On May 13, 2011...
Posted: Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:59 am
An "open letter" was penned detailing criticisms, some just and others unjust, about the OAC format, its committee, and its rules of play.
While OAC in 2011 was imperfect, it has only improved since then. The letter written casted doubt as to whether or not the OAC would ever improve. The thesis was "no", and that good teams would avoid playing OAC altogether.
Among the complaints were the difficulty in finding consistent, high-quality writing for the regional and state tournament; the belief that OAC was effectively a format "good" teams wanted to avoid and one in which younger members of the community would refuse staffing and trying to improve. There are many other complaints that either never came to fruition, or which ended up being eradicated through rules changes.
There were also some complaints then that still apply today. The most notable is the cost of the tournament, but if the Ike Jose Rule can be rid of and high-quality pyramidal writing can be sustained, then I'm sure anything is possible.
It is intriguing to look back, and to see how far both OAC and the community have came since then. I for one believe that it is worth recognizing how far the format and event has come, from what was a 'bad' quiz bowl event to a high-quality state tournament operating on many good quiz bowl practices. Imperfect, yes - but with a committee always looking to improve and better themselves, it's safe to say the prognostications back then were wrong about today.
While OAC in 2011 was imperfect, it has only improved since then. The letter written casted doubt as to whether or not the OAC would ever improve. The thesis was "no", and that good teams would avoid playing OAC altogether.
Among the complaints were the difficulty in finding consistent, high-quality writing for the regional and state tournament; the belief that OAC was effectively a format "good" teams wanted to avoid and one in which younger members of the community would refuse staffing and trying to improve. There are many other complaints that either never came to fruition, or which ended up being eradicated through rules changes.
There were also some complaints then that still apply today. The most notable is the cost of the tournament, but if the Ike Jose Rule can be rid of and high-quality pyramidal writing can be sustained, then I'm sure anything is possible.
It is intriguing to look back, and to see how far both OAC and the community have came since then. I for one believe that it is worth recognizing how far the format and event has come, from what was a 'bad' quiz bowl event to a high-quality state tournament operating on many good quiz bowl practices. Imperfect, yes - but with a committee always looking to improve and better themselves, it's safe to say the prognostications back then were wrong about today.