It seemed to be if a team lost their first round game, then their chances at playoffs became a whole lot tougher because their third or fourth game would see them pick up the loser of a 2-0 or 2-1 game if they won the previous one.
Couple thoughts...
- HSNCT only gets harder, deeper, and tougher to make playoffs from here: despite the fact it's in the top 10% of PPB's in the field (32nd out of 304), it's apparent that 19ppb isn't enough to make playoffs and, despite how good of a team you can have at 19ppb, it only matters if you can reach n (6) wins; no matter who they're against. That's one thing I never really cared about for HSNCT, even though it is a downright awesome event.
- The draw plays a bit of a role, but games on the clock at this level have become more about outpacing the other team and 'controlling the board', if not to maximize points then certainly to keep the other team from scoring a lot of points.
- We're watching a massive arms race unfold nationally, and it will hurt the ability of teams with smaller student populations or less established traditions to be competitive consistently at the event as the years go on, even if they have a 'good' team; when the powerhouses establish their seeds further into the ground, the roots for success become firmer, and tougher for their opponents to overcome. 30 of the 116 teams that made playoffs came from a school that had more than one Sunday qualifier. For even the most talented of coaches and dedicated of players, the fact of the matter is simple: you win with numbers and resources.
By no means am I impugning any of the schools I'm describing, but: the ability to even send two teams to HSNCT really does hinge on having enough heads that are able to go and having (access to) the money or fundraising resources. The ability to send three teams, all things considered, is baffling. And yet, for some schools, the ability to send four, five... even six(!) teams to HSNCT, especially when considering for a lot of schools sending one team can be a struggle, is
insane. And no, I am not making out any of these schools to be the 'bad guys': the more opportunities for kids to play quiz bowl, since it is a game played by youngsters to reward knowledge, the better. However, just like companies such as NAQT literally consider 'the bottom line', so too do many (if not all) the competing schools: sure, you can 'have fun' no matter your record on Saturday, but after a while you will want to play for a trophy or a certain spot because a) going 4-6 or 5-5 can get old, especially if you have a competitive personality and b) you're going to want to earn
something to get your community and base back home excited, supportive of, and in some cases, invested in - there is a sheer difference between placing <41 out of 304 versus 136 or whatever out of 304. Even for an average 1,000 student high school that only has the means and resources to send one team (full of kids on their first or second trip to HSNCT because they weren't afforded an opportunity to go with the team the year or two before) that Round 17 match could be against a team with kids who had been at HSNCT on their third or fourth time and in playoffs for the second or third.
The rich will only get richer in this arms race: sheer numbers in the student body (which, volumetrically means that you'll have more kids to pick from to put together competitive A and a B teams - look at Wayzata, which has 3400 kids and is the largest high school in Minnesota - they had six teams and their 'D' team made playoffs!); resources (money, access to private donors for both private and public schools; access to district funds and/or funds from the general public, for public schools); tradition that gets passed down easily (see: Hunter College HS, Thomas Jefferson S&T; DCC fits this bill, but, unlike the former two examples, DCC actually has coaching that is instrumental in shaping the program the way it is while also having great coaching.) If you have the first two things and the kids are driven, then Sundays are more often than not in the cards; if you have all three of those things, then Sundays are a given and, if you also have really driven kids, then you're going to be kings of the castle along with only a couple other schools: ...and it repeats, and it repeats, and it repeats.
As the bar keeps getting raised for making playoffs, from a competitive standpoint in large part due to the arms race, it'll just get tougher and tougher for schools that are, by every minute of the detail, 'middle of the road' from an enrollment and tax base standpoint, to be competitive enough to make playoffs, let alone win a game - a school that has over 1,000 kids (even 1,500) is going to be pretty middle of the road compared to a lot of the schools at nationals that have 3,000-4,000 kids in it. Sure, all it takes is 'one great player' or a few-to-a-four 'good players' to make playoffs and be competitive, but as many of us know it's a real struggle to even get either a great player or a few good, dedicated players (whether your enrollment is 700 or 1,700.)
I wonder if this explains why a lot of the public SSNCT attendees weren't at HSNCT. I know Fulton (MI), who is
really small went. I know there were a couple private SSNCT attendees that doubled up between both, but truthfully there is difference in the obstacles public and private small schools alike face (although there is great similarity between what both of them lack that many big public schools do.)
I don't necessarily think what we're seeing is bad, but I do stop and wonder if it is a trend that will discourage the average school from attending in the future and either a) (if eligible) go to SSNCT only / instead; b) withdraw completely from HSNCT and rinse their hands of something they put effort towards but can't get anything to show for it; c) make schools consider the bad q/b nationals such as NAC.
Point c is entirely legitimate:
as Ben Anthony (bravely) wrote on HSQB: "it's difficult when you've won NAC to tell your faculty that you're 91st in the nation.. even though 91st is a clearly more legit ranking than "1st".