The Ohio Quizbowl Forum

A forum dedicated to discussing all things related to high school quizbowl in Ohio.
It is currently Tue Jul 17, 2018 8:30 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:30 pm 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:21 am
Posts: 12
Congratulations to Dublin Scioto, who won Ohio's 2018 State Championship Tournament in the 2nd game of a thrilling advantaged final against Beavercreek. Congratulations are also due to Beavercreek, who were neck and neck with Dublin the entire way. Each of the first two games were decided by a single tossup. The final round went down to the wire as well, with Beavercreek jumping out to a 100-point halftime lead before Dublin capped off the comeback on the back of 5 straight powers from Clark Smith.

Full stats for the event are available here.

I want to thank everyone for coming out, especially our volunteer staffers - Brian Meeron, Tom Moore, Jarret Greene, Seth Teitler, Keith Day, Joe Bellas, Evan Gutter, Jacob Durst, Seth Brugler + friend, Joe Czupryn, and Peter Berger. This event surely would not have been possible without your able assistance - thank you.

I apologize to teams for the couple hiccups getting started; as coaches were told via email, I was at an academic conference this week, and ended up getting stranded out of down due to severe weather. I spent much of the ~18 hours before the tournament on planes or in airports tyying to get back to Columbus as quickly as possible, but could not arrive until around Round 2. In addition, we had several teams drop from the tournament literally hours (and in one instance, one hour) before the tournament began; this necessitated changing the entire format of the schedule. The primary result of these issues was that we started at around 9:30, which is unfortunate. However, we still finished around 4:30-4:45 PM, which seems pretty good for a 30-team event.

However, this also meant that we ended up using a format in which only 6 teams made the top bracket - in my mind, this is suboptimal (though certainly not uncommon) for a state championship tournament. The alternative would have required 13 rounds + finals, and my understanding was that coaches voiced a strong desire to go with a shorter format of 10 games + finals. I sympathize with the teams that ended up in the second bracket, but it sounds like the decision made was probably the best one under the circumstances.

Aside from that, I'm very pleased with how this tournament turned out, and I'm extremely proud of my team, especially Aakash Singh, Amol Gandhi, Tristan Mooney, and Chris Schroth, for navigating a difficult situation on their own. We made excellent time once things got going, finished before 5:00, and ensured 10 games for all teams (apologies to those teams in the bottom bracket who had a playoff bye - one team had a medical emergency and needed to leave).

I do think this year's set was too hard - many questions didn't seem to play well among current high schoolers, and I'm not sure I'd support the use of an unedited Division II SCT set for States next year (unless SCT is itself easier next year). But I encourage coaches who have thoughts on this one way or another to contact NAQT.

Thanks once again for coming out - I'm looking forward to seeing you all again next year!

_________________
Ohio State University Academic Team


Last edited by ChrisR on Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:30 pm 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:21 am
Posts: 12
One more thing: I've heard from some coaches that there was concern over the bracket structure we used, both in terms of seeding, and in terms of playoff format. I'll address each of these.

On seeding: This was in part a result of the sudden drops that forced us to revamp our schedule - we had to change both the number of brackets and the size in each bracket, and some seeding differences (eg, the difference between the 5th team and the 8th team) was not preserved. I did a substantial amount of research to make sure seeds were as accurate as possible, but because I was on a plane when the schedule had to be changed, there were a few slips. I apologize for this. I also understand that some coaches may have offered the running-ppb document for the backup TD's to use. If this was indeed not taken into account, this is a huge oversight, and you have my sincere apologies. Looking at the stats from the event though, I do think that much of the placement appears fairly solid with respect to performance vs. finish place.

On the playoff format: As I said, I am unhappy we had to use a format in which some teams were eliminated with a single loss in the prelims. This was not the format in place before 8:00 AM of the tournament, and only had to be used because of drops.

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.

One can't know these things beforehand, of course, but on balance, I still think the 1-bracket format is the better choice of those two. I do see the merits of the other, but feel it was a justifiable choice given the constraints. In any event, I'm sure we won't have to repeat that scenario in any future years we may host the event - I don't expect to have a ton of last-second drops combined with a travel emergency occur simultaneously in the future.

I do welcome any feedback coaches have, however - I hope that OSU will continue to be a host for this event, and that we can do so above all in a collaboration with Ohio coaches.

_________________
Ohio State University Academic Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 8:50 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:16 pm
Posts: 150
Location: Dayton, OH
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.


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.

_________________
Joe Czupryn
OAC Committee Executive Director
Sidney Coach 2012-2015
Northmont Assistant Coach 2008-2011
Northmont '08


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:30 pm 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:21 am
Posts: 12
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.

_________________
Ohio State University Academic Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 9:39 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:16 pm
Posts: 150
Location: Dayton, OH
It is a piece of a system that guarantees you don’t eleiminate anyone with only one loss and is also used in a form every single year for the final four at HSNCT.

_________________
Joe Czupryn
OAC Committee Executive Director
Sidney Coach 2012-2015
Northmont Assistant Coach 2008-2011
Northmont '08


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Apr 07, 2018 11:37 pm 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:17 pm
Posts: 12
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.


Just to clarify, this format has one 10-0 team (A1) play the other 10-0 team (B1) while one 9-1 team (A2) plays the other 9-1 team (B2). The loser of A1 vs. B1 plays the winner of A2 vs. B2 for the right to play the winner of the first game in a disadvantaged final. This can add 3-4 rounds to the playoffs, which I don't think is unreasonable since only 2 teams will be playing that late. When this format was played at 2015 and 2016 states the tournament was done by 6:00. I think this format does in fact allow for a competitive final series between the top two teams, since guarantees at least 2 games between A1 and B1, assuming that they can beat A2/B2.

_________________
Rohin Devanathan
Solon High School '16
UC Berkeley '20


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:45 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
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. I, for one, believe that the NAQT state tournament has a rightful and justified place within the Central Ohio quizbowl-sphere to be continued on in the future. If not Alex Connor at St. Charles, then reasonably the Ohio State University Academic Team (although I do believe other parties, provided they have the adequate room availability and staffing provisions, should be fairly afforded a chance to bid.) Anyone who is truly invested in, and concerned about, the positive trajectory of the NAQT state tournament - and, for that matter, (high-quality) pyramidal quizbowl within not just the metro Columbus area but Ohio in general - should take some heed to these criticisms and give careful consideration as to what will make the 2019 NAQT Ohio State tournament a much more fruitful and efficiently ran tournament. I invite everyone who partook in the processes and execution of today's tournament to weigh in and give their insight on this public forum.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'm sympathetic to the travel misfortune, Chris. I imagine that you were looking very much forward to running yesterday's event, and I can't imagine how frustrating and unnerving it had to have been to you in the travel circumstances that you were faced earlier this weekend. However, it appeared to me - albeit from an outside perspective - that there was not much of a backup plan in place. Maybe I'm wrong here. No doubt that late "call-offs" by teams made for a PITA for all parties involved on your end. But, I don't see how this really is of that much relevance here. 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.

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. It would have been certainly possible, as Joe C notes, to do the page playoff when only four teams are remaining (the top two of both championship flights.) Even if there were no page playoff, and if teams were to theoretically be eliminated with one loss in the afternoon, a two-flight system would've made for a better experience for the teams who finished second in their morning pool. I realize it is not kosher to discuss tournament pricing, but for what those teams paid, they deserved to get every ounce of high-quality competition they could've been afforded. 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.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

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.

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 other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that, frankly, if the right readers are in the right places then a page playoff would not have taken that much longer than you think.

Some miscellaneous comments...

- 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.

- 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 think it is fair to bring up the reading assignments, particularly with regard to the afternoon, for discussion. They were the same as in the morning. OK, I get it - things are hectic and you have to act fast. In Bracket "C" in the morning, the readers were Seth Teitler, Joe Czupryn and me. We finished significantly ahead of everyone else. Throughout the entirety of yesterday, Joe and I were always the first two readers to finish and probably by a good bit. Obviously, Seth Teitler is one of the best readers in the entire country. What this meant, though, in retrospect is that the morning brackets were likely not balanced in terms of reader strength and this was of consequence to some participating teams because it meant that their lunch was going to be rather short, in order to be back at Hitchcock Hall by 1:15. To head off "well, maybe you guys started earlier", this was also the case for the afternoon when we were reading the second consolation bracket. No, I do not think of reading as being a race; but, I do think I have an obligation to read at a fast yet comprehensible pace while completely cutting out all of the chatter and pauses. Joe is an excellent reader, I'm a great reader, and Seth is one of the best in the entire business. I'm not begrudging my own personal reading assignment, as I had a blast reading for the teams that I did (I got to meet some teams that I literally never have before in my eight years of quiz bowl activity, and that was awesome) but I do think at least Joe and Seth - based on their ability and extensive experience - deserved to be reading in the championship flight or at least the flight above.

- 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.

- I actually had, all in all, an enjoyable time at the event. However, I am concerned that the misfortunes of yesterday may have put off some of the "new to (Saturday) quizbowl" teams that were present (Tiffin Columbian, Thomas Worthington, Jackson, Lakewood, Hillsboro etc).

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Last edited by Get Lynned on Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:36 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Apr 08, 2018 5:06 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
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.

It was used in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.

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.

I have no doubt that you are very well-versed, informed and experienced on the various nuances and approaches on scheduling and general quiz bowl tournament practices. But really, this system works well for us in Ohio. And I realize this sounds rather myopic, but not everything in the quiz bowl-sphere that is outside of Ohio is necessarily a good thing or inherently better. This isn't to say "to heck with new ideas", but we aren't an inexperienced group of individuals in quiz bowl management either. We have our experiences, we draw our conclusions from our experiences and we have our systems in place (or traditions, I suppose) in part because we see no good reason to abandon them. When Greg Bossick introduced the page playoff system some years ago, it worked well and in truth it likely is the most fair way to adjudicate a champion.

The 2014 NAQT State Tournament is a remarkable example, in particular, of the benefits of a page playoff system.

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:54 am 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:36 pm
Posts: 39
I've noticed there was a lot of discussion and commotion than usual here, so I figured I would ask some questions based on what stood out to me about this tournament:

-Why was the states tournament played on DII SCT questions?
-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?
-Would a format where you do take the top 12 teams, divide into 2 brackets of 6, then have the top 2 teams from those brackets play two crossover games with each other, then have an advantaged final (if necessary), be a good compromise between the two playoff systems that are being debated here? It would give an extra game to the 4th place team, but still ensures that the champion plays teams #2-4 and that no 1-loss team gets left out of the championship. (Either way this can get messier when you have teams separated by at least 2 losses. Fwiw, IHSSBCA uses the two championship playoff bracket format)

My completely-outsider impression was that a lot of small, fairly common issues with the tournament just ended up combining into a larger than the parts-sum of a flawed tournament, which was not helped by 1) Chris's travel disaster, 2) Enough teams dropping that it caused a significant change to the schedule, and 3) Lack of familiarity and communication with what Ohio coaches and tournament directors have typically been running the past several years. I don't know if it's a trust issue or high expectations with what the Ohio State team should be doing but it seems like this disconnect hasn't improved a whole lot in the past several years.

_________________
Jasper Lee
University of Tennessee
Ohio State University '14
Solon High School '10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:07 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 332
Location: Garfield Heights OH
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.

_________________
Bob Kilner
Chief Admin, ohioqbforum.com
Former Coach, Garfield Heights HS (2001-2008)
Coach, North High School (2015-)
Kent State '06 / Boise State '10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:09 pm 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:36 pm
Posts: 39
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?

_________________
Jasper Lee
University of Tennessee
Ohio State University '14
Solon High School '10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 12:50 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:16 pm
Posts: 150
Location: Dayton, OH
Bluejay wrote:
-Why was the states tournament played on DII SCT questions?


Starting this year, NAQT no longer produces a fifth IS set that is earmarked for the state championship. All states with active circuits, at least as far as I can tell, were then forced into using the DII SCT set. Those states that aren't as active were able to use one of the regular season IS sets or even an A set in some instances it looks like.

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?


I was told that no one person was in charge, they were just trying to pick up pieces individually. The idea of timed rounds had been floated weeks before the tournament, and when that was asked about, one coach was told by the person they asked that they did not know because Chris was not here. My impression alone, no one knew what to do as far as actually running an event went in his absence. It took Tyler and Ellen telling them they needed to rebracket for 30 teams for it to happen rather than playing the original 32 team schedule with byes in those places, etc.

Additionally, why re-bracketing happened after 9:00, I don't know. Even if one team dropped only an hour before the event, that hour should have been more than enough to have things together when teams arrived.

_________________
Joe Czupryn
OAC Committee Executive Director
Sidney Coach 2012-2015
Northmont Assistant Coach 2008-2011
Northmont '08


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 2:27 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
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?


Jasper,

Thank you for stepping up and starting the discussion. You presented a very fair, balanced and considerate reply, and given the circus that is on my Facebook right now, I find it to be refreshing.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I just want to really quickly touch on something, and something that needs to be frankly said. If it were just you that had mentioned standards, I probably wouldn't write the following message. But because it was brought up multiple times on my Facebook, and brought up in such a way that it questioned the intents behind my Facebook post, and now it brought up here, I'm going to write it. So, in case anyone is doubting my sincerity behind what I found to be flaws in the event that resulted in this being a sub-standard tournament, and am thinking that I am trying to start wildfires out of embers...

I care. And I care more than some of you may think that I do. Before anyone questions my judgment as to what constitutes "good standards" and what makes a good tournament, consider this. Since January 1, 2014, I have read at 34 different events, taking place in 14 different Ohio counties and on the campuses of 17 different institutions. I have been in either the tournament directing, or co-tournament directing, capacity of six different events as well in that time frame; the four co-directional/advice-giving capacities I served in were the inaugural pyramidal events at three different schools (New Albany TRASH '14, Olentangy Liberty fall '14, Chillicothe Cavalier Classic '14) as well as another Olentangy Liberty event in the 2014-2015 school year. Put simply, I have been around the block. Anyone questioning my judgment, in light of this, as to what constitutes "good" and "bad" elements of tournaments, or me identifying a well-run tournament form a tournament that was not very well-ran, should frankly say so. I have made it a mission of mine to try and reach out to new schools and get them not just involved in the game, but to stick with it. I have personally interacted with coaches of schools that are outside our quizbowl "mainstream" to hear their feedback and to get an idea of what they took away from the event. I have written countless pyramidal (albeit short) OAC category rounds, to the tune of 60 rounds/year for four or five years, as well as written contributions for Bob Kilner's TRASH over the past few years. To paraphrase former University of Miami/Baltimore Ravens safety Ed Reed, I put my heart into this [game.] And I did all of this after I screwed up and permanently ruined the continuation of one of the proudest productions of the Ohio quizbowl community, something that still haunts me to this very day. I remember how badly I disappointed everyone then, I remember how much trust that I broke in the people that put it in me... coaches, peers and colleagues that I had always enjoyed a positive relationship with and I remember how I was faced with the option to just walk away from quizbowl altogether in shame right there and then, or to bounce back and keep fighting in what I have believed from the very beginning that I picked up a buzzer my freshman year in high school. It is no secret to people that I have had public feuds, 99% of which stem entirely from me being too critical and aggressive to the other party, with folks such as Cortney Bird, Joshua Queen and the Ohio State Academic Team; but nevertheless, and with the cooperation of each of those parties, we teamed up, put aside our difference and put on pyramidal events that attracted new teams - a demand of sorts, if you will - that may not have otherwise happened or would've been in need of a reader/tournament director had I not chosen to be involved. I read at, during the back half of last year's spring semester, three events with one arm because the other was broken; this past year, I kept my involvement in quizbowl despite the fact that my personal life has become very troubling (having a parent with cancer, a troubling divorce process) and the fact that my schoolwork load has been exceptionally demanding (a double-major with internships between both this past fall semester and this current one.)

When I first-hand witness parts of a tournament that indicate disorganization, lack of consistency in terms of following established criteria from start to finish, and the inability to follow a time schedule that was presented to coaches, all three of which are things that discredit pyramidal quiz bowl as an activity and, in consequence, likely cause new teams to not come back: I am going to call it out. I would've been hesitant to write what I have since Sunday afternoon had this just been a novice TD running the show (although I likely would've criticized, and rightfully so, why the most prestigious TU/B event in Ohio was directed by a novice.) But when NAQT awarded Chris the bid, and when all of those schools signed on the dotted line, everyone put their trust into Chris that this tournament was going to run without a hitch. I put my trust into Chris when I agreed to come down from Delaware to volunteer to read at the event, and I even corresponded with him in the months leading up to the event giving him beneficial instruction (such as reader recommendations, the contact of Manny Wilson at WOSU - who has the most up-to-date and extensive coaches contact list in Central Ohio) given that he was not accentuated with the Ohio hs quizbowl community whatsoever. I did not suggest to Chris any formats, because I reasonably believed that since he "has been a part of four major high school quizbowl circuits as well as the college one", along with the fact he is a part of PACE and ACF, that he knew what he was doing. 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.

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 10:52 pm 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:21 am
Posts: 12
So, after reviewing the events of the tournament with my team, I think I have a greater sense of what happened. Allow me to address some of the points raised here:

Quote:
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.


I sincerely apologize for this - and I do think it's an issue beyond the simple time delay (which was made up by the afternoon), because it conveys a lack of organization. The simple answer is that absolutely all of this was attributable to me not being there. Schedules should have absolutely been printed out - they were created days before the tournament. Actually, I suspect they WERE printed out, but were then rendered useless by the schedule change.

The bottom line is: The schedule change should not have happened. It deviated from the contingency plan we had in place, and caused a lot of issues. I explicitly instructed my team to retain the 32-bracket format if teams dropped, and just have byes. I don't know why this didn't happen - it sounds like coaches objected, but I'd be a bit surprised if that were the whole story. I suspect there was simply miscommunication and confusion, and the schedule (which would have had 2 brackets with byes in the prelims - not great, but hardly a disaster, particularly if it preserves an ideal playoff format) sounded a lot less coherent than it actually would have been.

Ultimately, I view this as my responsibility as tournament director. Even when backup plans fail, well, their your backup plans - that's still my position, and it's the main reason I didn't mention this in my initial comments. But given that Tom Moore has basically charge me with negligent disregard for this event, it seems I have to be explicit about it.

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.
[/quote]

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??).

There was indeed an exceptionally detailed backup plan in place; you're simply wrong about everything you're saying here. Someone WAS promoted to backup TD, explicitly. This person had TDed a previous college event (with me acting in an advisory role). I'm not sure if this was not communicated clearly enough, or if they failed to step up; what I suspect might have happened is that they took my advice to "draw on the extensive experience of the many good staffers we have" to get advice if there was uncertainty. If that did not happen, I'm quite sorry.

Contingency plans for something like this are not easy. But all of the things you're charging as the cardinal sin of my planning here? I did all those things! We had brackets (and backup brackets) set up. We had a backup TD. We had clear instructions in place, which weren't followed. In addition, the teammate that I had sent the seeding document to apparently did not pass it on to the backup TD. These two factors - the decision to change the schedule rather than use my mandated contingency, and the failure of one of our backup organizers to act effectively - caused the delay.

Even so, I believe I should have been more diligent about this. And in retrospect I probably should have contact Joe Czupryn and placed him in charge of the event, deferring to experience; at the time, I made the call that because my co-coordinators had been working with me up to that point, and were all in contact with each other, it would have been more disruptive to then place it into a third party's hands (whose availability I could not even be sure of). I'll gladly accept responsibility for this.

But I'll also really defend both the job my younger teammates did, and the event itself. You're writing this colossal screed against this tournament, and it... started 30 minutes late. It also still finished on time (early, actually). This apoplectic reaction is quite disproportionate. 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. Rather, I recognize both positions are motivated by a passion for the game and empathy for competitors. It is similarly disparaging for you to suggest that the (honestly, limited) problems with this tournament emerged from a lack of interest or regard.

_________________
Ohio State University Academic Team


Last edited by ChrisR on Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:34 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 11:29 pm 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:21 am
Posts: 12
Other thoughts:


On the issue of playoff format:

After hearing from a lot of coaches (here and also via email), it's become clear to me that the Ohio circuit is looking for something different than the playoff format used in a lot of other states. Contrary to Joe's point, I don't think this is myopic at all - I think it's an entirely legitimate preference, motivated by a valid but different set of concerns than the ones behind the formats I'm familiar with. Indeed, I'm extremely comfortable deferring to this preference - though ideally, I'd like to have used a format like the original schedule I wrote out, which both prevented teams with one loss from missing the top bracket AND avoided having to use the Page system. Again, if the schedule hadn't been switched, this is what would have happened at the event.

I still believe the other format is a bit superior to Page, but I also accept that local culture actually really matters. 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.

Quote:
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.


Contrary my defense of other issues, this was entirely on me and is totally indefensible. While I do not think the teams waited this long (if they did, wow, I'm sorry!), 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.

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.


This should not have been communicated to teams; it's a mistake that it was, and I deeply apologize. But it's not entirely the case that teams were suddenly caught off guard here - I'd been very communicative with coaches in the run-up to the event, laying out the entire schedule and format. At no point was a two-flight system discussed. (Of course, there wasn't a need for one, since our original format brought 8 teams to the playoffs). Even the backup-backup 30-team schedule that was also created well before the event didn't use this format.

I really sympathize, here. It sucks a lot to be told one thing, go through the day, and then find out someone misinformed you. That's a big deal, and I sincerely apologize. It's also not something I'd anticipate happening again, given what I feel like are the fairly clearly laid out series of events that led to it taking place.


Quote:
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


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.

Quote:
- 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?)


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...


Quote:
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.


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.

Moreover, we had GREAT readers at this tournament. I'm told that previous state tournaments had clear issues with this, and we were very proactive about reaching out to outside staffers and training up our own. The one room that had an issue appears to have been a case of a moderator allowing a scorekeeper to read some morning rounds despite being told not to.

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.


I'm not sure what happened with all of these - some coaches indicated that their kids punked out on them, and like, I get that. You can't control what your players do, and I certainly don't hold the coaches responsible - they let me know as soon as they knew.

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.

_________________
Ohio State University Academic Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 2:49 am 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
Quote:
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.


Huh? I have ran two events at your school. One more high school event than your club personally put on before last Saturday not just this year, but between last school year and this school year. Not only did each of those events draw a larger field than the one yours put on last January, but my events largely ran well. In fact, they were ran far better than this one and none of them had nearly a significant an issue in either time delays or other errata. I had a minor staffing issue in this previous fall's iteration of my event that was caused because one of your club members (who I had penned in as a reader) did not show up until 10:30am-11am, so I had to utilize the reading of a coach who overstated his reading ability. Nevertheless, I put on well-ran tournaments that I made possible despite the fact that both times you sent teams to events in Chicago and Ann Arbor the day of my event, well aware that an agreement was in place with me to co-host an event, (in which your club was given a $25/team cut – equating to a nice sum for providing free rooms and a few staff members) with zero consultation with me if I had any objection or concern about such conflict.

Concerning lack of interest or regard: it is perfectly reasonable to claim that you have a lack of interest for our accentuating and familiarizing yourself with our high school community. Or, at least until it was time to put NAQT states on, had. You are more than welcome to challenge the correctness of the following, but I do not believe I am mistaken when I say that...

You have directed zero Ohio high school events previous to NAQT states in the two years that you have been in Columbus, despite the fact you are a member of a well-respected and productive national organization whose stated objectives include “to promote and encourage the growth of high-quality tournaments”. In fact, I don't believe you ever been seen at a high school tournament in the Columbus area or Ohio (except, possibly, the one that your club personally put on last year?!) in your time here. I think it is fair to say that you were awarded the bid to host NAQT states because of your stature in the quizbowl community that is outside of Ohio and on the collegiate circuit, and not because you had any crafted working relationships (or any track record in our community) with anyone in Ohio outside of Ohio State or were recommended by members of our community to do so.

Quote:
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 had zero protests in my room. I brought this up because a) had I a protest, especially one that would have determined whether or not a game would go into overtime, I would've been lost on what to do and it is highly illogical to assume, ad hoc, that such a resolution could've been done in between rounds or after the dismissal of teams in that instance and b) it was the case, in a room and bracket different than mine, that there was a significant protest in the afternoon that impeded the ability of rooms to change between the conclusions of (I believe it was) rounds 9 and 10. Indeed, I have a first-hand account from the coach of a team who finished their round 9 game but who was forced to wait to play in round 10 because the protest and room in question had failed to adjudicate the delay on the spot, let alone get teams out of the room, because you were reading when you did NOT need to be and thus rendering you unable to be reached and consulted by the staffers of the room in question to resolve the dispute and get things moving. I was told that it was a thirty minute wait from that coach to play their round 10 match because of that snafu.

Quote:
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.


Not only is the latter a bad faith interpretation (“forcibly conscript” is a blatant misrepresentation of what it means to ask a coach if they'd be willing to volunteer – you of all people, since your experience is unmatched, should know that it is perfectly acceptable and commonplace to politely ask a coach with reading experience if they would be willing to read if the other option is the tournament director having to abandon their post and fill the vacancy, which is suboptimal) of my post, but this comment in particular is bothersome because of the very nature of the e-mail correspondence we had in January, in which I suggested to you a list of coaches that are great readers and who I know likely would not mind being politely asked if they could read if their services were needed. In fact, direct quote:

Quote:
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.)

Why you did not impress into yourself, or your backup TD, that he was going to be one of the most-reputed and experienced readers available in the entire building that day and it wouldn't have hurt to ask him if he'd be willing to step in and read if a vacancy occurred, I have no idea. You were told of his credentials, and you assumed that he was reluctant to read when really you had no interest in asking him if he wanted to read. You could have asked me if I thought he'd be willing to, because I know Mike personally and I at the very least could have asked him to come to the control room so you could ask him yourself. But, since you are so unfamiliar with this circuit, you were unaware of the fact that he often reads at many events and would never refuse (or be annoyed at) a request to read if his service was needed. 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. Who were these four readers, by the way? I only saw Bellas and Meeron, but maybe Peter Bergman was reading too (I'm assuming that's who you are referring to in your acknowledgments above.) Who was the fourth reader? And what were his credentials?

Quote:
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 was in the control room when the high-tension situation was being discussed, after the conclusion of the event. While I agree that the details of it are best not discussed publicly, the high-tension situation as best I as understand - through talking to (and over-hearing) several people who have more direct and first-hand knowledge of the dispute that boiled over into a high-tension situation - could've been dealt with earlier in the tournament (e.g. as soon as it happened), and probably would not have been as awful and nasty, had you been easily accessible in the control room (where you should have been in the first place.) You were the executive official in the tournament, and one of those responsibilities included being easily accessible in the event that your services as a mediator were needed. You reading unnecessarily, when you should have been TD'ing, inhibited your ability to act as the tournament official that the parties in question were relying on to be able to resolve the dispute central to the situation in the first place as soon as the issue arose.

Quote:
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.

I do not support this account, at all. I have staffed every NAQT State event since I graduated high school, and I do not believe this to be even remotely correct. I have zero recollection of any reader issues, let alone reader performance issues at the events in question both as a player and reader. And if you're going to call out the previous state tournaments, you should know that the director of said tournaments in question did a far greater job than you did and has a reputation for always putting on high-quality events (something you have not built yet, here.)

Quote:
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.


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.

Quote:
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.

Hey, this a terrible thing to happen to you and I completely agree that this is unfortunate.

Quote:
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.


The two-flight system has been standard practice for the NAQT state tournament here for sometime now. I will grant that you likely did not know this, but this is beside the point. The impression given to teams was that it was going to be two-flights. And that underlies my point on why teams got screwed... I talked to a coach whose team finished second in their (rather unbalanced) bracket and thought that their team was going to be in a championship flight. According to that same coach, the coach of another school who also finished second was disappointed (if not, unhappy) to find out that his reasonable assumption that his team was going to be playing in a championship flight in the afternoon, based on what was explained in the opening meeting, was incorrect because of this change. And I wish that you would stop spinning coach's reactions and discontent of their teams being dis-serviced by the format change as “if there is only vantage point from which to see.” 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.

Quote:
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.

I had no idea whether or not there was going to be computational math in the set or not. Your club, who played this set, didn't convey to us (or at least all of the readers) that there would not be any comp math or for that matter pencil and paper ready. I admit that this complaint may be somewhat pedantic, but I found it worth bringing up based on the instance I mentioned. And I did not read take the time to read through the bonus to discern whether or not it needed “pencil and paper for that question.” You want to know why? One of the schools in that round was a new-to-quizbowl school, and it would have come off as rather shady (if not patronizing) had I taken the 10-15 seconds of examining the bonus to examine its “answerability.” It was quite reasonable for me to offer the solution to both teams to just skip the bonus, because I was in no position (based on my limited math knowledge) to determine if the bonus could actually be solved without pencil and paper and it would not have been fair to the team receiving the bonus (who didn't have any, nor who I could provide with some because we weren't given any at any point in the tournament – which is generally standard practice).

I have no idea what your statement, that I put into bold, is supposed to mean. I'm aware that NAQT sets usually have pencil and paper ready bonuses. Are you? If so, why weren't we given paper and pencils to provide for the teams so that said bonuses could be answered? You're assuming that teams, especially have new-to-quizbowl teams (which was the case of the team who received the bonus), have the wherewithal to know to bring pencil and paper ready to a tournament.

Quote:
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.

So I want to touch briefly on this. In one of the earlier posts, you said “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.”
I contest this, and I think everyone in attendance would contest this. Why? Because anyone who has paid ten minutes of attention to Ohio high school quizbowl this year knows that we have/had three teams in Fred Morlan's top 25 nationally. Anyone who had been paying attention to quizbowl in the Buckeye State before last Saturday would've known that, in addition to Dublin Scioto and Beavercreek, there was also Miami Valley who was very good. Indeed, you should look at their PPB in comparison to those aforementioned two teams as well as their margin of loss to Beavercreek in the afternoon. You don't think they deserved a shot at the title? I don't believe it would be fair to say that they deserved to be eliminated from the title with just one loss in the afternoon (or, N+1 loss of the second place team in the afternoon.) This is why the two flight-system would've been a more fair way to adjudicate the state champion in addition to a page playoff.

Quote:
You're writing this colossal screed against this tournament, and it... started 30 minutes late. It also still finished on time (early, actually).

I'm sorry that you failed to realize that if the only flaw of the event was that it started 30 minutes late, we wouldn't be having this discussion. What do you have to say about the fact that some teams weren't able to have a practical chance at having lunch because of the fact some brackets (or, bracket?) ran way further behind than the other brackets? Or the fact that I very clearly indicated that this tournament's dysfunction in its organization (in the final product), its inability to follow the established criteria conveyed from the beginning, and its lack of timeliness were three things that likely would leave a negative impression of pyramidal quizbowl to these new-to-quizbowl teams. For as much time as you spent thinking of these passive-aggressive jabs, you spent absolutely zero time nor carpal movement acknowledging that this tournament did not have the makings of a good first impression for these teams... which was one of my primary complaints in the first place. I'm reasonably worried that some of these schools will not come out and give pyramidal quizbowl, whose outreach in the Central Ohio area I have done far more of than you have, a second chance. And that's what probably has burnt me up the most about this tournament's screw-ups.

I put on my OAC Fall events at your club specifically because I felt that your club deserved the chance to prove themselves and build up their reputation as invested, capable people who care about their role and image within the Ohio quizbowl community... because frankly after Jarret Greene and folks graduated, this was not the impression anyone really had of your club. And no one thought that because you joined Ohio State, that all of the sudden everything was magically fixed because we don't know you and we are a community that believes that you have to earn a reputation. I truly believe that a strong, reputable Ohio State academic team is for the benefit of our community, and I find your passive-aggressive bulls*** to be a poor public reflection of your club and to the outsiders reading this.


Quote:
There was indeed an exceptionally detailed backup plan in place; you're simply wrong about everything you're saying here.


Apparently, it wasn't employed then. So, that's not my problem; that's yours.

Quote:
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??).


I am not disputing that academic conferences are important, and, in case it isn't clear, I am not questioning your necessity for attending said conference. What I was calling into question is why you decided to be the tournament director, given that you have no track record in Ohio, when it was possible that you would have been unable to be in Columbus the morning of the event.

Now... I was under the impression that what happened, based on what I was told from several people, was that you originally had one flight leaving Chicago on the return trip to Columbus and that it was canceled, thus rendering you unable to be in Columbus until the next morning. I would've asked you myself, Chris, what happened but frankly I had no idea how much sleep you had (and, having not met you before, have no indication as to your temperament in-person) and given that it appeared your glasses had broken recently (like, that day... maybe I'm wrong/not the point, though), I thought it was best to stay clear away from anything that could have potentially annoyed you. That is why I did not voice any of the criticisms that I posted here to you at the time – I thought that it could cause a huge fight at a time that, frankly, was not appropriate for one. And I recognize also that you were faced with the unforeseen and particularly disadvantageous circumstance of dealing with the anti-abortion people and their deal. That sucked, I agree and frankly I'm sympathetic that you had to deal with that crap.

If, indeed, it was more than just a simple flight cancellation (which it now appears to be the case), then I sincerely apologize and recognize that it was wrong of me to assume and post so. The impression I got was that you were expecting one flight to come into Columbus and not get canceled, not multiple ones and whatever other factors caused that misfortune you experienced. For the record, I mentioned the bullishness with regard to changing the schedule (which you yourself admit was you being bullish, based on your belief that the one-flight system was fairer to certain teams and thus okay to rid of the two-flight system), the finals incident, and the fact that you left HQ/control room/”war room” to go read in the vacancy of a reader when there was no good apparent reason for you to do so (you not wanting to politely ask Mike Sedlack if he'd be willing to fill the vacancy, when it would have been perfectly reasonable to do so and Mike would've been understanding and possibly, if not likely, to heed to the request, is not a good nor apparent reason) which did cause an issue for some teams (going back to that protest that took forever to resolve, thus forcing the delay that I described earlier in this post) and their ability to play their final game and get going. That is what I'm referring to: your insistence on things being done your way, without considering the impact it could have had on the tournament experience for teams in attendance, made for unnecessary snafu's that could have been otherwise avoided.

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Last edited by Get Lynned on Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:58 am, edited 12 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 3:20 am 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
I'm writing a separate post for this, because it needs to be clarified.

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.

I won't say that I took personal offense to said objections, but rather I found them to be problematic. Problematic in that said objections questioned my judgment and basis for critiquing what I did. I won't say that I know more than Jarret Greene, but Jarret hasn't been involved in the area's game for a while now (because of his professional obligations that have taken him out-of-state in past years and, I'm assuming, his current professional demands. Those are perfectly understandable reasons that have caused him to not be active in our area, and I am no way impugning him for not being involved as much lately.) To go a little further: I thought Jarret wasn't acknowledging that, in fact, the standards of what constitutes “well-run” events possibly have gone up in the time since he was last heavily active in our circuit (his duration at Ohio State.) Jasper, too, mentioned that the standards have possibly been raised. I realize this is speaking from my vantage point only, but I don't think that the standards have been raised (at least unreasonably raised, to where the bar is too high.) Perhaps I'm a victim of my own experience, here, but I don't see what is so unreasonable about saying the these individual mishaps, let alone the sum of their mishaps, frankly should not have happened. Nevertheless, no one has contested my statement that this event had all the makings of an event that frankly would've made for a bad first experience and a poor taste of pyramidal quizbowl for the new teams in attendance; nor has anyone challenged that it is a very real concern that some of these teams may not be coming back to a pyramidal event if indeed they found this event to be poorly disorganized, inconsistent and untimely... which was one of my chief concerns from when I started this critique of the event. If you can't take me at my word when I say that this was what probably bothered me the most, and thus largely compelled me to write what I did, then I don't know what to tell you, Chris.

Circling back to the motivation behind my original post in this thread: it is perfectly reasonable for this tournament to be discussed in the public forum. It had flaws, many of them, and it had significant flaws. You are not above the criticism that I posted, Chris, because you “have done quizbowl longer” than me. That is dangerous, irresponsible and tone-deaf discourse-setting, Chris, and you know that. 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. I think it is very fair to speculate, publicly, that you received the bid to host NAQT state from NAQT simply because you're Chris Ray. You obviously weren't awarded the bid because of a track record of well-ran OSU events put on for high school events in our community, because you hadn't put on any before this one. You obviously weren't awarded the bid because of some reputation you built with enough coaches and members of our community, because you evidently didn't make it a priority to build such a reputation and reason for us to believe in your abilities when you were chosen as the tournament director. You have been nowhere to be seen in our high school quizbowl community before the tournament on Saturday. You know this. Why our quizbowl community in particular was given no choice but to play ball with the fact you were running our most prestigious TU/B event, something that we take seriously as a community, despite your unfamiliarity with the teams you serviced and thus, our unfamiliarity with you as a tournament director, we may never know.

Given the above, I think it is perfectly fair to say that you were in fact entrusted by NAQT with the hosting and directing of our state tournament because of your body of work in previous circuits and stature within the broader quizbowl community. That's fine, I suppose, and I don't necessarily fault NAQT that much for believing that you were going to put on a well-ran event based on your previous experience. But with that being the case, it was then up to you to prove that it was right choice for NAQT to give you the right to host our state title. Ultimately, this tournament fell short of the mark and I believe that many others in attendance feel the same way. 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.

This could have been a watershed moment for your club. This could have been the tournament that righted the ship for the better regarding OSU's image within our community. I tried my best to help build that reputation back up with my events with your club. We need a strong OSU club to serve as a leader in our community, but first we need evidence that the folks, especially you, at OSU are prepared to be said leaders. I found more leadership with the undergrads who desperately worked around the clock that morning before the tournament started than I did in you. I, and many others, did not see a leader in you. And, sorry to say this, Chris, I don't think anyone saw you as being someone willing to be a leader and a bridge-builder in our community based on your complete lack of involvement in our community previously. 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, this tournament's issues didn't give anyone any confidence that OSU has finally gotten their collective crap together as tournament organizers, and that's going to be a big issue for you and your club down the road.

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 6:38 am 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:16 pm
Posts: 150
Location: Dayton, OH
Quote:
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.


(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.

_________________
Joe Czupryn
OAC Committee Executive Director
Sidney Coach 2012-2015
Northmont Assistant Coach 2008-2011
Northmont '08


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:13 am 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:21 am
Posts: 12
Quote:
. 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.


Well, this is ridiculous - if this indeed, it's unconscionable to turn away a good reader (or, indeed, any staffer at all, unless literally every room is staffed). Nobody I spoke to recalls this actually happening, but it's a blatantly incorrect move that I would never have supported. You always take volunteers!

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, and even if I knew it was a general thing about Coach Sedlack that he is "always willing to pitch in," I wouldn't just assume he was at my beck and call. I presumed he had a good reason for not volunteering - many emails were sent confirming staffing, giving coaches opportunity to add or drop from the volunteer pool. I don't think it's proper for a state tournament to lean on coaches in that situation. Again, you need to stop reacting to this as if your advice was personally disregarded or something; not everything is about you.

Quote:
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.


This isn't what I said at all! Good lord, stop doing this. My point is that switching playoff formats causes a trade-off between teams. Every extra round played by a 2 seed against a 1 seed comes at the expense of one fewer game played by a 1-seed against another 1-seed. I'm perfectly willing to accept that the majority of coaches here prefer to make that trade-off - and I literally said I'd be happy to defer to that in the future. But please knock it off with this absurd caricature of me supposedly saying that I know better than coaches and that my view matters not theirs - that's the complete opposite of what I said.

Quote:
Apparently, it wasn't employed then. So, that's not my problem; that's yours.


Well, yes, of course it's my problem - that's what I said. I certainly didn't say it was your problem! You did however make a number of statements that were demonstrably false, which you then used to impugn my judgement. I was correcting them. This is not a personal slight against Tom Moore (or if it is, I'd think you'd be used to it by now!).

Quote:
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.


Could you perhaps consider that you should stop personalizing a benign comment an 18 year-old made - on FACEBOOK! - and turning it into a reason to post continued screeds on this forum?

[/quote="Tom Moore"]You are not above the criticism that I posted, Chris, because you “have done quizbowl longer” than me. That is dangerous, irresponsible and tone-deaf discourse-setting, Chris, and you know that. [/quote]

[/quote="Tom Moore also"][Ben Anthony] 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.
[/quote]



Quote:
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.


What are you talking about? This isn't what I said at all. I said I'd been caring about the game longer than you - which I only brought up because you felt it necessary to post this colossal diatribe (out of nowhere) about how much you, personally, care about quizbowl. Obviously I haven't been caring about Central Ohio quizbowl longer than you, something that would be blatantly impossible since I've been here for just a year and a half. And I didn't say anything about YOU not caring about the game at all - obviously you do, and I've said this to you before! This is a fantastic misreading of the text in order to, once again, dramatize and make everything about Tom Moore being victimized, an action you seem to find impossible not to take.

Quote:
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.


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. I wish I had done that better in my initial post, but I didn't have all the information yet. Indeed, I tried quite actively not to put them on the shoulders of anyone else - I only had to make these comments clarifying because you just kept claiming things that weren't true about my preparation for the tournament and reason for not being there. You continue to do these things.

Quote:
. 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


I think the more ironic part is that you view yourself as this selfless paragon whose action are guided entirely by what is good for quizbowl in Ohio. I don't know how it's possible to read what you wrote - what you consistently write - and not sense clear personal animosity and a sense of victimhood. You seem to be incensed that I/OSU were given this tournament, that we apparently didn't make use of your advice (what advice? You sent a moderator recommendation list and we used everyone who seemed available from it, that's it!). You seem personally affronted that Ben Anthony expressed an opinion on Facebook, and insist on misreading and claiming things that you've been told aren't true.

Quote:
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


I have no idea what you said on Facebook, and I emphatically don't care.

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... whatever it is you're engaging in here. I'm not going to keep going back and forth with you personally about it. 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...), and I'd actively like feedback (including harsh feedback) from other coaches here.

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.

In particular, I don't even want to give the impression that I'm disputing Tom Moore's valid points, because he's also making a bunch of weird ones and trapped us all in The-World-Is-Against-Tom-Moore-Victim-Land. It's important to acknowledge the issues this tournament had, and I do. If NAQT/Ohio in general thinks it would be better to go a different direction with States, I respect that decision. But I'd also like to work with coaches to fix the concerns (many of which wouldn't be repeated anyway because of the travel issues that befell me) so that we can build on running an event better event next year. I'm going to focus my responses here on that task going forward.

_________________
Ohio State University Academic Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 10:30 am 
Offline
Rookie

Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:21 am
Posts: 12
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.



I also want to take this opportunity to make very clear to Joe (and everyone) that I would never in a million years view this comment as "trying to pick a fight." This is not how I respond to feedback, and contrary to what Tom says, I've actively sought out the feedback of coaches and staffers regarding this event. As I think Joe will attest, I was quite responsive to his input prior to the tournament (eg, the use of timers - I was not inclined to eschew them, but Joe suggested it was Ohio standard practice, and I thought it best to differ to his judgement/state traditions).

It seems as if I'm being cast (again, unsurprisingly, mainly by Tom Moore) as some sort of carpetbagger who wants to waltz in and destroy all the local traditions. This is not remotely true; at the end of the day, this tournament is for Ohio coaches. Again contrary to Tom's claims, I'm actually deeply invested in hearing from coaches about how they'd like this tournament to look. Whether it ends up being states or simply a regular-season event, I'd very much like to continue incorporating this feedback as we go forward and host future events.

_________________
Ohio State University Academic Team


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:10 am 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:56 pm
Posts: 309
Location: Self-Imposed Exile, 4ever
Quote:
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.


Your response to my original critique was full of personal barbs, polemics and passive-aggressive argumentation. You set the tone for the back-and-forth by employing these, not me. So I don't want to hear your astroturfed bull about how you suddenly want to walk back on the tone that you yourself set in this discussion in the interest of "helpfulness to the community". No one forced you to write the out-of-line comments that you did last evening, and it is rich that you feel as if you have free reign to write all of the passive-aggressive, ad hominem and otherwise unnecessary personal attacks to me that you wish but simultaneously believing it is problematic for me to respond in kind to you with them. I agree that this argumentation isn't the most appropriate in a public forum, but, uh, it wasn't me who chose to deviate from the fair, balanced and generally respectful discourse had earlier in this thread: it was you.

Quote:
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.

If you did, your constant barbing and personal attacks is what rose to the surface far greater than this supposed admission.

Quote:
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...

Uh, reread my first post in this thread and explain to us where it "became totally mired in..." whatever you are referring to. Again, reread that post and explain to all of us why and how it warranted the hysterical, personally disparaging and inflammatory reaction that you wrote last night.


Quote:
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).
Quote:
I could not know this (that he would've been willing to pitch

1) Bad faith misinterpretation alert - I in no way found it be a personal slight that he wasn't reading. I did, however, find it to be completely ridiculous that despite the fact it was conveyed to you that he could have been serviceable as a reader if needed, you instead chose to abandon being the tournament director in order to go read because you felt like it, which was a very poor decision and a decision that caused a particularly significant issue because you were NOWHERE to be easily found and your reading inhibited your ability to be able to resolve the dispute that was in question as it happened. That dispute is what caused the fireworks in the afternoon to go off in the high-tension incident you mention (interesting how you don't contest this!), and your abandoning of your TD capacity in order to go read out of personal preference - and NOT necessity, as was clearly explained to you - is what caused the significant delay between round 9 and 10 for one particular bracket because the staffers in the room central to the dispute could not find you and get you to nip the problem in the bud. 2) Oh well, too bad that you don't find it to be a "professional thing to do" because regardless of whether it is or not (hint: it is!), it would've been a far more correct and wise decision to make than literally abandoning your presence in the control room for the sole purpose that one of your duties as the tournament director is to be readily available and capable of resolving a dispute - especially one that was as high-octane as that one - as soon as it happened. You didn't, it caused a few significant issues (the fight and the fact that bracket in question wasn't able to proceed to the next round due to the fact that it was not possible to resolve the dispute as you, the tournament director, were not doing what you should have been doing and that you weren't where you should have been) and you are using some subjective and non-standard ideal of "professionalism" to justify what many people agreed was a bad decision on your part. This is a textbook example of your arrogance in play, the bullishness that I describe which underpinned my criticism of the job that you did as a tournament director - and so is your complete refusal to acknowledge that you were in the wrong by leaving your TD post when it was clearly expressed to you previously that you had a well-credentialed reader in the coaches wing that could be of service if needed.

Yes you could have known this, but it was impossible for you to know this because - again - you have completely refused to even involve yourself in our high school circuit before last Saturday. Had you been around the block even once, you could've known that he could've been of service if need be.

Quote:
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...)

This was never in dispute. Again, your employing a straw man: I said you had never made yourself visible in our high school community prior to Saturday, which is correct. I didn't say that you were refusing criticism with coaches via e-mail, at all. So cut the crap.

I'm done with this. You and your fear of having your ego damaged are absolutely ridiculous.

_________________
Thomas Moore
Ohio Wesleyan '18

Retired from online, for good.


Last edited by Get Lynned on Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:10 pm, edited 9 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:13 am 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 8:16 pm
Posts: 150
Location: Dayton, OH
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.


Correct, what you have listed as Game 4 (happening in the theoretical Round 13) would be the first game of an advantaged final. So then in the scenario you have above, there would be a Game 5 taking place on Round 14 that would serve as winner take all.

We changed it several years back solely because people weren't okay with anyone being eliminated from contention by only losing one game, which required dual playoff pools in the afternoon to accommodate.

_________________
Joe Czupryn
OAC Committee Executive Director
Sidney Coach 2012-2015
Northmont Assistant Coach 2008-2011
Northmont '08


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 11:43 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:43 pm
Posts: 332
Location: Garfield Heights OH
Ultimately, no matter who hosts in the future, be it Ohio State or someone else -- the mistakes that were made shouldn't happen. It was a series of events that could have been avoided (for the most part -- other than the drops) but it should be a lesson to the team and to anyone else that runs a tournament. Have a contingency plan for various situations and have people that are up and ready to take over (and trained well enough to do so). Chris accepted responsibility for it, and having known him for over a decade now, I trust him enough to know that as long as he's in charge or involved, those mistakes will not happen again.

Despite the fact this stuff happened, OSU still finished the tournament at a reasonable time, with a reasonable format, even if it was different from what we've been accustomed to.

Can we start a thread on various things to do pre-tournament, both obvious and not-so-obvious for those who might not be as experienced in running tournaments? I'm sure there might be threads out there on hsquizbowl and buried, but I think it would be helpful because I'm sure there are things everybody overlooks when putting them together. I think recruit teams -- make schedule -- procure volunteers -- print questions is obvious, but there are a lot more intricate details people forget about AND suggestions that other people might have that work wonders. For instance, I started using folders for each round like Copley Invitational does over the past couple years, which helped me both organize which rooms were done at any given time (they're labeled) and also made it less likely someone would take the wrong packet. Small little things like that can make a world of difference sometimes.

So someone please start a thread by explaining things you do before a tournament that others might not. I'm sure it would benefit everyone, especially new teams looking to host or who might have hosted previously and are looking for tips.

_________________
Bob Kilner
Chief Admin, ohioqbforum.com
Former Coach, Garfield Heights HS (2001-2008)
Coach, North High School (2015-)
Kent State '06 / Boise State '10


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 11, 2018 12:12 pm 
Offline
Varsity

Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 3:03 pm
Posts: 130
Jumping in just to give my feedback on the tournament...I have a less complete idea of how the day ran because I was splitting my time between the high school tournament and the middle school tournament upstairs.

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.


Overall, I thought the tournament was average-to-fine from a logistical standpoint, with the biggest drawbacks being the delay at the morning meeting, confusion over scheduling, and the wide variance in finishing times for Round 5 (some teams, like MVS, got out around 12:05, while others were just going into Round 5 at that time). The degree of backlash about how the tournament was run strikes me as slightly extreme, but based on legitimate criticisms.

We were spoiled a bit by having excellent readers in the morning and afternoon (both from the Ohio high school circuit and from the OSU team), as evidenced by our fifth round being done around 12 even with the delayed start to the tournament. Of course, we were in the bracket with Tom, Joe, and Seth. I assume a couple rooms had to be running slow because of the discrepancies I saw in the hallway during Rounds 4 and 5.

One point of inconvenience was having the opening meeting and rebracketing meeting in different buildings from the building the game rooms were in, although I acknowledge that this is partly a facilities/university administration issue. Speaking selfishly, it was also a little rough to have the HS opening meeting in a different building than the MS opening meeting, since this involved me running between two locations to make sure I had everyone and check in with TDs. I do really appreciate the effort that was made to put both tournaments in Enarson and continue the pattern of having both the HS and MS championships in the same location.

I did go with Ellen Spence of Beavercreek to ask about how the schedule might change with dropped teams, and I did inquire, if we were down to 30 teams, whether it would be feasible to use 5 prelim brackets of 6 and then rebracket into two championship flights (top 12 teams still eligible to win the tournament) and three consolation flights, with the winners of each championship flight to play some kind of final. I think something may have gotten lost in translation when trying to convey this idea, and my thought process was really just that it would keep some of the teams in the middle-to-bottom of the field from struggling through 3 additional rounds of challenging questions, while allowing a greater number of teams to contend for the championship. I think from an outreach standpoint for less-seasoned teams, the value added by having more guaranteed games starts to fade once you get above about 9-10 rounds and become replaced by frustration or boredom, especially with regular-season events here in-state traditionally being 8-10 rounds and being finished by 4:30 (or, in the case of one Rowdy Raider a couple years back, 10 rounds by 2:45, which was wild). More competitive teams who have been around the circuit a little more are typically more inclined to stay until 5 or longer to play for a championship than those in the <12.00 PPB range. Besides Ellen, I'm not sure what any other coaches or observers may have had to say about the schedule, but I'm sorry for potentially putting more confusion on the Buckeyes behind the registration table.

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?


They have, both for NAQT and for OAC, and I think it's due to having so many well-run events around the state that an event like this has drawn such specific criticism. On the other hand, not to throw shade at any in-state tournament Miami Valley attended or hosted this season, this year we've had instances of slow readers, delayed mornings, misprinted packets, and weird playoff procedures/seeding at tournaments that are not NAQT State. No event runs perfectly, and I think Chris and Ohio State made a good-faith effort to do right by the teams that attended the event even if there were some differences from what the community has grown to expect from NAQT State. I'll also say that due to factors which predate my coaching tenure, tournaments hosted by college teams are sometimes held to a stricter standard because of past transgressions. I was heartened this year to see Youngstown State provide Boardman with institutional support for their (well-run) tournament in March, Wright State University start to dip their toes into hosting again, and Ohio State stepping into a role that necessitates more connection to Ohio quiz bowl at large. As folks (including Tom) have said in the past, a robust link between OSU and the Central Ohio circuit could be a real boon, and I appreciate both Tom and Chris Ray/OSU now taking steps through their events to foster that connection.

At the end of the day, the tournament achieved its primary goal of crowning a fitting NAQT state champion with the bonus of giving a final for the ages. A tighter morning, fewer tournament buildings, a more empathetic schedule and question set, two more elite readers, and a better-defined tournament hierarchy beyond Chris would have made it better. I do want to close by again thanking everyone involved for their time and congratulating Scioto for their excellent performance.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group