However, it would be incorrect to characterize the mission of increasing involvement as solely the responsibility of the OAC as well as the only sole responsibility of the organization. Similarly, the OAC does not currently possess the ability to significantly and immediately improve the rates of participation statewide -- functionally the organization has limits; resourcefully it is rich in the human capacity, but when measured by school-to-individual representation the ratio is too vast for even the most talented and dedicated representative alone to increase participation by any tens-to-hundreds percentage; and logistically the opportunity to immediately "grow the game" is hampered by the shackles of dwindling personal budgets as well as reduced people power. Be known that these challenges exist regardless of who is on the committee -- it doesn't matter if you have a Committee roster chocked full of Generation 'Y' teachers with expanding professional networks, an unfathomably gifted slate of superintendents from all education domains of various geographies and backgrounds or a Who's Who of the 15 most-fervent quizbowl advisors from counties of 5-figure population or less. The problems that stifle Ohio's participation growth are all the same: it's an activity cached in a pursuit that is deteriorating socially (learning new things), with no centralized nor demonstrated support from any actual state institution and the susceptibility to "budget barriers" holding back genuinely interested newcomers.
I see two primary problems looming for Ohio quizbowl: the risk of the regionals/state set becoming obsolete, and the inability of deeper circuit development to materialize. Neither of these problems fall at directly the feet of the OAC; not one member or director is responsible for these problems, and the blame cannot be placed on OAC for either of these problems occurring. Both of these problems are largely rooted in scarcity, a phenomenon that in quizbowl purposes simply doesn't exist in pockets of higher-concentrations of population and wealth elsewhere in the country (e.g. the DC Metro, Chicagoland.) The reasoning behind OAC being the focus of this scribe is that the organization is the only real hope in making a significant enough impact to create depth in Ohio, a future generation of quizbowl within the state and ultimately the only collective that can help carry the torch of Ohio's quizbowl tradition through this decade.
Neither of these problems (set future, shallow circuits) can be tackled and fixed individually. They mutually reinforce each other -- they're not truly resolved if the other is still lacking.
The Future of the Regionals/State Set
Why does it matter?
Ohio having its own pyramidal set to crown a concurrent state champion (or, depending on how some view it... "the" state champion) is a novelty. The strength lies within the novelty: the tournament dates back decades. The generally consistent high-quality of the set engages students of all experience levels, the inherent 'gain' of an additional 10 pyramidal questions in a given round (30 in OAC versus 20 in Tossup/Bonus) produces better value and imparts the value of learning more things, while also serving as a useful additional tournament to prepare Ohio schools for national competitions (by virtue of its positioning on the calendar and the subject matter asked.)
Why is this being discussed?
It is an open secret at this point that the OAC set is facing survival issues. Talented quizbowlers in Ohio do not write at the frequency of 10(+) years ago; those who do write almost exclusively allot their services at two different capacities (housewrites at the HS level through collaboration with the broader national community, or college tournaments.) There is nothing wrong with that being a preference of today's youth -- however, those two capacities are fundamentally at odds with the necessity of a pristine set for Ohio teams to play. The set has standards, it is considerably demanding on the simple basis of answerline commands and the depth of packets to be written. I think all of our Ohio writers over this past decade have done a fantastic job with the set. But, they have lives beyond quizbowl and there isn't a firm indication that the crop of OH writers is replenishing... for the reasons already addressed.
IF... if the set goes away, the regional/state tournament could still happen. Which, is good! The dilemma is the sourcing of questions would most likely go to a national vendor such as NAQT. NAQT does a fantastic job with questions -- the issue is the supply of a set from NAQT to service the regional/state competition would come at the expense of a set that could be used in the regular season. In essence, it'd be "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
What can be done?
I'm sure this has been mulled over by committee members informally. I don't think there is an easy answer, but I will put out what I believe is the only firm answer and one that literally comes with no consequence.
Get more schools involved. The entire tradition of the OAC set being the product of Ohio quizbowlers lies in the veneration of what the activity meant for them. It is seen as a credit and commemoration of a pastime the writers believed made their lives richer. And that is not to suggest that those who do not write for OAC feel differently about their experiences playing quizbowl in Ohio. It is merely an expression of what I've seen with my own eyes, as you all have. The more seeds that can be planted, the more yield of a future writing class for our state set.
The Push to Make Ohio's Circuits Deeper
Why does it matter?
What's understood doesn't need to be explained. The more schools, the better. It means more competition. It means more people in the tent, in the celebration of academic activity. It means more hosts. It means shorter average drives on the typical fall-winter-spring circuit. It drives down costs. It is satisfying beyond the most imaginative and wildest of fancies, for coaches and players. It means a deeper line at nationals. It improves our state image.
Why is this being discussed?
The possibilities are almost endless in Ohio with circuit development. They are. Horizontally we've seen what can be accomplished with the small school tradition Ohio pumps out annually at nationals: Ottawa Hills, South Range, Beachwood; Miami Valley; scores of other schools that always do well at SSNCT. Oh, we also did have a national champion claimant this year: Garfield HS (Portage County) has the Very Small School national crown for 2022.
Vertically? SW Ohio is a sleeping giant, not just on the state level. They very plausibly could produce a list of schools that would threaten for the grand prize at SSNCT and possibly even HSNCT. The Columbus metro has a deep bench of large public schools, as well as smaller ones, with superb education systems and the student populations to make a splash on the scene. Greater Cleveland and the Akron-Canton metroplex is the same way. Lot of public and private schools that can compete at a high level.
What HAS to happen, in order for the circuits to bud? As I see it, there needs to be a very specific focus on networking. But the scope of networking I'm thinking of is too vast for one person's efforts or talents to increase participation alone. You can't delegate 'outreach' efforts as a simple "e-mail 50 schools this year, John Q. Random" command. Even 25 is a bear. If you start small, like have Bob Kilner talk to his teaching/coaching peers at five different high schools in Lake County, Bob might only get one response that turns into a lead -- but 1/5 is a better shooting percentage than 1/10; 2/25 etc.
With that in mind, that's not the extent or depth of the networking necessary to increase participation. It's a starting point that touches the surface. Once momentum picks up as the seal is broken, I do believe half of the aims through networking come easier.
What are other ways to build the networking of quizbowl in Ohio?
- Education consortiums/county organizations (e.g. schools with shared services or a common provider of educational services,
- Athletic conferences,
- Professional networks of school administrators,
- Intra-Diocesan, and inter-Diocesan, communications and sponsorships of competition.
- Others?
If it is agreed that a baseline, like what I've suggested in the last three paragraphs, can be established to get the ball rolling on outreach, then a task (reach out to schools) is declared to meet the objective (getting more schools involved.)
What can be done?
I don't think asking all of the members for every region to go talk to five different schools is realistic (I can see where, in some regions, there's overlap in the circles of who two teachers happen to know.) I also don't know if making it an annual thing for the same person in a region to go do outreach really amounts to anything (burn-out, going back to the same well again and again and again.)
Suggestions:
- Each of the six regions could have a rotating "outreach coordinator" title that changes hands every year. Keeps it fresh.
- The outreach coordinator could be tasked with a "new-to-quizbowl" event -- or at least putting on a tournament confined to their general area.
- An alternative could be an "Statewide Outreach Coordinator" position created by the OAC -- if the electee is not already on the committee then they could serve in a non-voting capacity. In theory this statewide coordinator can devote time to e-mailing all known contacts, collated statewide, and offer to talk with the coaches or activities directors of schools that are not regular participants. Not quite a 'salesman' but rather a representative that can hear concerns, answer questions, offer advice and provide expertise to those who have an interest in increasing their school's involvement in quizbowl.