\
ThePocketProtector wrote:I have the feeling that there are people that are against it for non-timing reasons. That is kind of what I am interested in finding out.
I understand where you're coming from here. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand what you're saying.
In addition to the timing of when this would've taken place, on Greg's thread there were people who expressed concern about the cost. Players expressed concerned about the cost, coaches expressed concern about the cost, heck even someone outside of the state expressed dismay at the cost! Again... no, I don't think Greg is looking to 'hustle' high school kids out of their allowance. However, $25 is a lot and while I recognize that
ThePocketProtector wrote:I was going to do everything in my power to reduce the prices at my site. I made it clear to coaches that if they had a kid that was interested, that I would subsidize them. I'm crazy like that.
(this really is being a good steward in quiz bowl, in my opinion), some host sites may not have been as willing to do so. $25 as a flat rate, before anyone would be willing to subsidize it, is a pretty penny for a lot of students just to try out for something.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - -
To respond to a particular statement in the original post...
Why is having a series of tournaments to decide the state champion good and having a series of tournaments to pick the best players in the state bad? Is it because we all know who the best 8 players are and making them prove it is a waste of time and money? We probably know who the top of both group are so how are they different?
I recognize that some may have seen the public pooh-poohing of Greg's proposal to be a reflection of an 'elite circle' of players and coaches because the proposed schedule of tryouts and monetizing didn't fit their interests nor availability. I'm not going to completely dismiss that idea or anyone who has that idea, as it's an interpretation of a situation. For a few reasons, I find that an 'elite circle' and its insularity are equally problematic for Ohio quiz bowl. Maybe a 'circle' does exist; maybe I am part of it. However, I do think we need to consider that NASAT is intentionally designed to be an 'elite' tournament: the answerlines are often tough, the questions are particularly long, and most of your games are against the nation's best players. By no means do I think we need to be exclusive of students wanting to try out and earn a spot on the basis of who they play for and how often/how little they play. However... it is a tough competition, and it is a different beast entirely from the local Saturday tournament or even OAC Regionals. If we assemble 'the best team possible', we're not just assembling the team that has the best chance of winning the competition but also the team that is, theoretically, the best team equipped to deal with the difficulty of the tournament.
To use your 'top eight' example: if Greg's criteria for making the NASAT team was having to attend the final tryout site (which I'm sure it was), that already eliminates one of the top players in Hunter Wotruba (through no fault of Hunter's own, because he has graduation) and possibly kids from Solon (as Rohin notes a potential conflict with Science Olympiad.) Possibly even other players, 'top' or 'good' alike, would be precluded from participating if their schools also had graduation that day. My point here is if Greg, sticking to his criteria, only was able to form a team of kids able to make the two tryout dates (in some cases one, depending on previous nomination to Team Ohio's NASAT squad)... he might have a team, but it's a team whose formation was made possible by x number of students being available a Sunday (and in some cases, maybe also a weekday) in May.
I'm assuming Greg's idea of mandating attendance for in-person tryouts in order to be considered for NASAT was going to be unflinching and resolved: I understand Greg as someone actively legitimizing quizbowl as an activity for when he tries to get new schools involved, and if it means adhering to the criteria he set forth and not making any exceptions
ad hoc, then so be it; it was his proposal. But if that were to be case, and if players such as Clark Smith (just an example) or Hunter Wotruba are thus precluded from participating not on the basis of their skill but rather their availability for a tryout (such as the one on May 21), then the team lost a good player. I think this was the main, timing-related objection from various players that responded to it: the timing is impractical for many, and they weren't on board with the idea of competing for a spot whose competition was subtracted on the basis of other players, that they know and respect as competitive rivals, not being available.
Let me clarify and sum my thoughts on NASAT, in-person tryouts, etc: I think in-person tryouts are a good thing. If I, personally, were to run NASAT some time, I would definitely try and get everything figured out way earlier in the school year so by the time the February/March/early April circuit of events rolls around, in-person tryouts can be done at tournaments like Solon or Ohio State/O. Liberty or Mason during the lunch break, or whenever. I believe this is currently what Illinois does; the first leg of tryouts are extensions of the typical Saturday event, and the second leg of tryouts take place during a central state competition, a la NAQT States. Anyone could adopt this model and, with sufficient and adequate timing, be successful. I respect Greg and was glad he was pulling at least something together for NASAT; it obviously wasn't going to work for many students, but I do think this is related to how late it was announced and scheduled (not necessarily a fault of Greg, I guess, since no one stepped up and publicly said "I have a plan, here's funding" until he did.)
I think ultimately, once the dust settles and despite any potential tension or high-running emotions, the topic of figuring out the best way to plan for NASAT will become obsolete within a few years because NASAT will not be prioritized.
Between my conversations about NASAT as a competition with a few folks over the past year, several people have indicated that NASAT is 'not the same' competition it was when it was first released in 2009 (or was it 2010?) I tried to impart this question on an earlier thread this year about NASAT: 'do people actually still want to play it?'
Criticisms of NASAT as a tournament, that I have heard from my conversations, include:
- the allowing of states to enter multiple teams, as the standard when the tournament was first introduced was "you'll always play 'the top four players' from states like California and Texas." Now, the standard is "your schedule will feature the B or C teams of smaller population states such as Maryland and Alabama. You might also play California D."
- it's an expensive tournament which is already tough enough to secure consistent funding for (at least in the case of us Ohioans.) By all means, its expensive because the questions are of a premium quality. Nothing wrong with that; but, again, expensive tournament that (if you're a teacher looking to chaperone) requires a lot of your own personal time, energy and resources to make it possible for not just your students but also the students from all across the state.
- there's never a guarantee that the tournament is going to happen once the school year starts; so, whats the point of going through the hassle and organizing it if the tournament might not happen?
- if the idea of NASAT was to supplant NTAE/Panasonic as the "premier 'all-states' quiz bowl showdown", then letting multiple entries come from a state dilutes the chances for smaller-population states to win the national title (e.g. California being able to submit four teams, while states such as Nevada only can muster up one team.)
EDIT: Allow me to clarify that I'm not here to crap on HSAPQ or the fine people in quiz bowl that have put a lot of time and energy toward making NASAT a quality competition in years past as well as this year. My point here, simply, is we have opportunities to publicly discuss how we, as a state, want to organize and prioritize NASAT this year and future iterations. I'm not ready to make the leap of "the fact NASAT was figured out late = we don't care about NASAT", but I
do think if we as a state are serious about putting together a team for NASAT this year and down the road, we need to have a roundtable discussion about a) how we want to form the team, b) how we want to go about forming the team, c) how we're going to fund it, d) what our expectations are for NASAT, e) if we still think creating a team for NASAT is a worthwhile effort in spite of recent changes to the tournament, f) what is the best way to providing a NASAT team that meets the interests of not just the 'in' players but also players that aren't as well-connected into the circuit.
This is a discussion I tried to pitch earlier this year on here, to no avail. It is imperative, I feel, that some public discourse be had on what the best way to assemble a NASAT squad is, and even if NASAT is still a 'priority' for people here. In the seven-or-eight year entirety of NASAT's existence, I believe Ohio is one of the few states that has sent a team every year. Hopefully that streak continues, and that a good coming together of talented and dedicated quizbowl people in Ohio can be had to determine what the best course of action going forward with NASAT is. Maybe it is too late this year (as the tournament is only, like, six weeks away), but it certainly isn't too late to try and come up with an agreed upon set of values and organization for next year and years down the road.