The Ohio Quizbowl Forum

A forum dedicated to discussing all things related to high school quizbowl in Ohio.
It is currently Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:16 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: NASAT 2018
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:21 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:03 pm
Posts: 159
A tournament announcement has been made for NASAT 2018, now run by International Quiz Bowl Tournaments (IQBT): http://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=21031

Now that it's confirmed that there will actually be a tournament, I figured I'd make a post in an attempt get the ball rolling on whether Ohio wants to send a team, how the team should be selected, and so on. I'll also say that I'm willing to pitch in to help with Team Ohio, up to and including traveling with the team/coaching, but I also figure that many other more experienced and better-qualified people around the state are probably interested as well.

Based on what it was like to run tryouts on Skype last year, I think that it would be preferable to run a single in-person tryout for NASAT, either after NAQT State (at OSU if we can keep the rooms, or somewhere else in Columbus that we can get), or after OAC State (I figure NAQT State would be more convenient for players since more teams will be attending the tournament and there isn't a qualification process like there is for OAC).

_________________
Tyler Benedict
Coach, Miami Valley School MS Quiz
Assistant, Miami Valley School HS Quiz
Miami Valley School '09


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NASAT 2018
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:48 am 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
I'll gladly read for a tryout or offer some insight, if solicited.

I have a question, though: what will be the criteria for deciding the team? Will it be quantitative "x tossups in y category" or a more qualitative decision by committee? Whatever the case may be, the criteria and selection process needs to be transparent and cogent. I have a multitude of thoughts on what the most appropriate, most "just" way is to conduct an in-person tryout since we're five years removed from the last one. Ironically, online tryouts have proven to be executed with the most transparent and organized selection criteria than in-person tryouts have been. (No, I'm not saying we should do online tryouts. What I'm saying is that there are a few things that need to be considered and established with an in-person tryout in ways different from how we did online tryouts.)

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NASAT 2018
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:33 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:03 pm
Posts: 159
To chip in my two cents, I think an in-person tryout can run similarly (and transparently) to how the online tryouts have the past couple years...last year the format sought to find players to fill chairs for literature, science & math, history, RMP, and fine arts, and that was done by tracking the percentage of tossups a player got in a category (questions answered/questions heard). There was also an advantage given to players who had distinguished themselves as exceptional performers during the year and players who had previously qualified for a NASAT team (those players got to skip prelims and go straight to the finals). I'm not sure what the format for the last in-person tryout was (perhaps Tom or others could describe so we don't succumb to repeated pitfalls), but I feel confident the community has learned from the last few selection procedures and can put on a fair and efficient in-person tryout.

This year, there are three players who qualified for last year's Ohio A who are eligible to return (Clark Smith, Hari Parameswaran, Andrew Zhang), as well as four players who qualified for Ohio B (John John Groger, William Groger, Tommy Varley, Pranav Padmanabhan, and Jason Wright). It depends on how many additional people sign up to try out, but giving at least the returning A team members a fast track seems both feasible and appropriate.

Also based on last year's experience: to provide the best experience for all players and to make coaching easier, I'd pretty strongly recommend that there not be more than four players tapped for the final Ohio team(s). This goes against the established grain a bit, since it's been traditional to carry around 6 players on Ohio A for a long time, but on both occasions when I attended NASAT (with Peter Bergman in 2016 and with Joe Czupryn last year) there would inevitably be substitutes that would hardly get a chance to play, or who never seemed to be in at the right times (the classic quizbowl paradox of "your questions only come up when you're not in the game"). I understand the desire to recognize exceptional quizbowlers with the title of "Ohio All-Star," and I'm certainly not against naming alternates who stand by in case someone can't make the trip, but I also feel like that if players are making the travel time and spending the money for hotels, they should have as much opportunity to play as possible, and that can't happen if you're carrying substitutes. (I totally understand if you feel differently, and this is definitely not a knock on anyone who's been in this situation at NASAT before! I have the utmost respect for all players and coaches who have committed their time and resources to this tournament, and I just want everyone to feel best served by the experience.)

_________________
Tyler Benedict
Coach, Miami Valley School MS Quiz
Assistant, Miami Valley School HS Quiz
Miami Valley School '09


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NASAT 2018
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:11 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
trbenedict wrote:
This year, there are three players who qualified for last year's Ohio A who are eligible to return (Clark Smith, Hari Parameswaran, Andrew Zhang), as well as four players who qualified for Ohio B (John John Groger, William Groger, Tommy Varley, Pranav Padmanabhan, and Jason Wright). It depends on how many additional people sign up to try out, but giving at least the returning A team members a fast track seems both feasible and appropriate.


This seemed to work pretty well last year. I'd endorse it again for this year as well.

trbenedict wrote:
To chip in my two cents, I think an in-person tryout can run similarly (and transparently) to how the online tryouts have the past couple years...last year the format sought to find players to fill chairs for literature, science & math, history, RMP, and fine arts, and that was done by tracking the percentage of tossups a player got in a category (questions answered/questions heard). There was also an advantage given to players who had distinguished themselves as exceptional performers during the year and players who had previously qualified for a NASAT team (those players got to skip prelims and go straight to the finals). I'm not sure what the format for the last in-person tryout was (perhaps Tom or others could describe so we don't succumb to repeated pitfalls), but I feel confident the community has learned from the last few selection procedures and can put on a fair and efficient in-person tryout.


Yeah, so by and all large, every year that there were online tryouts there were also progressive updates as to who stood where along with pretty established criteria. When the last in-person tryouts were conducted, there were no updates through the day as to where everyone stood. Instead, players were shuffled across rooms with no apparent rhyme nor reason while the people behind the planning process were in a closed-door control room. I don't think that latter part is problematic, but given the fact that no scores or updates were provided throughout the day (or posted publicly after the fact) to the participants or the coaches that attended (they were all kept on a chalkboard in the room that no one was to enter in) and especially considering that the sixth player to round out Team Ohio that year averaged <20ppg in the tournament the day before (while another try-out participant, who was passed over, went 44-44-22 in that same event) with the justification of "it's an experiment, he's eclectic" with nothing to suggest their invitation to join was merit-based, one can't help but think that the goalposts kept getting pushed and that there weren't six spots to play for - there were five.

In sum, I believe that this year's tryouts should incorporate some "here's where the field is playing out, here's where the points are falling in what category and who is scoring what." That alone would pretty much eliminate my concerns about (lack of) transparency in this process. Again, I don't think the closed room for analysis and discussing who we want put where for the next room assignment is bad; I just believe that if we're having players drive from all across the state for these tryouts (whether or not their school is attending the main event that these tryouts will be appended to), then the players should be afforded the right to know where they stand and where. I think you'd find this to be beneficial as well, Tyler, since you have two players on your high school team who certainly are capable of being invited for one, or two, spots on Team Ohio 2018 and because you('ll be) wear(ing) the coaching hats for both teams.

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 4 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group