Newsletter 1.7 Gaius Stern 1 May 1995 ACF Newsletter First a welcome to several new subscribers, MWSU, Chico, and others I may have accidentally forgotten. Sorry this is so late, but it is also big. For those of you who are not that interested in ACF Nationals, scroll down to articles on raising money, attracting new members, and fall schedule. - - - - - - - - HARVARD WINS ACF NATIONALS, GA TECH 2nd, BERKELEY 3rd Harvard won the ACF 1995 Nationals in Knoxville, Tenn by defeating number two team Ga Tech in a best two out of three. The scores in the three games were 250-240 Harvard, 455-105 Ga Tech, and 320-255, Harvard. The format of the tournament called for a best two out of three if no team went undefeated. Berkeley came in 3rd, South Carolina came in 4th, and Chicago came in 5th. Since there were 38 teams, three brackets of 12, 13, and 13 were formed. Each team played every other team within its bracket. The top four teams from each bracket then played each other in a finalists bracket but teams from the same original bracket did not face off again. Thus, the finalists bracket consisted of 8 games against the other four semi-finalists from each of the other two pools. At the end of the preliminary round robin, the standings were: Bildad Division Eliphaz Division Zophar Division W L B W L B W L B Harvard 11 0 2 Ga Tech I 11 1 1 S Carolina 10 2 1 Cal Berk. 9 2 2 U-Va I 10 2 1 Illinois 10 2 1 U-Md I 8 3 2 BYU I 9 3 1 Chicago 10 2 1 Ga Tech II 8 3 2 Minnesota 8 4 1 Tenn I 10 2 1 Vandy I 8 3 2 U-Md II 8 4 1 N Carolina 8 4 1 Emory 6 5 2 Cornell 8 4 1 G Washington 7 5 1 Princeton 6 5 2 Oklahoma 6 6 1 Midwestrn St 7 5 1 Mich II 4 7 2 Rice 5 7 1 Iowa State 5 7 1 U-Va II 3 8 2 Chicago II 4 8 1 BYU II 4 8 1 Texas A&M 2 9 2 Penn 4 8 1 Duke 4 8 1 Tenn II 1 10 2 Michigan I 2 10 1 Mich III 2 10 1 West Mich 0 11 2 Colorado 2 10 1 Tx Christian 1 11 1 Ga State FORFEIT Memphis 1 11 1 Vandy II 0 12 1 From there, the top four teams played off in a finalists bracket while the other 26 teams played eight more games against new opponents. These are the standings at the end of the eight-game semi-finals. TEAM W L B TO INT TP TPA OP.T OP.I OP.P OP.AV DIFF ---- - - - ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- 1. Harvard 10 1 0 8.18 1.64 3905 355.0 5.00 2.55 2000 181.8 173.2 2. Georgia Tech I 10 1 0 8.64 1.45 3660 332.7 4.64 1.82 1895 172.3 160.5 3. California 8 3 0 7.73 1.36 3125 284.1 5.45 2.18 2405 218.6 65.5 4. South Carolina 7 4 0 7.55 1.64 3480 316.4 6.18 1.64 2615 237.7 78.6 5. Chicago I 6 5 0 6.55 1.82 2615 237.7 6.73 2.00 2765 251.4 -13.6 6. Maryland I 6 5 0 7.18 1.73 3090 280.9 6.09 1.73 2495 226.8 54.1 7. Illinois 5 6 0 6.82 1.73 2670 242.7 6.64 2.18 2935 266.8 -24.1 8. Virginia I 5 6 0 6.45 2.27 2535 230.5 7.09 1.55 2810 255.5 -25.0 9. Tennessee 3 8 0 4.91 1.91 2045 185.9 8.36 1.18 3175 288.6 -102.7 10. BYU I 3 8 0 4.91 1.45 2015 183.2 8.18 1.18 3325 302.3 -119.1 11. Georgia Tech II 2 9 0 5.27 1.82 1885 171.4 8.00 0.91 3415 310.5 -139.1 12. Minnesota 1 10 0 5.27 2.36 1735 157.7 7.09 2.27 2925 265.9 -108.2 Players Ranked by Adjusted Tossup Average after Round 21 Player Team TO INT RD AVG T AVG I ADJ AV TO/INT ------ ---- -- --- -- ----- ----- ------ ----- 1 Tom Waters So Carolina 83 18 8 10.38 2.25 9.25 4.61 2 Jeff Johnson Harvard 55 8 8 6.88 1.00 6.38 6.88 3 Jason King Ga Tech I 41 4 8 5.12 0.50 4.88 10.25 4 John Sheahan Chicago I 39 11 8 4.88 1.38 4.19 3.55 5 Mike Starsinic Md I 35 6 8 4.38 0.75 4.00 5.83 6 Mike Musgrove Ga Tech I 28 7 8 3.50 0.88 3.06 4.00 7 Matt Baker Cal Berkeley 28 8 8 3.50 1.00 3.00 3.50 8 John Harris Virginia I 27 6 8 3.38 0.75 3.00 4.50 9 James Anderson Illinois 25 3 8 3.12 0.38 2.94 8.33 10 Gaius Stern Cal Berkeley 13 0 5 2.60 0.00 2.60 13:0 PLAYERS FROM THE WEST WHO REALLY STOOD OUT The western teams really held up their own at ACF Nationals. Special congratulations go to Marc Swisdak from Univ. Colorado who won the tournament's 2nd MVP. Tim Pulju of Rice and Mike Mahurin of Midwestern also deserves recognition for placing in the top ten MVPs. Additional congratulations are due to the following players who finished in the top twenty of their individual preliminary brackets: Player Team TO INT RD AVG T AVG I ADJ AV TO/INT ------ ____ -- --- -- ----- ----- ------ ------ (Bildid Division) 8 Mike McStravick Tx A&M 41 16 11 3.73 1.45 3.00 2.56 12 Jeff Newman Cal Berk 28 6 10 2.80 0.60 2.50 4.67 13 Matt Baker Cal Berk 35 16 11 3.18 1.45 2.45 2.19 14 Gaius Stern Cal Berk 14 1 6 2.33 0.17 2.25 14.00 17 Phil Huang Cal Berk 21 6 9 2.33 0.67 2.00 3.50 (Eliphaz Division) 1 Marc Swisdak Colorado 76 18 12 6.33 1.50 5.58 4.22 3 Tim Pulju Rice 53 12 11 4.82 1.09 4.27 4.42 5 Bill Atkinson BYU I 46 10 12 3.83 0.83 3.42 4.60 6 Eric Bell Oklahoma 49 23 12 4.08 1.92 3.12 2.13 11 Ben Weiss Minnesota 29 2 12 2.42 0.17 2.33 14.50 16 Hormuzd Katki Chicago II 27 8 11 2.45 0.73 2.09 3.38 19 Randy Thomson Rice 24 3 11 2.18 0.27 2.05 8.00 20 Jon Green BYU I 29 9 12 2.42 0.75 2.04 3.22 (Zophar Division) 2 John Sheahan Chicago I 80 6 12 6.67 0.50 6.42 13.33 3 Mike Mahurin Midwestern 66 22 12 5.50 1.83 4.58 3.00 5 James Anderson Illinois 44 5 12 3.67 0.42 3.46 8.80 7 Robert Hentzel Iowa State 49 18 12 4.08 1.50 3.33 2.72 13 Bryce I BYU II 32 11 12 2.67 0.92 2.21 2.91 Results of the other three brackets after the prelims: (2nd tier of teams by over all record) 13-21 22-30 31-39 Team W L B tot rec Team W L B tot rec Team W L overall Cornell 6 1 4 14-5 Rice 7 1 3 12-8 Mich I 6 1 8-11 N. Carolina 5 2 4 13-6 Iowa St 5 3 3 10-10 Colo 5 2 7-12 Geo Washing 5 3 3 12-7 Duke 5 2 4 9-10 Memph 5 2 6-13 U-Md II 4 3 4 12-7 Mich II 5 3 3 9-10 Mich 3 4 3 6-13 Oklahoma 4 3 4 10-9 VA II 4 4 3 7-12 W Mich 3 4 4-15 Vandy I 3 3 5 11-6 BYU II 4 4 3 8-12 Tenn 2 3 4 4-14 Midwestern 3 4 4 10-9 Penn 2 5 4 6-13 Tx Chr 1 6 2-17 Princeton 2 5 4 8-10 Chic II 2 6 3 6-14 Vandy 2 1 6 1-18 Emory 0 8 3 6-13 Tx A&M 1 7 7 3-16 Ga State FORFEIT SCHEDULING FOR NEXT YEAR The following schools have expressed interest in running a tournament next year: Berkeley Oct. or Nov. Fresno early Dec. BYU late January or Feb. Stanford Feb. Tx A&M, Berkeley ACF Regionals (March) (CBI Regionals TBA) Rice ???, Oklahoma, (date uncertain) UT Dallas??? (date unknown) We strongly encourage teams to raise funds by hosting tournaments, even small ones. Next issue will include several tips as to how to cut production costs in hosting an event. Berkeley ran HCB in November at expenses of $120 to produce (food, xeroxing, but no trophies) and lost revenue from teams who dropped out. and ACF Regionals in Spring at $120 to produce, (this time breakfast food, trophies 1-4th, xeroxing.) Some valuable lessons were learned and we will pass them on. There are ways to cut expenses without sacrificing quality. Please, PLEASE coordinate dates of tournaments with other teams in order to maximize attendence at your event and thus increase revenue. Berkeley will happily move our November scheduled tournament to the end of October if someone else wishes to produce a November event. We prefer to see one event every month rather than a flurry in February and nothing else the rest of the year. ACF WILL TRY TO ARRANGE AIRLINE, TROPHY DISCOUNTS, BUZZERS Over the summer, ACF will contact Southwest airlines and any other likely carriers and ask them to offer discounts to Academic teams who use their flights to get to tournaments. As it is now, it is often possible to get 2 for 1 tickets with Southwest or United. Since both fly to Salt Lake City, I highly recommend pursuing this opportunity to attend the BYU tournament in 1996. Just remember there is a 3 week advance on most 2 for 1 offers and they sell out quickly, so make plans early. This year, the Berkeley team has purchased trophies from a company in Massachussetts who ship the placques to us by UPS. A nice 5 x 7 placque costed about $8.00 or so. Smaller and larger ones came at a slightly different rate, depending upon size. If other schools are interested in hosting a tournament and you would like their catalogue to compare their prices to the trophy stores in your town or city, just contact me and I will give you their 1-800 number. You can request their free catalogue and check them out for yourself. I will work on getting them to offer us a discount for Academicbowl placques and trophies. ACF has already worked out a discount with two buzzer manufacturers, Quiz-a-matic and Quizwizard. See issue 1.1 or next issue for an elaborate description of each system (back issues available upon request). The quiz-a-matic company might be the better buy since they have offered a 30% discount on their product to ACF teams. WHAT IS THE IDEAL FORMAT FOR A TOURNAMENT? Of course, this will vary depending upon how many teams you have, but if at all possible, a full-round robin is by far the most fair and the best expenditure of a team's money. Other formats include double-elim, partial-round robin, and swiss-pairing. Each have their own merits, but in most cases, round robin is the format of choice. If one assumes the basic entry fee is $75, than double elim is just not a fair format to play. It is just not right to charge more than $10 when half of the teams will only play 2 games and another 1/4 of them will only play 3. Even the top two teams will only play 5 or 6. For most participants, each game is $25 - $37.00. At best it is $15 per game. A modified double-elim where teams that lose out still get to play more games is a little more reasonable, but if the excitement for half the participants is over by the end of the first match, what is the point of playing? Compare that to a 16 team round robin where everyone plays everyone else once. If the entry fee were just the same $75, than each team would play 16 games and each game would be about $5.00. If we compare that to the price of each game in the double-elim, each team would have had a $225 entry fee. Pretty costly. In terms of cost-efficiency, round robin is best. Full round-robin has other merits as well. There is never a problem that the two "best" teams never meet. There is also flexibility in how to determine the champion. Many choose to allow the top two teams to have a play-off. Some opt for the top four in double-elim. However, keep in mind that it is really unfair to force an undefeated team into a play-off against a #2 team that has lost several games already. If the ultimate winner has a 12-5 record while the loser has a 15-2 record, the reason for the tournament has gone awry, since a tournament is supposed to see who has the best team. Partial or limited round-robin is best to use only when the field is so enormous that it is impossible for every team to play every other. If this problem should occur, the tournament host ought to try to arrange it so that A vs B teams from the same school are among the matches excluded. People go to tournaments to play other schools, not to pay to play the rest of their squad. Also, occasionally some of the best teams will not meet in partial round-robin due to limited time. Often in huge pools, the trend has been to break the competitors into two pools which play full round-robin within and either allow a few crossover games, or advance the top teams. This format is quite reasonable when there are 18 or more teams, but in such cases, it is advisable to set up several cross-over games so that teams get to play many games. Otherwise, a 20 team tournament just becomes two ten team tournaments except for the top team from each bracket who play in an additional championship. Swiss-pairing is a type of partial round-robin. After the first match, teams are pitted against other new opponents with similar records until one team emerges at the top of the pack. That team then plays every team with a winning record while like records continue to match. By this system, the champion is usually determined early (this can be good or bad depending upon your perspective) and the director can terminate the tournament at whatever point after this becomes obvious. For the teams with winning records, usually all of the hard games come first. # of teams best format 2nd best ---------- ----------- -------- 5-8 double round-robin single round-robin + top 4 RR 9-17 full round-robin partial round-robin/swiss pairing + top 4 RR again 18-30 partial round-robin swiss-pairing of two pools with cross-over matches 31+ partial round-robin with multiple pools, advancement of top 25% with round robin within WAYS TO RAISE MONEY There are several good ways for an academic team to raise money over the course of a school year. First and foremost, it is important to check with the student government. Many clubs become eligible for university funding simply by registering on campus. This is often the easiest $500 a team can make. Secondly, there is the host a tournament route. A well run tournament costs under $125 to run and can bring in revenue of about $80 per team (entry fees vary from area to area) but if State University hosts a 10 team tournament with a $65 entry fee, net revenue will be about $525. This is often a lucrative operation and some schools choose to run a Fall and a Spring tournament. A third route is high school tournaments. In some areas, there are high school teams who have well developed programs for quizbowl. In Washington DC there is a television show on NBC on sunday mornings for local teams. Atlanta also has a similar program. Other areas are not as rich a resource. If high school quizbowl is weak in your area, consider running a Latinbowl tournament (Certamen) instead. Check with the local Junior Classical League (JCL). Since many Certamen players join Quizbowl teams in college, ther is likely someone in your club who knows something about this. Berkeley is considering running a Certamen this November and will make the questions available to other schools interested in running an event on the same weekend (we can not allow the questions to leak out all term in order to protect the integrity of the questions). Contact gaius@uclink2.berkeley.edu or hello@uclink.berkeley.edu if you might be interested in this type of event. High school tournaments have two additional appealing features which make them worth producing, even if the revenue they bring in is lower than that of a college tournament. (1) They are often a good source of recruitment for future players. (2) Your club can point to this event as a community program which enhances the name of the university. Be sure to notify the school admissions office of your tournament so that they send a representative to speak. This may win you a valuable ally in the administration. In particular, many schools like to admit Latin students because the average high school Latin student has slightly higher test scores. ATTRACTING NEW MEMBERS As mentioned above, hosting a high school event is an excellent way to encourage incoming high school seniors to join your club. Many schools have a week at the beginning of class when clubs sit out in the main walkway or the quad and hawk passers-by to join their club. This may seem onerous, but if you prepare an information sheet to pass out and simply set up a board that looks like Jeopardy! with some sample questions on it, many people will approach you of their own accord. This way you can avoid competing for attention with the School Juggling club, the Goldfish swallowers, or whoever else. Just about everyone recognizes Jeopardy! by now. It might not be wise to use their name since there may be a copywrite on it. On this I do not know very much. Next issue: more buzzer info tips on running a tournament The year in Review how to make your Univ. dollars go further