sis...@pantheon.yale.edu) wrote:
: On 19 Apr 1997, Frederic Bush wrote:
: > In article <5j9kgm$boa$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
: > tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J Young) wrote:
: >
: > > TNMasters (tnma...@aol.com) wrote:
: > > : As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
: > > : resignation will leave ACF as a defunct organization in 1997-98.
: > >
: > > Hmmm... I wonder what this bodes for us as a community, in light of
: > > everything else that has transpired thus far in '96-97 :
: > >
: > > @ Declining attendance at just about all tournaments this year vis-a-vis
: > > last year, including CBI RCTs.
: >
: > Yup, happened at QotC.
: > > @ A strangely high number of cancelled tournaments, particularly late in
: > > the season.
: I can add that while at one point we had _16_ teams for Bulldogs over
: Broadway last year, this year, the highest enrollment we ever had was _4_.
: And this was the weekend _AFTER_ CBI.
: > Note region 3 regionals.
: >
: > > 1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
: > > circuit this year?
[several conterexamples deleted ; it was in fact just me. :) ]
: > > 2. The questions on the circuit have, over the last three years, improved
: > > monumentally across the board. It's hard to play on 3-4 year old packets
: > > anymore since even the best of them are clearly below the current
: > > standards for tournaments.
[general agreement snipped]
: What I would suggest is this:
: 1. Teams should decide _before the end of this school year_ if they
: plan to host tournaments next year, and if so, what kinds of tournaments.
If this really is the end of ACF, that's two more weekends for
invitational tournaments, both in spring semester. Additionally,
scheduling to conflict directly with CBI may become an option in some
areas to more of an extent than it is now.
: 2. If they plan to host tournaments, they should make _rough
: estimates_ of when they'd want to host (I'm thinking along the lines of
: "early October" or "November/December", not necessarily specific dates).
Guess I'll throw GW's hat into the ring :
Beltway Bandits in late October/ early November (trash)
JCV IV the week after Penn Bowl/Super Bowl weekend (T-8, NAQT-like)
: 3. Inform people of their intentions.
: --STI
Additional notes :
This newsgroup is now pretty much usuable even for people without
killfiles. People are asked to post anything of relevance to the AC
community here.
: Samer T Ismail (Yale U, TC 98)
: **** President, Yale Student Academic Competitions
: **** PO Box 204873, New Haven, CT 06520-4873
: **** "There is something fascinating about science. One gets a wholesale
: return of conjecture out of a trifling investment of fact."--M. Twain
--
| Tim Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) Red Sox o-Meter : |
| GWU Law School '99 :) |
| Dartmouth College '96 |
| "I feel the need...the need for expeditious velocity!" - The Brain |
Tom Galloway
In article <Pine.GSO.3.95q.97041...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu> Samer Ismail <sis...@pantheon.yale.edu> writes:
>[Then again, since Yale has the odd position of being nearly three hours
>away from any other AC teams, we may get out of the college tournament
I'll bite; did all the NYC teams vanish, or have there been some interesting
seismological events going on in the tri-state area? And Boston's more
like 2.5 hours, which at least is in the three hour ballpark. Last I
looked though, NYC was about 75 miles from New Haven.
tyg t...@netcom.com
Eric Albert
In article <3358df26...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, jpg...@students.uiuc.edu
wrote:
> I'm still against centralization, but that's another issue. Clearly,
> we need another archive for the FAQs, question archive, and tournament
> list. How muc disk space does this really require? Does anybody have
> a figure in megabytes? Does anybody out there even have the material
> ready to upload to a new archive, or are do we have to wait for
> papyrus.com to come back on line?
>
> It would seem like a smart business move for CBI to volunteer to host
> the material and offer a web-based calendar for tournament scheduling.
> If they could lower themselves to deal with tournaments who don't pay
> them a cent, they could start to re-assert some control over the
> circuit. Perhaps NAQT would be more interested? Until something like
> that happens, we need some people to volunteer some web resources.
> How much space do people have for their team homepages?
I've actually been planning to set up a local mirror of the archive here
at Stanford as soon as it goes back up, to avoid having to go through any
of this in the future. I could certainly make it available to everyone;
that's easy enough to do. I'm just waiting on disk space amounts (though
any reasonable number can be accomodated) and access to the files.
I'd also consider hosting a tournament list page on Stanford's site, as
I'm sure many other people would on their sites. BTW, we have 5MB of
space as our group quota, but I have access to as much as 100MB or so on
other servers that we could certainly use.
And on your last point about the newsgroup that I inadvertently deleted:
Now that we're not facing continuous spam any more (knock on wood :),
would it be possible to email a contact person at a couple of dozen
schools to let them know that the group is really worth reading? Oh, and
on that note, shouldn't there be some kind of master list of contact
people at every school with an AC program? Just a thought....
Richard Dunlap
Timothy J Young wrote:
>
> Additional notes :
> This newsgroup is now pretty much usuable even for people without
> killfiles. People are asked to post anything of relevance to the AC
> community here.
>
And while you're at it, see if your newsreaders are automatically
limiting distribution of your messages to the USA -- of the messages
quoted in Tim's response, I'd seen maybe half.
-- Richard Dunlap
Jerusalem High School
Shawn Pickrell
In article <5j9kgm$boa$1...@cronkite.seas.gwu.edu>,
tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J Young) wrote:
> Hmmm... I wonder what this bodes for us as a community, in light of
> everything else that has transpired thus far in '96-97 :
Well, it started with our attempt at a tournament, and has ended with
tournaments cancelled. Interesting.
R-MC's program will exist in some form, but I don't quite know what it'll
be yet, seeing as I won't be around.
> @ Declining attendance at just about all tournaments this year vis-a-vis
> last year, including CBI RCTs.
That is correct. Some tournaments remained steady, but overall there was a
decline. In addition, there was a rise in one-man and "bastard" teams.
> @ A strangely high number of cancelled tournaments, particularly late in
> the season.
> @ The disappearance of a number of schools from competition.
Memphis and NYU come to mind right now.
> A few random thoughts :
> 1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
> circuit this year? (Not to belittle any specific current first-year
> players, b/c there have been some fine rookies this year, or even those
> players taken collectively, but few new faces have really emerged this
Give them time. I foresee many epic battles between Julie Singer (UMCP),
Nick Fry (UMBC), Tom Gower (G'town), Steve Sheiko (GW) and their
respective supporting casts on my end of the circuit.
> year.) This seems counterintuitive given the increased involvement of
> circuit members in HS academic competition in the last couple of years.
I think it is; UMBC's entire team except for Mike (Kramer) and Jon
(Lazar) are freshmen. Of course, I'm biased. :)
UMCP, after a not-so-good recruiting in the class of '99, has bounced
back with 9-10 freshmen regulars. GW (I hoped you'd notice :) has
freshman Steve Sheiko. Georgetown has Tom Gower and Alexis Mansfield.
R-MC has Jim Fitzpatrick and David Bass, both of whom averaged over 15
ppg at the Larvae Fest. Dickinson has one guy who averaged 20 ppg at
Swarthmore. Johns Hopkins has James Keiger (although they will be hurting
after James Rogers graduates.)
Yale has a number of good freshmen, Princeton showed us they had more
players than Jeff, Jenn, Ross and Jessica :) at Swarthmore. Carleton, I
have heard, is all freshmen and sophomores, and did VERY well at
tournaments this year.
> Related point : Anyone running a HS tournament this year is asked to
> inform students about the Internet resources currently in existence for
> college AC. If the college they go to has an AC program, they'll find out
> about it and join it, and, perhaps, if its participation on the circuit is
> limited or non-existent, they might help change that : if no program
> exists, they might get some info on how to start one.
I will certainly instruct the people running the Commonwealth Academic
Tournament and the Mid-Atlantic Academic Challenge (name subject to
change!) on that point.
Regarding new programs: the captain of the winning team at our HS
tournament seemed interested in organizing a program at the University of
Richmond. I know a circuit regular who is going there for law school; I
hope to help foment the creation of a program there.
> 2. The questions on the circuit have, over the last three years, improved
> monumentally across the board. It's hard to play on 3-4 year old packets
> anymore since even the best of them are clearly below the current
> standards for tournaments.
Agreed.
> Related Point : Any program with questions from one of its tournaments is
> asked, if they are a year or more old (i.e. the appropriate time for
> seliing them to raide funds has passed,) to donate them to the question
> archive.
I will certainly consider this.
> 3. Co-ordination of events seemed to slip overall this year. Too many
> tournaments were announced with not enough notice, and too many scheduling
> conflicts arose. Previously reliable resources seemed to have lapsed.
I can think of Oct. 26 (Hopkins and UNC), but no other terrible conflicts
come to mind. If there's a DC-area tournament and a Boston tournament,
then there's not going to be much of a problem ... is there??
Yet, I can agree about the lack of notice.
> Related Point : The time may have come for a centralizing entity of some
> variety.
Perhaps. But will CBI, NAQT, whatever follows ACF (?) and the various
minds on the circuit be willing to submit themselves to such an entity??
> : ACF has
> : always been a philosophy more than an organization and though there will
> : be no organized ACF tournaments, I hope that the rules forthe game will
> : pass into public domain and still be used.
> I'm sure they will. There are players that very much prefer them to other
> rule formats currently available.
Yes. I enjoy them, b/c they allow for a more relaxed, informal atmosphere.
> : We won't be on the circuit much, but stay in touch, we will miss you.
> Though we have never met, I can assure you nonethless that you will be
> missed.
Ditto.
Shawn Pickrell
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Shawn Pickrell
> On 19 Apr 1997 05:17:10 GMT, tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J
> Young) wrote:
> I've got to agree with you here. Things haven't looked very good all
> year.
Hmm ... was that thing on 5 October an odd portent for the year??
I hope not.
> >1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
> >circuit this year?
> But I've only seen a sampling
> from this region. I've heard of other programs in other places where
> the older students/grad students are carrying things because the
> undergrads are either not capable or not interested, so you may be on
> to something.
I have a theory for this (see below at end of post). But think about it:
It's disheartening when you, a player of reasonable talent in high
school, get blown away by the students who have been there for several
years at the first few practices.
Or, when you go to tournaments, you face up against Maryland A or some
team full of people that have been doing this forever. You lose, 345-10.
Do you *really* want to continue doing this? I don't think so. It's a
factor that most of the regulars on this group, being affiliated with a
relatively successful or established program, may not have a complete
grasp on.
Think about it -- would students from Small College or Mid-Size U really
want to keep that up?? It's hard enough dealing with getting funding and
with school administrators -- what's the point of all that hassle if
you're just going to get your butt kicked??
There needs to be a seperate circuit for smaller/newer schools; anyone
who does not realize this is condemning quizbowl to survive as a marginal
activity that will expand at a snail's pace, if at all. You can go on all
you want about writing questions, working harder and practicing, but VERY
FEW people are going to keep at it if they get destroyed in their first
tournament.
I guarantee you this: if we had gone 1-13 or 0-14 at our first
tournament, instead of going 5-9 and being within 75 points of going 9-5,
we would not be where we are today.
This circuit needs to include easier questions, untimed rounds and a way
for promotion to the larger circuit. As one coach of a smaller less
active school put it, basketball teams from smaller colleges play
basketball teams from smaller colleges; the same needs to apply in
quizbowl.
Sure, teams like Williams, Swarthmore, Roanoke and Randolph-Macon will be
dominant in a "Division II" at first, but let's face it: we're nowhere
near as intimidating as Maryland, Virginia or Harvard. We can be beaten
by other small schools if we're not careful, or if they see the point in
applying themselves now that success is within their grasp. 'Sides,
Division III football has its traditional powerhouses ... it'd be nice to
see my alma mater good in something that's closer to filling a school's
academic image than anything else out there. :)
> >3. Co-ordination of events seemed to slip overall this year. Too many
> >tournaments were announced with not enough notice, and too many scheduling
> >conflicts arose. Previously reliable resources seemed to have lapsed.
> >
> >Related Point : The time may have come for a centralizing entity of some
> >variety.
> I'm still against centralization, but that's another issue. Clearly,
> we need another archive for the FAQs, question archive, and tournament
> list. How muc disk space does this really require? Does anybody have
> a figure in megabytes? Does anybody out there even have the material
> ready to upload to a new archive, or are do we have to wait for
> papyrus.com to come back on line?
I have the material on my web page, but with the way student servers at
R-MC are, I'm not 100% sure where my web page is (or if it's even up.)
> It would seem like a smart business move for CBI to volunteer to host
> the material and offer a web-based calendar for tournament scheduling.
> If they could lower themselves to deal with tournaments who don't pay
> them a cent, they could start to re-assert some control over the
> circuit. Perhaps NAQT would be more interested? Until something like
> that happens, we need some people to volunteer some web resources.
> How much space do people have for their team homepages?
I have whatever it takes, but again, our student web servers are
notoriously unreliable. I may wish to strike with homepages on GeoCities,
Tripod and several other places.
> There are a few other ominous signs you didn't mention. So I'll add
> 4. Where are all the B teams?
Well, at R-MC, we've had trouble getting four warm bodies together at one
time, much less a B team. :) Conflicts, disinterest in doing this *all*
the time, etc., give me endless problems in finding people. We haven't
fielded a full four-person team since NAQT Nationals, but we did have two
teams at Georgetown (with our B team having a player from UMBC that is an
RMC alumnus. :)
> An indicator to me of the decreasing strength of many programs is the
> increasingly poor performances of most B teams at tournaments. At the
> NAQT championship, the highest B-team finish was 22 by Maryland B,
> followed at 25 by Michigan B. Yes, the field was tough. But the
> field was tough at the 1994 ACF national championship, which had at
> least two and maybe three B teams in the top ten (Maryland, BYU, maybe
> Georgia Tech).
This could also be an indicator that talent has spread out (i.e. it's not
just a few schools with quizbowl talent.) I am not so concerned about
that.
> 5. Where are all the teammates?
> Single-player and mixed-school teams might give some people a chance
> to play who wouldn't be otherwise able to. But it looks like a
> practice that's becoming increasigly common, and it seems to me a poor
> replacement for program building. I'm not condemning any particular
> instance of this, but taken as a whole it's a troubling sign.
> My theory: being without a newsgroup for a year hurt us more than one
> would expect.
I can't do anything if no one else from my team wants to attend a
tournament. Often, playing ability and motivational ability do not
co-exist.
My theory (in addition to the newsgroup theory, b/c other students like
me were w/o a method of finding out what's going on for a year):
There is a higher level of playing being evidenced in some people,
especially in ACF. I'll call it the Playing Level Above Human.
Stuff that is reasonably difficult for most people becomes east for
players on this Playing Level Above Human. When you put four people of
PLAH ability together, you get a darn good team. But then, that's a team
(and players) that make matters no fun for everyone else.
I guess for IM stuff, you'll have to wait it out, and wait for your
chance to start (as in all other sports). But there is no reason why a
giant, 20,000-student school with more of an opportunity to find (i.e.
more students) and create (i.e. an established program with PLAH players
already there) PLAH players should have the "privilege" of destroying
R-MC, Roanoke, et al. (newer programs without PLAHs, or maybe 1-2 PLAHs),
300-30 with regularity at tournaments.
We almost beat College Park A at Georgetown. If we had, it would have
certainly been the high point of our program's history; something that
ranks right up there with Centre College 6, Notre Dame 0; or U.S 1,
England 0 (1950 World Cup action).
But games like that are the exception. Normally, the score is something
like College Park A 345, R-MC 15 (the actual score at Johns Hopkins.)
Similar to the score if College Park were allowed to play R-MC is
basketball, football or most other sports. I mean, our football team
practices hard, works hard, and does very well (we've had winning seasons
in 3 of our 4 years, and defeated H-SC in four of those seasons ;). But
we're just not on the same level as Virginia, Virginia Tech, UNC, etc.
Sure, some of our individual players might have been able to do something
at those programs, but as a whole, we're not as good. We're not on the
same level, institutionally or athletically. That's why the NCAA creates
Divisions I, II and III. Quizbowl needs that, too.
Think about it for a while. Right now, there's not enough smaller/newer
schools to start something. But if enough SA directors were contacted; if
enough school-by-school creation were done, it would be a possibility.
I see quizbowl as 100 years behind most other sports. Right now, it's
something done mostly by kids (i.e. look at the game at the high school
level), disorganized (to a large extent), with competing varieties of
rules ...
... plus, not many colleges have a team, many people don't see the point
in it, and our media exposure is limited.
Don't worry: by April 2050, I can see it ... the front page of the
Times-Dispatch has the banner headline "SPIDERS WIN IT ALL." They
defeated Maryland, 295-290, in the third and deciding game to win the
Division I title.
(and then on the Metro section, the front page there mentions that R-MC
won their fifteenth Division II title under 74-year-old head coach Shawn
Pickrell. ;) I think quizbowl coaches ought to get $40,000 a year or so
... and I think most of today's regulars will be tomorrow's coaches ...
... Shawn Pickrell
Shawn Pickrell
In article
<Pine.GSO.3.95q.97041...@morpheus.cis.yale.edu>, Samer
Ismail <sis...@pantheon.yale.edu> wrote: o
> 1. Teams should decide _before the end of this school year_ if they
> plan to host tournaments next year, and if so, what kinds of tournaments.
Excellent idea. I am going to suggest to the people in charge next year
the following:
late September: a college tournament. Untimed, ACF rules, CBI difficulty.
Each team playing submits a packet (with a slight fee for not submitting
a packet). They will be guaranteed 12 games for their problems. Entry
fees will begin at around $80 or so before discounts. (probably September
27)
Early November: a high school tournament (Commonwealth Academic
Tournament II.) Virginia high schools only. (probably November 8)
Mid-February: a high school tournament. NAQT qualifier. Teams from PA
down to SC will be invited. No name for this yet. :) (it'll be February
14)
This does not include our intramurals (regular and "trash.")
Entry fees for our HS tournaments will be around $50.
>
> 2. If they plan to host tournaments, they should make _rough
> estimates_ of when they'd want to host (I'm thinking along the lines of
> "early October" or "November/December", not necessarily specific dates).
>
> 3. Inform people of their intentions.
>
> That way, if two teams want to host a tournament the same weekend, either
> one can reschedule, or, if they're far enough apart, they can work on
> packet swaps, etc. (provided, of course, they're using the same format).
> I don't see why this can't be done. In fact, how about this: if teams at
> least make _tentative_ plans, and inform me by May 10, I'll send out a
> mailing to everybody on or about May 15, listing all the tournaments that
> have been planned for next year (HS, college, trash, etc.). [All I'd need
> is School Name--Planned tournament format (ACF, timed, etc.)--Approx.
> Date; the rest can be worked out later.]
>
> --STI
Shawn Pickrell
> Samer T Ismail (Yale U, TC 98)
> **** President, Yale Student Academic Competitions
> **** PO Box 204873, New Haven, CT 06520-4873
> **** "There is something fascinating about science. One gets a wholesale
> return of conjecture out of a trifling investment of fact."--M. Twain
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
Stephen Ray Sheiko
Shawn Pickrell (spic...@rmc.edu) wrote:
[snip]
: Give them time. I foresee many epic battles between Julie Singer (UMCP),
: Nick Fry (UMBC), Tom Gower (G'town), Steve Sheiko (GW) and their
: respective supporting casts on my end of the circuit.
<embarrassed laugh>
: UMCP, after a not-so-good recruiting in the class of '99, has bounced
: back with 9-10 freshmen regulars. GW (I hoped you'd notice :) has
: freshman Steve Sheiko. Georgetown has Tom Gower and Alexis Mansfield.
<another embarrassed laugh>
How to say this...
Unfortunately, I don't see any epic battles in my immediate future.
There's a slight possibility of a Crusade or two, but even that is highly
speculatory....
In other words, it's likely that I won't be participating in the circuit
next year, and (next-to)certain that I won't be participating as a member
of the GW team. I have elected to leave GW at the end of the semester to
pursue the vocation to the priesthood I have discerned over the past year
or so. Accordingly, I will be enrolled in college-level seminary come
next fall; possibly in Missouri, but I haven't found out where for certain
yet. And, to take a phrase from Tim, I've noticed a decided paucity of
seminary teams on the circuit. :)
I have immensely enjoyed my year on the college circuit; it made the
(quasi-useless, hehe) knowledge and techniques I acquired during 4 years
of HS competition germane for at least one more year. Given my fondness
for the sport, I will certainly be looking for ways to participate (to the
extent that I'm able; I don't know how strictly regimented my education
will be) in the circuit in years to come, be that by forming a team of
fellow seminarians (move over, Demon Deacons!) or as a member of "bastard"
teams (in which case we'll have to come up with a better adjective for
them; how about "ecumenical"?).
In any case, I want to thank everyone (teammates, competitors, tournament
organizers) who have made this year so rewarding, and I hope to make it
back to the circuit come next year!
--
| Stephen Sheiko + 2100 I St., NW #808 + Washington DC 20037-2319 |
| ssh...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu + http://gwis2.circ.gwu.edu/~ssheiko |
| "It is a great poverty to decide that a child must die |
| so that you may live as you choose." Mother Teresa |
Timothy J Young
Shawn Pickrell (spic...@rmc.edu) wrote:
: In article <3358df26...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
: jpg...@students.uiuc.edu wrote:
: > On 19 Apr 1997 05:17:10 GMT, tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu (Timothy J
: > Young) wrote:
: > I've got to agree with you here. Things haven't looked very good all
: > year.
: Hmm ... was that thing on 5 October an odd portent for the year??
: I hope not.
: > >1. Is it just me, or was there a decided paucity of new talent on the
: > >circuit this year?
: > But I've only seen a sampling
: > from this region. I've heard of other programs in other places where
: > the older students/grad students are carrying things because the
: > undergrads are either not capable or not interested, so you may be on
: > to something.
: I have a theory for this (see below at end of post). But think about it:
: It's disheartening when you, a player of reasonable talent in high
: school, get blown away by the students who have been there for several
: years at the first few practices.
: Or, when you go to tournaments, you face up against Maryland A or some
: team full of people that have been doing this forever. You lose, 345-10.
: Do you *really* want to continue doing this? I don't think so. It's a
: factor that most of the regulars on this group, being affiliated with a
: relatively successful or established program, may not have a complete
: grasp on.
But that's always bee true to an extent.
: Think about it -- would students from Small College or Mid-Size U really
: want to keep that up?? It's hard enough dealing with getting funding and
: with school administrators -- what's the point of all that hassle if
: you're just going to get your butt kicked??
: There needs to be a seperate circuit for smaller/newer schools; anyone
: who does not realize this is condemning quizbowl to survive as a marginal
: activity that will expand at a snail's pace, if at all.
What we need to counteract this is not an entirely separate circuit, but a
few more "JV-esque" tournaments where anyone playing 2 full years or
longer is ineligible. That way, not every tourney they go to will result
in a thrashing by a team with a Jeff Johnson or a John Sheehan or an
Andrew Yaphe or a James Rogers or (you get the point.)
What would be the point of a "Division II" team if all they could aspire
to was the top of Division II?
I'd argue instead that the circuit is still too small to split up.
You can go on all
: you want about writing questions, working harder and practicing, but VERY
: FEW people are going to keep at it if they get destroyed in their first
: tournament.
That's the way to improve, though. It worked for me. It really did.
Honest.
: I guarantee you this: if we had gone 1-13 or 0-14 at our first
: tournament, instead of going 5-9 and being within 75 points of going 9-5,
: we would not be where we are today.
The first team I played on was 4-7. (Dartmouth B at Beaver Bowl V.)
: This circuit needs to include easier questions, untimed rounds and a way
: for promotion to the larger circuit.
Have a set of non-varsity tournaments, preferrably early in the year.
That'd be the kind of thing NAQT would be perfect for. Have there be a
co-op of varsity players from various schools run the event at an
appropriate location, splitting the proceeds. (For instance, Penn,
Princeton, and Swarthmore's older folks might want to try this. Or
Maryland, GW, and JHU.)
: As one coach of a smaller less
: active school put it, basketball teams from smaller colleges play
: basketball teams from smaller colleges; the same needs to apply in
: quizbowl.
But we don't have AC recruiting, so this doesn't really apply.
: > 4. Where are all the B teams?
: > An indicator to me of the decreasing strength of many programs is the
: > increasingly poor performances of most B teams at tournaments. At the
: > NAQT championship, the highest B-team finish was 22 by Maryland B,
: > followed at 25 by Michigan B. Yes, the field was tough. But the
: > field was tough at the 1994 ACF national championship, which had at
: > least two and maybe three B teams in the top ten (Maryland, BYU, maybe
: > Georgia Tech).
: This could also be an indicator that talent has spread out (i.e. it's not
: just a few schools with quizbowl talent.) I am not so concerned about
: that.
I agree with Shawn here. The decline of Maryland B or Harvard B or
Michigan B could be due to an expansion of circuit talent.
: ... and I think most of today's regulars will be tomorrow's coaches ...
That may well be... I am actually listed as Dartmouth's "coach."
: ... Shawn Pickrell
: -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
: http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
--
Patrick G. Matthews
I hope I haven't screwed up the attributions--with all the
followups it was difficult to sort things out :)
Timothy J Young wrote:
> Shawn Pickrell (spic...@rmc.edu) wrote:
[cuts]
> : Think about it -- would students from Small College or
> : Mid-Size U really want to keep that up?? It's hard enough
> : dealing with getting funding and with school
> : administrators -- what's the point of all that hassle if
> : you're just going to get your butt kicked??
>
> : There needs to be a seperate circuit for smaller/newer
> : schools; anyone who does not realize this is condemning
> : quizbowl to survive as a marginal activity that will
> : expand at a snail's pace, if at all.
This is one reason why National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC
will be instituting options for novice players and two-year
colleges in 1997-98. I personally agree that, to become the
best player you can be, you must play the best competition,
I also personally believe that it's also necessary to get in
some time against players on roughly the same level of
development.
> What we need to counteract this is not an entirely separate
> circuit, but a few more "JV-esque" tournaments where anyone
> playing 2 full years or longer is ineligible. That way, not
> every tourney they go to will result in a thrashing by a
> team with a Jeff Johnson or a John Sheehan or an Andrew
> Yaphe or a James Rogers or (you get the point.)
In 1997-98, NAQT is making questions available for both HS
tourneys and intercollegiate events (the weekends of 10/12,
11/8, and 2/14), in addition to the conference, sectional,
and championship weekends.
While hosts of the intercollegiate events on those three
weekends are free to make whatever eligibility decisions
they want, NAQT will give preference in awarding bids to
hosts that make some accommodation for novice and/or two-
year school players, either by running a separate division
or by restricted entry.
If any schools are interested in hosting any of these
three weekends (whether for a HS tourney, or any flavor
of a college tourney), please check out the "host bid form"
at the NAQT web site, http://www.naqt.com.
> What would be the point of a "Division II" team if all
> they could aspire to was the top of Division II?
The point is that the players not *stay* in a putative
"Division II". Newbies would cut their teeth in Division II,
and as soon as they felt ready for the more wide-open field
(or, ready or not, they've become too experienced to stay
with the novices), they move up.
[cut]
> Have a set of non-varsity tournaments, preferrably early
> in the year. That'd be the kind of thing NAQT would be
> perfect for. Have there be a co-op of varsity players from
> various schools run the event at an appropriate location,
> splitting the proceeds. (For instance, Penn, Princeton,
> and Swarthmore's older folks might want to try this. Or
> Maryland, GW, and JHU.)
As above, NAQT is trying to offer a smoother path to
developing events aimed in whole or in part to less
experienced players. Co-hosting application will most
certainly be considered; for example, a bid has already
been awarded jointly to Carengie-Mellon and Pitt for a
collegiate event the weekend of 11/8.
Pat
--
Patrick G. Matthews pat...@mraintl.com
Analyst voice 215.772.9748
MRA International fax 215.772.9716
Opinions expressed are my own, not necessarily those of my employer
Timothy J Young
Patrick G. Matthews (pat...@mraintl.com) wrote:
: I hope I haven't screwed up the attributions--with all the
: followups it was difficult to sort things out :)
: Timothy J Young wrote:
: > Shawn Pickrell (spic...@rmc.edu) wrote:
: [cuts]
: > : Think about it -- would students from Small College or
: > : Mid-Size U really want to keep that up?? It's hard enough
: > : dealing with getting funding and with school
: > : administrators -- what's the point of all that hassle if
: > : you're just going to get your butt kicked??
: >
: > : There needs to be a seperate circuit for smaller/newer
: > : schools; anyone who does not realize this is condemning
: > : quizbowl to survive as a marginal activity that will
: > : expand at a snail's pace, if at all.
: This is one reason why National Academic Quiz Tournaments, LLC
: will be instituting options for novice players and two-year
: colleges in 1997-98. I personally agree that, to become the
: best player you can be, you must play the best competition,
: I also personally believe that it's also necessary to get in
: some time against players on roughly the same level of
: development.
Back in the Penn Bowls of old, for instance (though this applies to any
largish tournament, such as the old Princeton tournaments) an
inexperienced team would be able to play other inexperienced teams just by
virtue of there being enough teams at that level at the tournament.
With smaller events, this doesn't happen as much anymore.
: > What we need to counteract this is not an entirely separate
: > circuit, but a few more "JV-esque" tournaments where anyone
: > playing 2 full years or longer is ineligible. That way, not
: > every tourney they go to will result in a thrashing by a
: > team with a Jeff Johnson or a John Sheehan or an Andrew
: > Yaphe or a James Rogers or (you get the point.)
: In 1997-98, NAQT is making questions available for both HS
: tourneys and intercollegiate events (the weekends of 10/12,
: 11/8, and 2/14), in addition to the conference, sectional,
: and championship weekends.
Would 2/14 be the weekend of CBI RCTs? (Not that that matters much, esp.
for non-CBI teams who want to host HS or even JV tournaments.)
: While hosts of the intercollegiate events on those three
: weekends are free to make whatever eligibility decisions
: they want, NAQT will give preference in awarding bids to
: hosts that make some accommodation for novice and/or two-
: year school players, either by running a separate division
: or by restricted entry.
: If any schools are interested in hosting any of these
: three weekends (whether for a HS tourney, or any flavor
: of a college tourney), please check out the "host bid form"
: at the NAQT web site, http://www.naqt.com.
: > What would be the point of a "Division II" team if all
: > they could aspire to was the top of Division II?
: The point is that the players not *stay* in a putative
: "Division II". Newbies would cut their teeth in Division II,
: and as soon as they felt ready for the more wide-open field
: (or, ready or not, they've become too experienced to stay
: with the novices), they move up.
That's more what I had in mind, really. The circuit isn't big enough to
split into 2+ divisions currently anyway.
Of course, there's one thing NAQT can't solve... it's how to teach
newbies to write question packets. This is absolutely vital to the
continuation of a viable quiz bowl circuit. Perhaps there could be an
event with partial contribution of questions / partial question supply
from NAQT (which would require some weird editing and create problems of
inconsistency pssobily, but still might be a usefulidea...)
: As above, NAQT is trying to offer a smoother path to
: developing events aimed in whole or in part to less
: experienced players.
Hats off to NAQT for being able to offer that.
Co-hosting application will most
: certainly be considered; for example, a bid has already
: been awarded jointly to Carengie-Mellon and Pitt for a
: collegiate event the weekend of 11/8.
: Pat
: --
: Patrick G. Matthews pat...@mraintl.com
: Analyst voice 215.772.9748
: MRA International fax 215.772.9716
: Opinions expressed are my own, not necessarily those of my employer
--
| Tim Young (tjy...@gwis2.circ.gwu.edu) Red Sox-o-Meter : |
| GWU Law School '99 :\ |
Storyteller
> In article <19970417041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>Carol Guthrie,
> tnma...@aol.com writes:
> >As a result, I have decided to announce my retirement from active
coaching
> >and my resignation from the ACF organization.
Dear Carol,
Thank you so much for everything you have done for academic quiz games in
the Southeast. You and others like you created many good times and
character building opportunities for countless college students. Here's to
you! Congrats on law school and best of luck to you!
--Mike Dupée, Emory 1985-89, UF 92-95
Scott Coon
Timothy J Young wrote:
>
> Samer Ismail (sis...@pantheon.yale.edu) wrote:
[snip]
> : What I would suggest is this:
>
> : 1. Teams should decide _before the end of this school year_ if they
> : plan to host tournaments next year, and if so, what kinds of tournaments.
> : 2. If they plan to host tournaments, they should make _rough
> : estimates_ of when they'd want to host (I'm thinking along the lines of
> : "early October" or "November/December", not necessarily specific dates).
>
> Guess I'll throw GW's hat into the ring :
> Beltway Bandits in late October/ early November (trash)
> JCV IV the week after Penn Bowl/Super Bowl weekend (T-8, NAQT-like)
The ruling cabal of Illinois will probably have a specific announcement
in the next few days, but we are currently planning an open tournament
in mid-to-late-October. It will be untimed, structured essentially
along ACF rules, but with a kinder, gentler question distribution, now
that several of our ACF warhorses have passed to the Elysian Fields of
Masters status.
Scott Coon
the Daniel Ellsberg of Academic Competition
co...@math.uiuc.edu
Joseph K Wright
(much deleted, and sorry attribution is jumbled)
In article <335B88...@wam.umd.edu>,
Josh Allen <jta...@wam.umd.edu> wrote:
>Just wanted to agree with Tim on several points:
>
>
>Timothy J Young wrote:
>>
>> Shawn Pickrell (spic...@rmc.edu) wrote:
>
>
>> Have a set of non-varsity tournaments, preferrably early in the year.
>> That'd be the kind of thing NAQT would be perfect for. Have there be a
>> co-op of varsity players from various schools run the event at an
>> appropriate location, splitting the proceeds. (For instance, Penn,
>> Princeton, and Swarthmore's older folks might want to try this. Or
>> Maryland, GW, and JHU.)
The full announcement isn't ready yet, but as Pat Matthews stated in
another message, Pitt and CMU have been awarded a bid to jointly host
a NAQT tournament on the weekend of November 8th. This tournament will
be targeted primarily at novice teams (first or one of the first
invitationals for the school) and novice players (freshman/sophomore/
first invitational/possibly some high school all-star teams). We do
also expect, however, to have a division for more conventional teams
as well.
More details will follow in the days and weeks to come, as they are
available.
--
Joe Wright wri...@pitt.edu Phone: (412)-624-7187
"American society can still be likened to a 'salad', rather than a
'melting pot.' But perhaps in the future, we will be more of a 'melting
salad.'" -from an actual scholarship essay on what "America" means in 1997
Eric Hillemann
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.970422...@ux9.cso.uiuc.edu>
Jerry Hagen, ja-h...@students.uiuc.edu writes:
>More to come about our tournament. Are the dates for Minnesota Deep Bench
>indeed Oct. 31-Nov. 1?
Nope. We had other plans for Halloween. We're now planning to hold the
Deep Bench Oct. 24-25, at the University of Minnesota.
(For those who don't know, the Deep Bench, co-hosted by Minnesota and
Carleton, is an unusual format tournament featuring singles and doubles
play as well as traditional foursomes. It is limited to nine schools,
each expected to bring eight players. A description is available at the
Carleton website: http://public.carleton.edu/~ehillema/aqt.html. Last
year the nine schools competing were Carleton, Chicago, Illinois, Iowa,
Iowa State, Michigan, Minnesota, St. Olaf, and Wisconsin. We would
appreciate hearing from those schools if they are already able to say
that they will definitely be coming again, or definitely not coming. We
would also like to hear from any other school that would like to play in
the Deep Bench if there is an opening -- unfortunately we cannot expand
the field beyond nine teams of eight. Contact ehil...@carleton.edu.)
Eric Hillemann
Carleton Coach
Peter McCorquodale
In article <19970417041...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
TNMasters <tnma...@aol.com> wrote:
>As you'll soon read in a statement from Jim Dendy, my withdrawal and Jim's
>always been a philosophy more than an organization and though there will
>be no organized ACF tournaments, I hope that the rules forthe game will
>pass into public domain and still be used.
I still haven't seen Jim Dendy's statement, but why must the withdrawal of
him, Carol Guthrie and Don Windham leave ACF as a defunct organization?
According to the ACF Newsletters sent out in January and March, 1997,
ACF's Vice President is Vishnu Jejjala, and we haven't heard from him yet.
When I was at the NCT in Illinois, I met quite a few people who thought
they could make real contributions to ACF events, but have been prevented
from doing so because ACF never asks for help. There is also great confusion
about what kind of an organization ACF is, and who makes decisions. The
impression I got from the people who seemed to know the most is that each year
ACF has two or three leaders (this year, Jim and Vishnu) who are chosen by
their predecessors and in turn choose their own successors.
Now I'll throw out the question that I haven't seen asked yet:
*Why doesn't* ACF (whoever that means) solicit help in running tournaments
next year?
ACF presents its philosophy as "putting players first", and I can't see how
folding up the regional and national tournaments would help.
I might understand if ACF didn't think it could find good tournament
organizers and question editors, but the average invitational tournament
is much better organized than was this year's NCT, and the editing of the
regional questions, at least, could have been done better by an average
invitational's editing team.
Peter
jpg...@students.uiuc.edu
On 22 Apr 1997 03:14:09 GMT, Jesse M Molesworth <pote...@wam.umd.edu>
wrote:
>> > 5. Where are all the teammates?
>
>I think this is exaggerated a bit. Sure, there are outstanding individual
>players, but that's the way it's always been. John Sheahan may have led
>Chicago A in scoring at the NAQT NCT, but that was far from a one-man team.
>The same can be said for Jeff Johnson and Harvard, James Anderson and
>Illinois, Andrew Yaphe and Virginia, et al. In fact, I'd bet that
>Virginia A would have been in the title hunt at ACF Nats WITHOUT Andrew.
Just a point of clarification, since I agree with what you're saying
here: I asked this question not about teams which have one dominant
player, but about teams consisting only of one person or maybe two
people. I'm not condemning any particular instance of it, but I'd
still maintain that it's becoming a more common practice, and that
it's an indicator of the poor health of some programs.
Jonathan Green
Eric S. Bell
pet...@math.mit.edu (Peter McCorquodale) blessed our newsgroup with
this bit of wittiness:
> and the editing of the
>regional questions, at least, could have been done better by an average
>invitational's editing team.
As the old saying goes, garbage in, garbage out. ACF, as I
understood, got almost no packet submissions other than the ones they
used. When you have to make every packet workable, you can't spend as
much time on packet beautification.
Although ... they didn't use the packet I submitted, so I wonder what
we did that was so colossally awful that it couldn't be used ... :(
Eric
Eric Bell (eb...@ou.edu) Oklahoma Academic Team
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/Quad/9209 World Anti-Marriage League
"Computers are a passing fad on the way Eric on OKB/Avistar on IRC
to the inevitable global dominion of the Post-It note." -- L. Gill
Shawn Pickrell
Josh Allen (jta...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Well, you know, Shawn, there are always going to be strong teams and
: weak teams. Part of the thrill and challenge of AC is learning. Hell,
I suppose that's correct; we can't all start at the top, and SOMEONE has
to finish last. (view our performance at ACF Regionals.)
The only thing I'd want is that if 1-2 players on a neophyte program are
really interested in staying on with the game, but can't find support at
that school, that something can be done to help them out. :)
: I'd be surprised if I knew half as much last year in high school as I do
Well, Josh, it's amazing how much *I've* learned in the three semesters I've
been in academic competition at the collegiate level. Happens to all of us,
I guess. Practice, playing and question writing have made me a better player.
: now. And it hasn't even been a year yet. Of course, I have a
: tremendous bunch of players to practice with, veterans and freshmen
: alike, but everyone can improve in this fashion. I point you to the
: story of a Maryland team who lost a few years ago to a certain team
: 455-5. Two years later they beat the same team twice.
That's correct. I admire the Maryland team who stuck with the game.
I hope that other teams on the receiving end of such scores CAN stick with
it. I don't know how likely that'll be, though ...
: Hey, my first 3 tournaments, my teams went 7-30! But you don't see me
: quitting. Recently the freshmen have started to play together, and
: we're putting up winning records. Look out in the future!
I wasn't referring to me quitting, I was referring my teammates quitting. I'd
have found a way to play no matter what. Such is my love of the game ...
: > Have a set of non-varsity tournaments, preferrably early in the year.
: > That'd be the kind of thing NAQT would be perfect for. Have there be a
: > co-op of varsity players from various schools run the event at an
: > appropriate location, splitting the proceeds. (For instance, Penn,
: > Princeton, and Swarthmore's older folks might want to try this. Or
: > Maryland, GW, and JHU.)
: A great idea. I hope the officers of at least my team read this and
: decide to act.
I have to agree 150% with what Tim and Josh say here. I would like to be
able to help to the best of my ability.
: Looking forward to four years of AC with the best,
: Josh
It's been a great three semesters ...
--Shawn Pickrell, Randolph-Macon College '97
ThoughtRunner, Romantic Cynic, Quizbowl Fanatic, Butterfly Catcher, Christian
mailto:spic...@recon.rmc.edu <=> http://recon.rmc.edu/~spickrel