Newsletter 1.8 Gaius Stern Western ACF Newsletter June 1995 Welcome to the last newsletter for the 94-95 school year. Since this is a big document, I have included a mini table of contents so you can skip to the articles which interest you. The newsletter is expanding East and now has quite a few subscribers in the Midwest. I welcome new subscribers at Univ of Iowa, Iowa State, Chicago, and anyone else I have accidentally forgotton. Articles this issue: CBI Nationals When are finals necessary? results from Mo Championship Colvin Unfair Result/Variable Bonuses How to handle moderator error Tournaments next year more buzzer info how to make your Univ. dollar further tips on running a tournament The year in Review - - - - - - - - HARVARD UNITES ACF and CBI TITLES In scenic Akron, Ohio, Harvard University captured the CBI Nationals championship, thus making them the undisputed best quizbowl team in the country. The University of Chicago placed a distant second and Univ. of Michigan came in third. The format of the tournament was round-robin with 16 teams and multiple byes for each team. At the end of round-robin play, Harvard emerged undefeated while Chicago and Michigan were in a tie for second with 10-5 records each. Head-to-head, Chicago had defeated Michigan, and thus was allowed to replay Harvard best two out of three, both of which Harvard won. Harvard's team consisted of Jeff Johnson, Mark Staloff, Matthew Bruce, and John Tudor. After preliminaries, the standings were: Team W L -------------- -- -- (1) Harvard 15 0 (2) Chicago 10 5 (3) Michigan 10 5 (Chicago beat Michigan head-to-head) (4) BYU 9 6 (5) GWU 9 6 (6) Stanford 9 6 (BYU beat both teams and GW beat Stanford) (7) Virginia 8 7 (8) Cornell 8 7 (9) Princeton 8 7 (Virginia beat both teams and Cornell beat Princeton) (10) Oklahoma 7 8 (11) Illinois 7 8 (12) Iowa State 7 8 (Oklahoma beat both teams and Illinois beat Iowa State) (13) UT-Dallas 6 9 (14) Florida 4 11 (15) Alfred 2 13 (16) Alaska 1 14 After prelims, the top ten players were: tot tot tot rnds toss int pts Player Team toss int pts plyd /rnd /rnd /rnd ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Margolis UT-Dallas 100 13 935 15 6.7 0.9 62.3 Gerard Magliocca Stanford 89 21 785 15 5.9 1.4 52.3 Eric Tentarelli Cornell 79 14 720 15 5.3 0.9 48.0 Mike Zarkin Alfred 72 12 660 15 4.8 0.8 44.0 Eric Bell Oklahoma 78 25 655 15 5.2 1.7 43.7 Matthew Priesbe Illinois 57 12 510 12 4.8 1.0 42.5 John Sheahan Chicago 62 8 580 14 4.4 0.6 41.4 J.L. Nelson, Jr. Iowa St. 68 14 610 15 4.5 0.9 40.7 David Frazee Michigan 66 11 605 15 4.4 0.7 40.3 Dwight Kidder Cornell 65 10 600 15 4.3 0.7 40.0 Cogratulations to Gerard, Eric, John, and JL who held up this end of the country. The MISSOURI STATE CHAMPIONSHIP The same weekend as ACF Nationals (Apr 7-8), a small tournament was held at Missouri Univ for the state championship. Fewer attended than expected, but MU, Washington Univ in St. Louis, and two teams each from UMKC and UMR came. The format was a round-robin, followed by a one round play-in 3 vs. 6 and 4 vs. 5, followed by a double elimination for the four remaining teams. Format was CBI. Double elim results: Round 2 Round 1 Rd 2 UMR A (1) --> defeats skip rd 3 <-- UMKC A (4) UMR ----->------- UMKC defeats || || defeats MU (2) --> Missouri Univ || Wash U defeats | \/ <-- Wash U (3) | round 3 <--------------------------------- || UMKC defeats MU || | || ------------------------> rounds 4 and 5 <------- UMKC defeats UMR twice UMKC 1995 Missouri State Champions WHAT TO DO IN MODERATOR ERROR What is the best way to handle a situation where a moderator misreads part of a clue in a question so that one player who is a specialist (or even if s/he just knows the answer) is mislead into thinking their best guess is wrong? A poor but illustrative example would be: " ... born in Indiana ... elected president in 1988 ..." The moderator meant to read 1888. Obviously Bush was not born in Indiana but Benjamin Harrison was. The official CBI method used to be "equal access to misinformation" so nothing can be protested. The rules may have changed on this by now, but some people use old rules. The official ACF position as explained in a discussion at ACF Regionals is as follows: "Equal access to misinformation can penalize the more knowledgable player. Since one of ACF's goals to to reward knowledge, such a question as the above example would be tossed out and a substitute question from the same category would be read in its place." Under any circumstances where a wrong word is read, the ACF recommends substituting in a new question rather than allow opportunity for protest. It is just the simpler way to handle things. WHERE YOU CAN BUY BUZZER SYSTEMS The following is a list of all the buzzer manufacturers I have coma across. Wherever possible, I have noted a group that has this type of buzzer so you may contact them by e-mail if you have further questions. Opinions on the system are mine alone unless otherwise noted. Academic Enterprizes I do not recommend this system. Each player holds a joystic with a small button on it. Inside the button is a tiny light which indicates whether or not you rang in first. Like all other systems it is lockout, but only the player who has rung in can see and every time you have to stop and check. The company that makes this system is in Lexington, KY. If you have any further questions, ask Eric Bell from U of Oklahoma, (eric.bell@oubbs.telecom.uoknor.edu), but the system is so bad it is not worth your while. Creative Electronic Design "Quizwizard II" Designed for High School Certamen. System is a box with 12 or 16 thumb activated buzzers held in hand at end of long chords. Only moderator can tell who rang in from display (i.e. players can not see). System can be set for individuals or teams of 4 players each. System is delicate, so be careful with it. Maryland had this system until it broke down, Emory may still have this system (if theirs still works 8 yrs later). Contact ptolemy@wam.umd.edu if you have questions about it. Major advantage: can seat 12 or 16 people Special features: System tells who rang in 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd. Price: x8 players = $420 x12 players = $495 x16 players = $570 Address/phone: Creative Electronic Design Inc. 2565 Celia Dr. Beaver Creek, Ohio 45434 - 6815 (513) 426-1506 *********** contact me before buying this system and I might *********** be able to arrange a discount for you. Electramatic Inc. "The Judge" Comes in a briefcase. Players hit "footpedals" to signal an answer which lights up green or red light corresponding to each buzzer. Locks out all other responses until reset. I think Minnesota has this system, as well as Ga Tech. You can contact Randy Buehler (Minn) at bueh0007@maroon.tc.umn.edu to ask about it. ALso Jim Dendy at gt1367b@prism.gatech.edu. Major advantage: Very durable and portable. Special features: None Price: x8 players = $350 x10 players = $375 Address/phone: Electramatic Inc. 1815 Jefferson St. N.E. Minneapolis, Minn 55418 (612) 781-9588 Univ. Research Co. "Quiz-a-matic" This company sells two varieties of buzzers, hand held thumb activated buzzers attached to a light which sits in front of each player (the "Professional model") and the more moderately priced 10 person system which has plungers each player hits to light up a bulb on the moderator's panel. All players can see the panel at all times. The price of the second model is listed below. The "Professional" model is somewhat more expensive, while the standard model can be joined to another standard model to make one huge 20 person system. Berkeley has the standard model so contact me with questions (gaius@uclink2.berkeley.edu) and Stanford has the professional model. Contact Sherman Lo at daedalus@leland.stanford.edu Major advantage: Very durable, Special features: standard can be merged to form a 20 person system Price: x10 players = $454 Address/phone: University Research Co. P.O. Box 815 2365 Horse Alley Cedar City, UT 84720 1 - 800 -526-4972 (801) 586-5261 ****************** contact me before ordering this system and I ****************** might be able to get you a 30% discount. Logitec Electronics "Quiztron" This system accommodates 8 or 10 I think. Many of the schools in Texas use it, but I have very little info on it aside from its address. I think each system is a box with a small light on it. Players buzz in and the light can be seen by whole room. Each buzzer has a long cord to the machine. If someone knows more about this machine I welcome a correction. Address: Logitek Electronic System 3320 Bering Drive Houston, TX 77057 Specialty Design Corp. Each player presses a thumb activated, hand held buzzer which is connected to a fire siren-type light in front of him/her. Although this system is very popular (there were many of them at ACF Nationals), my experience with it is very poor. U-MD had a system from this company but it frequently needed repairs. After the third time, we just got a Quizwizard instead. Georgetown College (KY) has this system so contact Barbara Burch (BBURCH1@aol.com) if you have questions. Major advantage: very portable. Special features: None Price: x8 players = about $489 with shipping x10 players = ca. $550 ?? Address/phone: Specialty Design Corp. 715 N. 19th Street Bessemer, Alabamas 35020 Phone 205-428-1224 or 428-1223 Wats 1-800-284-6377 Zeecraft Tech. "Challenger I, II, or III" Each player has a little box with a buzzer and a light on it. Everyone can see who rang in first. They sell several different models, so I advise calling and getting their brochures. Prices refer to "Challenger II" Models for 8 - 16 players can be ordered and they rent out for weekends, as well. Contact Matt C. at ptolemy@wam.umd.edu to ask about the system. Major advantages: none (a 16 person set available) Special features: built in clock can be ordered for extra Price: x8 players = $445 x12 players = $545 x16 players = $635 Address/phone: Zeecraft Tech. Ridge Road RR2 Box 157 -H New Milford, PA 18834 1 - 800 662-7475, (717) 465-7475 My final recommendations: The standard Quiz-a-matic is probably the best buy. My high school still uses a system that is probably 16 years old. It can also be merged with another system of the same make to create a 20 person system and the manufacturer has offered to give me a 30% discount if it is ordered through me or the ACF. Just e-mail me if you are interested, but a 10 person system for under $350 is a really good price once you look at the competition. For price, the Judge is probably next best. It is durable and works well. The lights near the mnoderator let everyone know who came in first. Some people do not like the pedals and the sysyem is only made for 8 or 10 players. If you have a big club, you will either need two or you will need to consider a bigger system. I am fond of the Quizwizard, especially since it tells who came in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, but it is somewhat expensive. Its leading virtue is that you can play as teams or a s 12 individuals with it. ALso, a 16 person model is available. Lastly: I am told it is cheaper and better to make your own. Doug Bone from Stanford says he has seen schematics for building a buzzer system, if you are willing to go that route. Contact him at bone@luciano.stanford.edu with questions. TIPS ON RUNNING A TOURNAMENT This is not at all the last word on a complex subject but I hope to pass on some useful hints: (1) Make a 2 or 3 person committe in charge. One person will be the top Tournamnet director (TD) but the others will still have substantial duties. (2) Set a date early and write up an invitation early. Check with other schools or the ACF local chair to be sure your date does not match another nearby school's proposed date. Sometimes if you can "share" a weekend with a school across the country, you will be able to "pool" efforts in amassing good packets of questions. (3) Set a big entry fee with a HUGE discount for early response. Also give a HUGE discount for early submission of a useable packet. (4) Make clear guidelines so teams may know how to write their packets. You can not blame poor submissions on tehm if you give them no clue what you want. (5) Give a discount for bringing buzzers or scorekeepers. Make sure you have one extra buzzer system in case one breaks. (6) Have all of the moderators attend a practice session (you may exempt the ones who are very experienced). (7) Try to use rooms in near proximity to one another to cut down on travel time between rounds. (8) Send invitations by e-mail and also US mail if you are less than certain the recipient checks their e-mail regularly. (9) Create a dispute comittee in advance in case of protests. (10) Call local hotels and see if they will consider giving a group discount if many teams stay in the same hotel. Do not forget to edit, Edit, EDIT all submissions for incorrect info, duplicates, and the likes. Have a prepared set of "filler" questions should an error crop up which went unnoticed. WHEN ARE FINALS NECESSARY? I was very surprised that Harvard was even forced to play a finals game at CBI Nationals after they went undefeated (15-0) and the 2nd and 3rd place teams were both 10-5. Clearly Harvard had proven it was the best team. Had they lost a best 2 out of 3 to a team that had lost 5 more games than Harvard, there would have been a real question as the soundness of holding a finals match in the fiorst place. There should still be a debate on the soundness of always playing finals. Finals are needed when a clear winner has not been determined by the preliminary games. If a clear winner emerges, what need is there of an additional gauntlet for the best team to jump? The fact that Harvard won does not justify their being forced to undergo an extra risk when their record should have protected them. In the West, the ACF rule is that if a team emerges undefeated and 2 or more games better than the 2nd place team (e.g. 15-0 vs 13-2) than it has proven itself the best team and forgoes the ritual of the "final." However, if the 2nd place team is only 1 game behind, a play-off (preferably 2 out of 3) is required. It depends on what the host thinks a final is for. Is it for the excitement? Is it because the top two MUST playoff? Is it because the host wrote the finals game and wants to see it played? If the final is for the first reason stated above, it is unfair to force a proven best team to risk all in a single game. If two teams had tie records for 2nd place (first being 3 games ahead) isn't it as exciting for them to play-off for 2nd place? It is certainly more fair. Reason number two is really unjustified in a situation where several teams have tied records for 2nd (like CBI Nationals) and one emerges by a stroke of luck. Why must a far superior team risk all again? What good is going undefeated if you still have to play the distant #2team? The second place teams can still play-off among themselves. If the host has written the final game, it should still be easy to play that game by letting volunteers or all-stars play instead of the "top two." If people are reluctant to play such a game, the host should wonder why no one wants to play his/her packet ... I am not opposed to finals in any case where the best teams have tied or close records. However, they are unneeded in places where the first place team is well in front of the pack. To force such a team into a final where all can be lost (especially single-elim) invalidates the purpose of the the priliminary rounds. COLVIN UNFAIR RESULTS and WHY TO AVOID VARIABLE BONUSES One of the differences between ACF and CBI is that ACF attempts to ensure all or almost all bonuses will be of 30 point value. This helps ensure a level playing field upon which a team will win owing to their greater knowledge or playing skill. It is possible for two very good teams to play and each answer ten TUs and earn all the points on their bonuses (i.e. a perfect game) and the score will read 400-335. One team got all the thirty point bonuses and converted, while the other team got twenty and twenty-five point bonuses. Even thought Team B answered everything correctly, they lost the game "unfairly." That is the basis of the so called "Colvin Unfair Result." This year at CBI Nationals, in the game between Stanford and Princeton, variable value bonuses gave Stanford an "unfair" win. I put this in quotes because whether it is fair or not is a matter of opinion. However, since Princeton was better at converting bonus points, it is reasonable to assume that if all the bonuses had been 30 pointers, Princeton would have had the victory. Gerard Magliocca (Stanford) writes: > I have identified a real life example of a Colvin Unfair Result. > In our match against Princeton, we won 250-245. Both teams got 10 > tossups and had 3 -5's, and Princeton had a HIGHER bonus conversion rate > at 67% to our 60%. This, you will note, is not an insignificant > difference. We won because we got 7 30 point bonuses to Princeton's 3, > and so ended up with 15% more potential bonus points. In any game decided by twenty or fewer points, a CUR may be a factor. ACF has decided to avoid the argument of "Our team would have won if we had gotton as many 30 pointers as they did!" by just making all of the bonuses 30 pointers. Since any game at CBI Nationals that was decided by less than 20 points may be a CUR, the overall results do not indicate the genuine ability of the teams competing. No fewer than 14 games were decided by thin margins. Oklahoma and BYU lost three games each perhaps because of CUR (neither won any beause of CUR). While Oklahoma finished 7-8 and tenth place, perhaps they were the victim of variable bonus distribution. Maybe they would have finished 10-5 (3rd or 4th) if they had received the same number of 30 pointers as their opponents. Stanford beat Princeton 250-245 (certified CUR) Iowa State beat Michigan 235-225. Chicago beat Oklahoma 230-210. Michigan beat BYU 180-165. UT-Dallas beat Cornell 245-240. Harvard beat Stanford 245-240. Cornell beat Oklahoma 250-230. Princeton beat BYU 280-275. Illinois beat BYU 295-290. Harvard beat Oklahoma 250-245. Princeton beat GW 200-190. Iowa State beat Florida 225-205. Illinois beat Iowa State 215-210 GW beat UT-Dallas 290-285 Pat Mathews will look at the official scoresheets from CBI Nationals to see whether any of the above listed cases are CURs. An update on this will be made next year when he finishes the project. LIST OF NEXT YEAR"S TOURNAMENTS Iowa State Glory and Sunshine 10/27 Berkeley Manute Bowl 11/4 (date may change) Washington U in St Louis Gateway Invitational 11/11 Oklahoma date unkown Fresno State Saturnalia 12/2 Brigham Young late January Wisconsin Elvis Memorial 2/9 Stanford Cardinal Classic VI 2/16 (date may change) CBI Regionals late February ACF Regionals 3/9 OR 3/16 Colorado late March If anyone else plans a tournament, please contact me at earliest convenience and I will add you to the list. HOW TO MAKE YOUR DOLLAR GO FURTHER The real expert on this subject is Pat Mathews who has gotten more money from his administration and helped other teams do the same. I can only offer a few tips on how to stretch your dollars and also how to get a few more. (1) If you host a tournament, offer to swap entry fees with teams who will attend yours and invite you to theirs. (2) If your team goes to many tournaments and stays in hotels, get an "Entertainment" card for the club which will allow you to stay for half price in all participating hotels nationwide. The card costs $48 including shipping (runs Nov-Nov most years) and is worht it if you use it 3 or more times. I have their 1-800 number if you are interested. It also has many 50% off coupons at local resteraunts in the big city of your choice. (3) Even cheaper than Entertainment, offer to put up other teams with you if they will reciprocate at the next event. (4) Do all your xeroxing at once if at all possible on a 2.5 cents/xerox machine. Some teachers and TAs have unlimited access to free xeroxing. Use this resource if you can. (5) AAA also offers discounts at many hotels. (6) Take advantage of early discounts from tournament hosts. Send in packets early and use the early notification discount if at all posible. (7) If you have an ally in administration, ask him/her to keep your trophies in his/her office. Bring this person as much into the sway of the club activities as possible as long as this does not inhibit regular club processes. Tips to get more money from admin: (1) Be sure to affiliate or register your club with the university so you are an official bona fide campus organization. (2) Ask the Student Gvt or dean of Student activities for funding in a formal letter on club stationary. Be sure to stress the pursuit of knowledge and the goal of academic excellence. (3) tell admin your team has real potential which will prove itself if you get to attend several tournaments over the year -- not just Regionals. (4) Offer to put on an on-campus event for students to show yo are doing something for the local campus community. (5) Consider running a high school event and ask admissions to come and speak at the start. They will be eager to use it as a recruitment tool and it may win you a valuable ally in admissions. (6) Try to create a large membership even if some members are only occasional participants. The bigger your club, the more likely it will justify expense from teh central administration. If you need a copy of a letter to admin urging them to grant you funds, write me. I have a sample letter for you to copy and alter as you see fit. THE 1994-95 YEAR IN REVIEW: Growth of programs and a look forward In the last few years, California has experienced a real fluctuation in the number of tournaments and teams on the circuit. Two whole years ago, the only tournaments out here were Stanford's Cardinal Classic III and the CBI RTC. Stanford was head and shoulders above everyone else and there was little challenge or competition in the activity. Since then, several other programs have begun to build. A few other teams have begun to run tournaments. ACF came to California and has turned the West coast into a region with very competitive rivalry, especially between Berkeley and BYU. In 1993-94, Berkeley ran the Andrew MArtinez Bowl, Stanford ran the Cardinal Classic IV, BYU ran a Regionals Prep, and USC ran a spring tournament. This year, USC folded, but ACF Regionals were held at Berkeley to keep the number of tournaments stable. BYU and Stanford also repeated their tourneys and Berkeley held a Fall tournament which was ironically named "the Harmonic Convergence Bowl." Hopefully new teams will become more active on the circuit from Chico State and UCLA. If USC revives, a real inroad into Southern CA could be made. We also would welcome participation from Arizona, AZ state, and teams from UC Irvine, Pomona, and Sonoma State. At the same time, next year may prove to be a proliferation in the SouthWest as ACF Regionals might move to Texas A&M. Meanwhile, Rice, UT Dallas, TCU, and Oklahoma have mentioned interest in hosting their own tournaments. In closing, it is fitting to recognize the outstanding team from BYU. At tournament after tournament this year, Berkeley A and BYU A have played exciting and close games. This year BYU A was the West Coast ACF runner-up and BYU B came in 3rd. BYU came in 4th at CBI Nationals and in the top ten at ACF Nationals among the best field ever assembled. In every case I have seen them, the BYU team has played with oustanding sportsmanship, keen interest, and the competitive spirit that distinguishes the finest teams. I congratulate Bill Atkinson, Norm Gillespie, Jonathan Green, Bryce Inouye, and Darren Roulstone for many fine matches and they excitement they have brought to this activity to all of us. Best wishes to all of you in the future, and we hope to see you on the circuit next year either as grad students or alums. Gaius Stern ACF West Coast Chair