ChrisR wrote:My understanding is that some coaches would have preferred a format that used two championship brackets of 6, evenly ranked, who would then play a round robin before playing their equivalent ranking in the other bracket in a one game final for placement - A1 would play B1 for 1st/2nd, A2 would play B2 for 3rd/4th, etc.
In contrast, we used a straight playoff round robin of the top 6 teams, and final series as needed.
To me, the advantages of the 2-bracket scenario are that it avoids the 1-loss elimination. This is not insignificant - I would very much have liked to avoid that. But that seems to be it.
The disadvantages, conversely, are that it takes longer (mild concern), it significantly reduces the number of games that top-6 teams get against other top-6 teams (significant concern), and most importantly, it prevents true "finals series" between the top two teams, who would just play a one-game final.
This year, where we had two teams far ahead of the rest of the field who played a truly remarkable finals series, that would have been quite the significant detriment to the tournament. So, if we'd have used the 2-bracket design, Dublin and Beavercreek would not have played their finals series, which seems like it would have been a disservice to the event.
gbdriver80 wrote:This is not the end game that would have been at all intended by anyone present I am sure - the expectation would have been what has happened year after year, which would be if you ended with two 10-0 teams and two 9-1 teams, you would play a Page playoff, which would then alleviate the concerns above by and large. If you ended with a different combination, you play a modified version of the Page to ensure a similar circumstance holds.
ChrisR wrote:gbdriver80 wrote:This is not the end game that would have been at all intended by anyone present I am sure - the expectation would have been what has happened year after year, which would be if you ended with two 10-0 teams and two 9-1 teams, you would play a Page playoff, which would then alleviate the concerns above by and large. If you ended with a different combination, you play a modified version of the Page to ensure a similar circumstance holds.
If I understand this format correctly, post-playoffs then takes 3 rounds, with 3-4 teams only playing two of them. This adds significant time to the tournament, and does not use if efficiently. It also does not get you more than 1 more guaranteed game against the other top bracket, and introduces an element in which not everyone in the mix for the top spot plays the same people (which is a fresh negative offered by neither format I outlined above).
I am indeed surprised to learn that this is the standard that has been used "year after year"; though it is a bit hard to tell, it does not appear the format was used at all recent NAQT State events. In any event, it is certainly not the standard in quizbowl in pyramidal quizbowl I have experienced elsewhere, either in college or in 4 different major high school circuits. It seems to me to combine many undesirable elements of both systems. While I certainly wish to take into account the system's tradition in Ohio tournaments, I'd probably try pretty hard to convince the community here that it's not the best option. Indeed, it sounds like the main reason this format is used in other activities emerged from questions wholly unrelated to gameplay or format quality, like TV schedule needs and venue availability.
ChrisR wrote:If I understand this format correctly, post-playoffs then takes 3 rounds, with 3-4 teams only playing two of them. This adds significant time to the tournament, and does not use if efficiently.
ChrisR wrote:
If I understand this format correctly, post-playoffs then takes 3 rounds, with 3-4 teams only playing two of them. This adds significant time to the tournament, and does not use if efficiently. It also does not get you more than 1 more guaranteed game against the other top bracket, and introduces an element in which not everyone in the mix for the top spot plays the same people (which is a fresh negative offered by neither format I outlined above).
I am indeed surprised to learn that this is the standard that has been used "year after year"; though it is a bit hard to tell, it does not appear the format was used at all recent NAQT State events.
ChrisR wrote: In any event, it is certainly not the standard in quizbowl in pyramidal quizbowl I have experienced elsewhere, either in college or in 4 different major high school circuits. It seems to me to combine many undesirable elements of both systems. While I certainly wish to take into account the system's tradition in Ohio tournaments, I'd probably try pretty hard to convince the community here that it's not the best option. Indeed, it sounds like the main reason this format is used in other activities emerged from questions wholly unrelated to gameplay or format quality, like TV schedule needs and venue availability.
Bluejay wrote:-Why was the states tournament played on DII SCT questions?
Bluejay wrote:-While Chris was navigating airplanes and transportation to get back to campus the morning of the tournament, was there anyone in charge acting as deputy TD or was there just a lack of direction among the present staffers? Could the confusion over whether the playoffs were one flight/two flight have been due to this? Who gave opening announcements and came up with the new schedule?
Bluejay wrote:Also as an addendum: I live in the Memphis area now and a month ago staffed a tournament that had much bigger issues than these (feel free to ask me about it; it required some heroics from my end to keep it on track), so some of this discussion felt like to me that this is criticism of a below average, but certainly not a terrible tournament. While there were certainly problems with this tournament (based on what I've heard) that could have been avoided and good points for feedback (such as but not limited to: playoff format confusion, finals delay, playoff reader assignments, mistakes in recording stats), the tournament didn't seem to have many major issues otherwise, and thing definitely could have turned out worse. Of course, not having lived in Ohio for a few years now, maybe the standards have just grown higher since 2014 or so?
There were a few issues with the opening meeting. I don't bring this up to flame you, or any of your club members, because I know everyone tried their best in the face of the circumstances. Still, there were no schedules printed out in the morning. Representatives from competing teams were tasked with jotting down on paper the column in which they were placed, the teams they were competing against, the rooms and room assignments. With as many people as there were up on that stage, I'm not entirely sure why no one was sent to a nearby student library (or wherever you can access printing) to pick up printed schedules. Additionally, there was some information conveyed to teams that turned out to be incorrect, namely the playoff format.
[/quote]And, I'm sorry that it has come to this, I was (as were many people in Independence Hall that morning before Round 1) rather aggravated to find out that Chris was at an academic conference all week in Chicago with a flight to arrive in Columbus the night of the event, because probably the main root of all of Saturday's ails stems from the fact that Chris took the unreasonable gamble that his flight was actually going to arrive in Columbus on Friday evening, from Chicago, and evidently did not delegate any powers to the OSU undergrads nor was there a backup plan. I don't think anyone would have been nearly as upset about any of the preceding sentence had someone else in the club been promoted to the Tournament Director capacity in Chris's place. I don't think anyone would have been upset had a secondary plan been conspired in preparation for the tournament, and thus utilized, in the event that Chris's flight was cancelled (which is something that happens frequently in the airline industry.) But Chris doubled down on his commitments last week, and everyone in attendance last Saturday had to pay the consequences for Chris's bullishness.
What also adds significant time to the tournament is waiting for the reader (you) to get into the room where the finals were being read. Why Beavercreek and Dublin Scioto were forced to wait 25-30 minutes (or however long) for you specifically to get into the reader chair, when there were two very good readers in that room in the audience who would've been more than willing to read the final, I'm not entirely sure. I suppose its possible that there were some circumstances that prevented you from getting into the room earlier, but it seemed like rather needless waiting around. While I understand that its your tournament and that you would've liked to read the final, it is just an unnecessary delay in the grand scheme of things.
The readers were not informed about computational math, or what to do when such a question arose. Obviously, there didn't appear to be any comp math tossups. However, there was a bonus that was "pencil and paper ready". When I came upon this bonus, I realized that we weren't given any information if we were to read them or not. None of the teams in that room had pencil nor paper. I resolved it by asking both teams if we should just skip that bonus, to which both agreed.
In the morning, it was explained that there would be two playoff flights. At lunch, that got nixed in the control room. Not only was it canned, but - unless I'm grossly mistaken - it was canned with no feedback or input from the coaches of the participating schools.
A lot of these teams, especially all of the schools who finished in the top two of their morning bracket, are teams that are likely attending a national competition of some sorts or at the very least want to be challenged. Also: by allowing all of the second place teams and the two best third place teams from the morning into two championship flights, you give those teams an opportunity to qualify for HSNCT. But that door shut when it came down to one flight
- There was no tournament director or man-in-charge in Room 226, the control room, in the afternoon. There was no explanation, at least to me, what to do in the event of a protest nor where to find you (assuming that you were reading, but there was no indication what room you were in. A little problematic, eh?)
I'm of the opinion that, if there is a reader who is not doing very well and is taking a while to finish their round, then they should be replaced with a coach who has a good reading reputation (if said coach was willing to read.) Of the four (well, five... but Alex Connor is in Spain) coaches I recommended to you over e-mail for reading purposes, only one (Joe Bellas) was reading. Maybe two, don’t know if Peter Bergman read. I'm not sure if the other coaches declined to read, or preferred to coach when asked, or didn't offer, or whatever the case may have been. Mike Sedlack would have been a no-brainer pick, for instance.
BobKilner wrote:Along the same lines - what were the reasons for all of these last-minute drops? Were they weather-related or something else? I know from having run many tournaments that no-shows and BS drops are some of the most infuriating things I've had to deal with, so I'm just curious.
It is similarly disparaging for you to suggest that the (honestly, limited) problems with this tournament emerged from a lack of interest or regard. I mean, good lord Tom Moore, surely you of all people should not be suggesting that having some problems with your event automatically indicates a lack of investment or commitment.
Well, not really - I stepped in after one of our reader spots disappeared, but normally you don't adjudicate protests on the fly anyway. They can be handled in between rounds. Perhaps this is another Ohio culture I'm not familiar with, but NAQT has very clearly established protest procedures (that are followed, for instance, at nationals). Now, it IS true that readers weren't briefed on this point - had I been on hand to run the morning meeting, I surely would have. So, that's on me. But I am a little surprised that your 34 tournaments since 2014 didn't clue you into the fact that you can tell teams to go to their next round, and that staff would let them know about protest resolution...
I don't even know how to interpret this comment. Every coach who signed up to read served as a reader for this tournament. We indeed had 4 coaches staffing. I don't know what Coach Sedlack's status was, but I'm certainly not going to go pester a coach who might want to coach his team at the state championship and forcibly conscript him to read.
Mike Sedlack, Fisher Catholic (Mike is established as one of the best readers in the state of Ohio. I may be biased since he was my coach, but he’s read at HSNCT multiple times as well as countless top-brackets at NAQT States as well as the OAC State Tournament.)
I agree it was an unnecessary delay at all. When Joe told me the teams were ready to play the final, I told him I'd be right in; immediately after that, an extremely high-tension situation was brought to my attention. I don't wish to get into details here, but suffice to say that it was extreme enough that it totally consumed my attention. I didn't realize how long it had been until later. This is 100% on me, and was an entirely preventable mistake.
I'm told that previous state tournaments had clearissues with this, and we were very proactive about reaching out to outside staffers and training up our own.
And I really don't appreciate your very blatant misuse of how much you "care about the game" to justify it. You know, we all care deeply about the game - its integrity, its promotion, and the experience of participants. I have been caring deeply about the game longer than you have, and many coaches here have been caring deeply about the game longer than I. It would be, for instance, absurd and offensive for me to suggest that coaches who prefer the Page playoff schedule "care less" about the game because they'd rather have more teams with a shot than maximize games between the teams with the best shot.
That said, we did have one particularly infuriating drop literally an hour before the tournament; the reason stated was, "the day will run far too late and we will be unable to attend." Now, as the coaches who attended know, the email with the projected schedule was sent out weeks in advance, and the email with a firm estimated endline was sent out in the week prior to the tournament. So, either this excuse is nonsense, or (more likely), this team just didn't care enough to notify me in a timely way. It's unfortunate, but as you say Bob - we've all dealt with it.
To be clear, teams finishing second in this scenario get 2 extra games against top teams they would not have otherwise received. Teams that finish first in their bracket get 2 fewer games against top teams. It's a tradeoff. In typical Tom Moore fashion, you're speaking in these extremes, as if there is only one vantage point from which to see. Now, it's perfectly defensible to argue that those 6 teams getting a few more quality games and the top 6 getting a few less is a worthwhile tradeoff; I think it's better to go the other way, but it's a reasonable position either way. But that's not what you're doing. You're suggesting that these teams were just screwed, well, just because; that isn't the story here, and I wish you would stop spinning it that way.
Wait, what? There was no computational math in this set - a single bonus that said pencil and paper ready. And really, it shouldn't have - you didn't need pencil and paper for that question, and it's unclear why NAQT thought it would be particularly helpful. That said, NAQT doesmake quite clear that some bonuses will ask for pencil and paper (I'm surprised you didn't encounter this at your "34 events since 2014"). You should not have skipped this question - though I understand why, in the moment, you decided it was best to do so. Really, the fault lies with NAQT here - I think they should stop having these instructions in bonuses, it just confused people.
Though I'd say in this case it's fair to point out that the compelling, clearly-fitting finals series between Beavercreek and Dublin would essentially never have been possible under the Page format.
You're writing this colossal screed against this tournament, and it... started 30 minutes late. It also still finished on time (early, actually).
There was indeed an exceptionally detailed backup plan in place; you're simply wrong about everything you're saying here.
This is inaccurate, unfair, and makes presumptions you are grossly misinformed about. I was indeed at a conference the week before the event, but I left plenty of time to get back - indeed, I told my teammates that I would not be reachable until "late Friday night" because I explicitly did not want to even be unavailable when I said I would be, in case I had travel delays. What I did not expect, nor I doubt reasonably could have, was nearly 24 hours of repeated disasters and airline screwery. This does not "typically happen in the airline industry." This was an absolutely freak occurrence, and I take issue with your characterization that it was somehow attributable to my "bullishness" (about what??).
Though I'd say in this case it's fair to point out that the compelling, clearly-fitting finals series between Beavercreek and Dublin would essentially never have been possible under the Page format.
. Additionally, he came up with me, I believe, to the readers meeting and I believe he asked if he was needed to read, to which he was told you guys were covered.
They are your customers. Their vantage point > your vantage point. Full stop. You do not know better than the coaches about what the coaches wanted and expected, and it is apparent that you thought you knew better in this case. Evidently, you did not.
Apparently, it wasn't employed then. So, that's not my problem; that's yours.
I only brought up my experience, convictions, and my rationalization for me keying in on what I did because of the combination of Jasper's post (asking if standards were raised) and because it was argued by two people (one who wasn't in attendance at the event and one who was, but has been removed from the Ohio circuit for a few years) on Facebook that my complaints were not significant nor important. Indeed, Ben Anthony (who has an account on here and has posted) forced this stupid opinion that because Clark and Hari weren't particularly bothered by the event (according to him), that none of what I critiqued was a big deal. Beside the fact that it is a completely terrible idea to hold, it was not correct of Ben to call into question my judgment of what I perceived to be flaws in Saturday's tournament. He wasn't there, and he hasn't done anything in Ohio quizbowl except play a few tournaments, so it wasn't his place to comment (which I told him) yet he kept forcing bad opinions and indirect questioning of my judgment. Jarret Greene, whose opinion I do value, given that he was both there and has been a productive member of our community in the past, implied that the tournament was fine. I disagree, for the reasons mentioned, and he had implied in his comment that some of the outrage was likely a result of the fact it was hosted at Ohio State and not actual discontent with what went wrong. Where I particularly disagreed, and what ultimately compelled me to post that addendum on here, was that this tournament was “passable” and met the standards of what constitutes a good tournament. I don't believe it did.
This is complete bull. You have not, in fact, been caring deeply about the Ohio quiz bowl circuit longer than I have, let alone the Central Ohio one. This is a blatant lie and you know it. You're not going to sit here and tell me that I have effectively not cared about the game in my area when you yourself have shown a complete lack of interest in even acquainting yourself with the participants and coaches of the game right in your backyard since you've been here.
Not only did it fall short of the mark, but you refuse to accept responsibility for the fact, and acknowledge, that it did. Instead, you blame the fact that your instructions to the club were not followed and that the apparent backup TD didn't do a good job. I'm sorry that those things happened, Chris, but at the end of the day this all comes back to you – not them, and it appears to be that even if, for whatever reason, they don't come back to you then it comes back to the club that put on this event; which, really, is not a good thing either.
. And the most ironic part, almost to the part where it is just depressing, is that you're hearing all of this from someone who did try and help you out with the preparation and recruitment for this event. Someone who gave you a chance and was willing to help you out. Nevertheless
And so is your rampant passive-aggressive rhetoric in your response to what was a critique that was intentionally written in such a way to not be incendiary nor passive-aggressive. This isn't HSQB, guy. I understand you may be perturbed with what I said on Facebook, although it frankly is fair game to discuss that there is an apparent overemphasis on association and years of experience if the final product put on by said tournament director was not indicative of a well-ran tournament
gbdriver80 wrote:(Just to be clear, I’m not trying to pick an argument with anyone, I’m just curious about this.)
What do you mean by this? Assuming Scioto and Creek didn’t lose to anyone but one another, they would play a best of three series in both scenarios.
Tom, I don't think it's helpful to the community to engage in a personal barb-slinging contest here. I'd suggest moving that to private message, if you feel the intense need to continue it.
Yes, except for the literal part where I said that ultimately these things were my responsibility as TD, acknowledged them as problems, and apologized for them.
Honestly, I don't feel that I can have a reasonable discussion with you. Your very worthwhile critiques about the tournament, which ought to happen in a public discourse and I am in *no way* trying to discourage, become totally mired in...
As to your general point that when a reader left for the afternoon, I should have tracked down this person (whom I had no way of knowing was willing to read) and ask him to do so: No. I don't believe that's a professional thing to do. Understand, YOU know your former coach extremely well (and quite bizarrely, appear to be taking it as some personal slight that he wasn't reading at this tournament).
I could not know this (that he would've been willing to pitch
I also don't wish to give the impression that I'm resistant to criticism - I've been in email contact with coaches (apparently the sort of personal extension Tom Moore believes I haven't done...)
ChrisR wrote:gbdriver80 wrote:(Just to be clear, I’m not trying to pick an argument with anyone, I’m just curious about this.)
What do you mean by this? Assuming Scioto and Creek didn’t lose to anyone but one another, they would play a best of three series in both scenarios.
Thanks Joe - it seems I still don't fully understand the Page format, so my appreciation for you clarifying.
My understanding is:
Dublin 10-0
Team A 9-1
Beavercreek 10-0
Team B 9-1
Game 1: Dublin and Beavercreek play; Beavercreek wins, gets a bye into the final
Game 2: Team A and Team B play; Team A wins, Team B eliminated
Game 3: Team A and Dublin play, Dublin wins. Team A finishes 3rd.
Game 4: Dublin and Beavercreek play, Dublin wins, Dublin takes tournament.
This appears to be how Page playoffs are normally done; is it the case in our area that Game 4 would actually be just the first game in an advantaged final? So in the above scenario, Dublin would have to win twice? If so, that alleviates some of the concern I had about the system - but it seems to make the finals series take 4 rounds, instead of 2. That feels like it could really wear on teams, but if that's the norm here, perhaps it wouldn't be experienced that way - good to know.
Tom Moore wrote:I do not think this was an awful tournament. However, I do think there are enough significant criticisms to be addressed with regard to this year's NAQT state tournament to warrant a post and, hopefully, a fruitful discussion to be publicly had on what went wrong and what could be better improved with future iterations of the NAQT state tournament.
Jarret Greene wrote:Of course, not having lived in Ohio for a few years now, maybe the standards have just grown higher since 2014 or so?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest