Datasets:

---

Recag

/

Rp_CommonC_510

like 0

ERROR: type should be string, got "https://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/\nNAQT's agreement with ACUI\nhttps://www.hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=8823\nRe: NAQT's agreement with ACUI\nby DumbJaques\nI was brought onto the ACUI Region 11 leadership team as their academic challenge coordinator (in other words, SCT guy). As such, I bid for the Region 11 site as \"ACUI Region 11,\" and we will be hosting at Missouri State. Are there any other ACUI-bid-winning sites that have established quizbowlers as their TDs?\nInterested parties should certainly get into contact with their ACUI regional directors. If your institution is an ACUI member, then typically any student is eligible to serve an ACUI functional position. If your region doesn't have a quizbowl coordinator, ask if you can do it, and feel free to bring me up as precedent. If there is one, talk with them to see if they would like your help.\nI am pleasantly surprised to learn such a thing is possible, but I wonder why NAQT didn't set something like this up a long time ago? If I'm reading this right, you're saying that technically any student in my region is eligible (pending ACUI approval which is evidently not-impossible to get) to take command of the Moravian SCT? If that's the case, I would expect NAQT to be able to find a person somewhere whose successful TDship count is greater than, well, zero. While I understand that nobody else in my region evidently submitted a bid, there's a world of difference between being able to get an entire staffing corps and location together and having one person who's able to oversee the process. If NAQT can ensure from afar that Moravian college and its lack of quizbowl people of any sort are capable of running and fully staffing a timed SCT, it seems like finding a single person with experience who could coordinate the site would be comparatively easy.\nJeff, is this something NAQT can get behind, or are there obstacles? I can't think of anything that would more readily prevent anything unfortunate from happening than matching up each site with an experienced TD.\nEDIT: Are faculty/staff eligible to do this? What is official NAQT policy on transporting kidnapped Jordan Boyd-Graber across state lines in the trunk of my car?\nby alexdz\nIt's important to note that in my case, I am a student at a university which is a member of ACUI, so I myself am eligible for student membership. The next step is to actually contact the regional director to see whether or not their region even has such a position, and whether or not it is open.\nYour region also has to be open to letting you take the reins - both the outgoing and incoming RDs in region 11 are super-awesome to work with, so it was easy to do. Some regions may be much harder to work with.\nI think NAQT and ACUI should work together to create a list of established TDs (and established clubs) in each region, so that when SCT time comes around it will be easy to evaluate good hosting sites, etc.\n(On another note, someone from Region 11 may be getting into contact with NAQT regarding setting up our region's cancellation policy. Who should I direct them to?)\nSome regions may be much harder to work with.\nIf \"harder to work with\" encompasses resistance to input by people who know what they're doing at the expense of the event's quality, then NAQT needs to seriously reevaluate this agreement. I haven't seen evidence of anything like that, though I am eager to hear NAQT's thoughts on these issues.\nby Important Bird Area\nAccording to R., there is no short answer to this question, because ACUI's structure differs from region to region. More information later this week.\nby marnold\nI wrote: But this seems like far from a guarantee in coming years. As new teams go to D2 and attend and then feed into D1 eligibility, the number of autobids accepted will go up and the scenario like the one described above will be more and more likely.\nBut the question I don't see answered here is how the move from \"Random School taking a D2 autobid in year X\" to \"Random School taking a D1 autobid in year X+1\" won't come at the expense of a better team, or even potentially an elite team. The traditional Weinerian argument is \"well the excluded team sucked and wouldn't have won the tournament anyway so who cares\" seems to be refuted by the tight geographical restrictions that pit potentially really good teams against each other for a very limited number of bids.\nThis year it's just Dartmouth, Northwestern and maybe us, but beware! Shitty-Team-Autobid-Quicksand will just keep devouring wildcards...\nby AKKOLADE\nGiven an expected increase in autobids, would there be any downside to NAQT expanding the number of wild card bids as well?\nYeah, given that there will presumably be even more autobids accepted in D1 next year (which, by the way, is a good sign for the vitality of quizbowl generally) a larger field seems pretty reasonable.\nby Cheynem\nAutobids are a difficult thing.\nOne thing that I might like to see is perhaps some restriction on host autobids. In theory, host autobids are excellent, great things, as it promotes good teams to use its resources to staffing a tournament. In looking at the autobids for hosting this year, though, I think I see some teams that would otherwise have been bubble teams had they competed (judging by the stats they have put up this year)--lest anyone accuse me of throwing brickbats, I again assure you that I am not begrudging those hosts for taking an autobid or calling them nefarious, I am merely noting for example that Bryce Durgin in another thread categorically says Texas A&M is nowhere near the top 25, but TAMU received a host autobid--presumably, Bryce would agree with me that TAMU would probably have lost to Rice and become a bubble team. I'm not sure if there is a way around this other than perhaps not guaranteeing a host autobid; if ACUI or outside staffers could be brought in at more sites so teams wouldn't have to sit players, this wouldn't be a problem.\nThe next topic for autobids is B teams. A lot of teams split up their rosters at SCT and thus qualify teams. Many of them would probably have qualified on their own, but the D-values are thrown out of whack. This year, Michigan B, Virginia B, and Minnesota B may have qualified on their own; they may not have (I leave Chicago B out of this as it's pretty clear they are legitimately a great team). Their normal rosters presumably do not include Will Nediger, Evan Adams, and myself, so it's hard to really judge their SCT performances, thus is Columbia better than MI B, UVA B, or MN B? Hard to tell. I wonder if NAQT might wish to impose greater restrictions on B team play for SCT--if you play for and qualify a \"B\" team at SCT, you are locked into playing for that team at ICT. There are obvious loopholes to this, but I can't help wondering if greater reform is needed there.\nFinally, I agree with those saying the field's expansion would solve most of these problems for now. We're not talking about letting in 20 more teams; this year, I merely raise my eyebrows at an additional 5-6, maybe more, teams that probably should be in (for what it's worth, the poll results would suggest at least two Top 25 teams being squeezed out right now). Part of this reflects the growth of the circuit (in both surprising and non surprising ways--more colleges have good teams, players who graduated from schools are now moving on to new institutions) and I think should be recognized.\nMike, there's no reason to conflate the issues of autobids and B-team wildcards. Teams splitting rosters to maximize bids is a longstanding practice that rewards teams for being good and deep. While I think whoever the first-team-out (whether Columbia or otherwise) is probably better than the B teams you mentioned (e.g., we beat the two of those teams we played last year by an average of 250 at ICT last year, though they're better and we're worse now), who cares? I don't in the least begrudge good teams leveraging their actual gameplay talent. It's different, however, for host- and autobids because those result in teams that are going to do really poorly on ICT questions playing D1 because of the Shitty-Team-Autobid-Quicksand (STAQ) effect that was obvious in 2009. This year, it's not the biggest deal in the world because the teams on the outside are teams that are roughly outside chance at 2nd, high 3rd bracket teams, but there will be continued downward pressure on the quality of the ICT field and sooner rather than later real strong teams are going to miss the cut.\nAlso, as long as we're putting on the table things people have been saying in other places: the D-Value for D1/D2 is obviously ludicrously broken. Northwestern had 4 powers/game on the D1 set and they're behind a team that put up 4 powers/game on the D2 set against much, much worse competition? Absurd.\nEDIT: if my STAQ neologism is too polemical, use \"autobid creep.\" I should emphasize I''m not, like, mad at teams taking their autobids in D1: like Mike, I don't think they're doing anything nefarious at all and they should 100% guilt-free take the bids offered to them.\nby Cody\nI think it's very hard to question the validity of B team splitting because it gets into thorny issues that also relate to A teams. For example, I can't attend ICT for VCU, and while I certainly didn't do very well at SCT, I'm also pretty sure I managed to push us just over Columbia in D-value. If Columbia does not wind up being invited to ICT, did we unfairly* take a spot from them, by your metric for B teams?\n*obviously marnold has made his opinion clear on who exactly is to blame, so this is just a stupid hypothetical, but still\nPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:15 pm\nNo, because even if it wasn't the team that will compete at ICT, it was still the normal VCU A. I guess i question the practice of teams that split rosters to maximize bids that are really artificially creating bids (and I'm not calling anyone out here because, Minnesota has done this all the time, including this year). Let's take three B teams that have so far qualified for ICT--Michigan B, UVA B, and Minnesota B. All of these may have qualified on their own and they are probably better than other teams that qualified. But the D-value inflation makes it harder to compare them to teams on the bubble--Michigan B at ICT will not really have Will Nediger (or Kurtis, I forget who played where), UVA B will not have Evan, and Minnesota B will not have me. This not only affects their D-values but everyone else's D-values and the actual finishes at the tournament. Now as Marnold is saying, this is a time honored tradition and something I can wink at for gamesmanship purposes, but if NAQT does not raise its ICT field size and everything continues status quo for years, this is something that I think could be looked at.\nby Rococo A Go Go\nTo look at the topic of the thread: have any quizbowlers other than Alex Dzurick attempted (or succeeded) to get involved in the ACUI leadership structure and run the quizbowl event for their region? I felt there were some serious flaws at our SCT this year that, quite frankly, would probably not have happened under the direction of an experienced TD. There are benefits to the ACUI involvement--it helps attract teams and on-campus staff, and some student centers (I remember Illinois State had an agreement to provide free lunch in 2012) do a lot to improve the tournament experience for teams. The optimal solution is to keep these benefits of ACUI involvement, but leave the actual quizbowl event to people who have experience directing tournaments.\nby Matt Weiner\nIt seems that the perfect arrangement, speaking in possibly unrealizable fantasy terms, would be for all the tournaments to actually be run by the ACUI regions and run well. This means we would not have to deal with autobid creep, would get benefits (like access to better rooms and occasional food and other perks) that these ACUI mega-events encourage, would establish stronger ties to ACUI that would help a lot of teams get funding, and would know three years instead of three weeks in advance where every tournament will be held. Obviously, the huge potential drawback is more tournaments run by TDs and/or staffers that don't know what they are doing. However, there are a few places, most notably Region 5 where VCU is, that take a best-of-both-worlds approach involving reliable quizbowl people advising the tournament and reading the games while ACUI provides what it can. Is NAQT doing anything to try to grow this ability elsewhere? It seems odd that whatever the agreement with ACUI is doesn't require ACUI to actually put forth tournament hosts where they are needed, at a minimum.\nby jonah\nSulawesi Myzomela wrote: To look at the topic of the thread: have any quizbowlers other than Alex Dzurick attempted (or succeeded) to get involved in the ACUI leadership structure and run the quizbowl event for their region? I felt there were some serious flaws at our SCT this year that, quite frankly, would probably not have happened under the direction of an experienced TD. There are benefits to the ACUI involvement--it helps attract teams and on-campus staff, and some student centers (I remember Illinois State had an agreement to provide free lunch in 2012) do a lot to improve the tournament experience for teams. The optimal solution is to keep these benefits of ACUI involvement, but leave the actual quizbowl event to people who have experience directing tournaments.\nI have run the last two Region 8 SCTs, working with ACUI people at the host sites.\nby theMoMA\nMatt Weiner wrote: It seems that the perfect arrangement, speaking in possibly unrealizable fantasy terms, would be for all the tournaments to actually be run by the ACUI regions and run well. This means we would not have to deal with autobid creep, would get benefits (like access to better rooms and occasional food and other perks) that these ACUI mega-events encourage, would establish stronger ties to ACUI that would help a lot of teams get funding, and would know three years instead of three weeks in advance where every tournament will be held. Obviously, the huge potential drawback is more tournaments run by TDs and/or staffers that don't know what they are doing. However, there are a few places, most notably Region 5 where VCU is, that take a best-of-both-worlds approach involving reliable quizbowl people advising the tournament and reading the games while ACUI provides what it can. Is NAQT doing anything to try to grow this ability elsewhere? It seems odd that whatever the agreement with ACUI is doesn't require ACUI to actually put forth tournament hosts where they are needed, at a minimum.\nAgreed. This really would be the best solution.\nI think it's also possible to reform the ICT system slightly to keep a realistic-sized field for the main tournament while still allowing host autobids. Perhaps, instead of (say) a full 40-team ICT, there could be a play-in tournament at which the host autobid teams are whittled down (say in half) on some kind of shorter format on either Friday night or Saturday morning. (The latter would require spilling the tournament over into Sunday, obviously.) NAQT could then give out extra D-value-based bids equal to the number of host autobid teams to be whittled down. (It could either determine the number of host autobids to be whittled down based on the number of teams that have \"earned\" a bid by posting a certain D value, or it could create a numerical percentage of host autobids to be cut, like 50%.)\nConcurrent to the 32-team ICT prelims, the teams that were eliminated could play a full round robin among themselves to determine slots 33 through X. This would require a lot fewer staffers than expanding the tournament to 40 teams, it would allow teams to play more appropriate competition, and it would free up those teams to do sightseeing or whatever people like to do when they're in strange cities. No one would get fully punted from ICT and everyone would get a final placement\nObviously the main drawbacks to this would be logistical: creating the extra questions for the play-in games and finding the time to run them. But any expansion of the field would require similar logistical wrangling, and this seems to deal with it in a way that minimizes extra staffers, games, and questions.\nPosted: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:31 pm\nSulawesi Myzomela wrote: To look at the topic of the thread: have any quizbowlers other than Alex Dzurick attempted (or succeeded) to get involved in the ACUI leadership structure and run the quizbowl event for their region?\nFor the record, to clarify for people who don't know, I was not just TD'ing the tournament itself but I was actually a full member of the ACUI Region 11 Leadership Team. In other words, not only was I planning the SCT but also the ACUI regional conference and other events. I managed to get involved through having a really supportive group at the Mizzou student union who let me ride with them to meetings, etc. At least in Region 11, the ACUI structure actually seemed receptive to just about everything I had to say, and the student union director at Missouri State gave me lots of resources.\nWhether this could happen in other regions, I do not know. There's always the option of creating a series of scholarships so that quiz bowlers will go get degrees in student services. :P\nby setht\nmarnold wrote: Yeah, given that there will presumably be even more autobids accepted in D1 next year (which, by the way, is a good sign for the vitality of quizbowl generally) a larger field seems pretty reasonable.\nLike I said in that other thread, I like the idea of expanding the field, but you have to know you'll actually get 40 teams--if you can only scrounge up 37 teams, what are you going to do? I mean, the obvious answer here is \"37 team round robin!\" But if that doesn't appeal for some reason, what then? WHAT THEN?\n-Seth\nI suspect that Matt's perfect arrangement is, unfortunately, an unrealizable fantasy. It seems to me that the primary struggle in most regions is not \"find a physical location to run the tournament\" but \"get enough decent readers (and sometimes scorekeepers) to the site.\" That is, if NAQT said, \"we're changing things up, and now clubs can host without providing any staff,\" I imagine it would be easy to get multiple bids in every region--all you need is the ability to reserve rooms, and you get to walk to the tournament, save money on transportation and lodging, etc.\nIt warms my heart that such a large percentage of the pool of DI players wants to play SCT and ICT (really--it is great!), but I think the fact is that running SCT is going to require that a decent number of DI people staff rather than play each year, and I think it's a good idea to reward that with autobids*. There seem to be some regions where there are enough good readers outside of DI to run the tournament (e.g. UIC in Region 8, possibly Region 5?), but those good readers pretty much all come from the pool of former quizbowl players, and there are many regions that just don't have enough of those people to staff without help from the local DI pool.\n* It feels \"morally right,\" and on a more practical note I suspect that it's the only reliable way to get players to agree to staff.\nOne outreachy thing someone should do is come up with a list of ex-players and other well-wishers who can be called upon for staffing. Programs have their own networks, but it would be nice to have something more broadly available, especially for new teams without a big alumni pool.\nsetht wrote: Like I said in that other thread, I like the idea of expanding the field, but you have to know you'll actually get 40 teams--if you can only scrounge up 37 teams, what are you going to do? I mean, the obvious answer here is \"37 team round robin!\" But if that doesn't appeal for some reason, what then? WHAT THEN?\nSeth, any thoughts on having some kind of play-in format to keep the ICT at 32 teams but allow more invitations? Teams involved could include all host autobids and perhaps also winners of SCT sites that fell below some statistical threshold (such as a D value below the weakest at-large team invited). It seems like this could accomplish most of the goals of expanding the field without requiring as much of an expansion of the tournament. It would have the added benefit of evening out competition within the ICT prelim brackets.\nSay we're keeping a 32-team ICT, but with increased autobids the total is 40. (As I mentioned above, NAQT could either decide to slice off some arbitrary, consistent percentage of the autobids, or it could identify (using D value percentiles, perhaps) the number of teams that deserve to make the ICT, and work backward from that.)\nJust for the sake of having round numbers, let's say you have 8 slots for 10 host autobids and 6 teams that fall below the weakest at-large D value (16 total). So the format has to cut off 8 out of 16 teams. One way of doing this (in two rounds) might be to have each team play a full packet against no opponents for the first round. The top 4 points-scoring teams automatically make the 32-team field, the bottom 4 are automatically out, and the middle 8 play each other (seeded 1-8, with 1 playing 8, 2 playing 7, etc.) for the remaining four slots. That's just one way of doing it; there are certainly lots more. No matter what, the teams that are eliminated can then play a round robin concurrent with the prelim round robin to determine places 33-40 at the tournament.\nIf the numbers aren't round (say you have 13 total autobids/weaker autoqualifiers to fit 7 slots), you can just adjust the numbers. In that situation, you might have the top 3 automatically make the 32-team field, the bottom 2 be eliminated, and the remaining 8 play each other in a play-in game.\nIt's very possible that this sort of preliminary chopping is repugnant to some deeply held notion of quizbowl competition that I'm not considering, in which case the ensuing outrage would probably suggest that NAQT is better off expanding the field to a full 40 if it expands at all. But I think it's worth investigating whether a play-in format for autobids would work, because it would (1) allow tournament field sizes greater than 32 but less than 40; (2) increase competitive balance in the ICT prelim brackets; (3) ensure that deserving at-large teams make the ICT field; and (4) require fewer full-time staff than simply expanding the field to 40 teams.\nI don't think that idea will ever work, for one simple reason: who is going to pay to fly (or even drive, if you have to pay for a hotel) to Chicago to potentially not even be able to play ICT? Even if you get to do some consolation round robin, it's still not really worth your time or money (especially if you have to pay the very high entry fee).\nby Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)\nYeah, exactly, I read this idea and immediately thought \"who in their right mind would pay for that?\"\nAs a guy associated with a bubble team this year, no dollars for that idea.\nThe DI ICT could be expanded to 40 teams by adding another 8-team prelim bracket, and making the playoff crossover last 8 rounds instead of 6. This would add 2 rounds of time & packet-writing effort to the tournament while leaving the format otherwise unchanged and in no way necessitating a departure from the all-day Saturday format. In the event that NAQT does choose to expand the field to deal with the bid issues, this seems like the best way to do it by leaps and bounds over any other possibility involving play-in games, multi-day tournaments, or writing a whole phase's worth of additional packets.\nby Adventure Temple Trail\nMatt Weiner wrote: The DI ICT could be expanded to 40 teams by adding another 8-team prelim bracket, and making the playoff crossover last 8 rounds instead of 6. This would add 2 rounds of time & packet-writing effort to the tournament while leaving the format otherwise unchanged and in no way necessitating a departure from the all-day Saturday format. In the event that NAQT does choose to expand the field to deal with the bid issues, this seems like the best way to do it by leaps and bounds over any other possibility involving play-in games, multi-day tournaments, or writing a whole phase's worth of additional packets.\nI heartily endorse this event or product (though I would hope that more than 60-65 teams play DI in future years if qualifying for ICT is to be more of a real procedure rather than a formality/hurdle for the teams who'd be interested enough to go; I doubt that many teams past the 40th would plan to go if there were a 40-team field and no qualification procedure at all/SCT were just for fun/seeding.)\nThe best way to get more teams to play Division I is to expand the Division II ICT field. That may or may not happen alongside an ICT field expansion for D1, but keeping good teams (this year's best examples: Kansas State, Truman State C, Davidson B, Kentucky, etc.) in D2 doesn't really serve the purpose of getting them adjusted to collegiate quizbowl (hint: they're ready for D1) and only hurts the D1 fields at SCT sites across the country.\nEDIT: And to head off the inevitable \"they can choose to play D1\" argument in response to this, the history of collegiate quizbowl gives me no reason to believe that teams will en masse choose to play D1 unless they have to.\nSusan wrote: One outreachy thing someone should do is come up with a list of ex-players and other well-wishers who can be called upon for staffing. Programs have their own networks, but it would be nice to have something more broadly available, especially for new teams without a big alumni pool.\nThis is a Good Idea.\ntheMoMA wrote: Seth, any thoughts on having some kind of play-in format to keep the ICT at 32 teams but allow more invitations?...It's very possible that this sort of preliminary chopping is repugnant to some deeply held notion of quizbowl competition that I'm not considering, in which case the ensuing outrage would probably suggest that NAQT is better off expanding the field to a full 40 if it expands at all. But I think it's worth investigating whether a play-in format for autobids would work, because it would (1) allow tournament field sizes greater than 32 but less than 40; (2) increase competitive balance in the ICT prelim brackets; (3) ensure that deserving at-large teams make the ICT field; and (4) require fewer full-time staff than simply expanding the field to 40 teams.\nYour proposal has some nice features (I particularly like the flexibility you mention in point (1)), but I think this does kind of violate at least one deeply held notion of quizbowl competition: namely, if you come to a national tournament (really, any tournament), you should not be ruled out of title contention--let alone knocked into the last bracket--on the basis of one or two rounds of play. What if your team has travel issues? What if your science player decides to sleep through a round?\nOther people have already posted to suggest that under this kind of scheme, autobid teams would not be particularly inclined to spend their time and money on attending ICT; I think the logical corollary is that if autobids switch from \"you are part of the ICT field like everyone else\" to \"you are now part of a secondary field which will play two games, after which you will either be part of the ICT field like everyone else or stuck in the last bracket,\" then getting clubs to host SCT will be even more of a hard sell than it currently is. I mean, it's certainly better than taking away autobids entirely, as some people have suggested (seriously, can you imagine getting anywhere close to enough hosts with a \"please host SCT pitch\" of \"see, the great thing about hosting is you don't get to play SCT *and* you don't get to play ICT\"?), but I think this is one scheme that's actually too crazy to work.\nThis does seem like a good option for future expansion. I'm actually not sure why 36 teams wouldn't work; I've been idly trying to figure out what the format would look like between bouts of work.\nSulawesi Myzomela wrote: The best way to get more teams to play Division I is to expand the Division II ICT field.\nI also like the idea of expanding the DII field. If it turns out that DI is already ready for an expanded field, great; if not, expand the DII field, wait a year or two, and revisit expanding the DI field.\nby Whiter Hydra\nsetht wrote:\nSusan wrote: This does seem like a good option for future expansion. I'm actually not sure why 36 teams wouldn't work; I've been idly trying to figure out what the format would look like between bouts of work.\nYou could have six brackets of six into three brackets of twelve, for a total of fifteen rounds (so one more than at present).\nSulawesi Myzomela wrote: The best way to get more teams to play Division I is to expand the Division II ICT field. That may or may not happen alongside an ICT field expansion for D1, but keeping good teams (this year's best examples: Kansas State, Truman State C, Davidson B, Kentucky, etc.) in D2 doesn't really serve the purpose of getting them adjusted to collegiate quizbowl (hint: they're ready for D1) and only hurts the D1 fields at SCT sites across the country.\nActually, the easiest way to get more teams to play Division I is to make Division II more restrictive, so it actually serves the freshmen and sophomores it's designed for, rather than older players and grad students who really shouldn't find DI scary but choose not to play it anyway. I would be fine with a Division II which only allowed people in their first two years of college quizbowl to play, and I doubt such a move would affect the freshman-and-sophomore teams who almost entirely make up the top bracket of DII ICT as it is.\nby jonpin\nRyuAqua wrote:\nGrad students are by definition not DII-eligible. I have no problem with collegiate upperclassmen who are new to the game getting a shot at DII.\nI think what I meant to say is, \"I'm a dinosaur who hasn't been competitively involved with college quiz bowl in more than five years.\"\njonpin wrote: Grad students are by definition not DII-eligible.\nThis was true through the 2011 competition season, but NAQT changed this policy for 2012 and beyond. (announcement)\njonpin wrote: Grad students are by definition not DII-eligible. I have no problem with collegiate upperclassmen who are new to the game getting a shot at DII.\nI have no problem with new upperclassmen getting a shot at DII either - that's why I said \"first two years of college quizbowl,\" and not \"first two years of college.\" An example: My team welcomed a transfer student as a junior, who hadn't played his first two years of undergrad at the university from which he transferred; I don't think he needed to be forced to play DI his first year. I would like people who play DII serially to eventually stop doing that, especially since DI has not been that scary for low-level teams these past two years. The current system, in which a team that doesn't qualify can play DII forever, doesn't seem to facilitate that discovery (and in fact reinforces the idea that DI is harder than it actually is).\nHow many graduate students have played D2, and from what teams?\nby fett0001\nat SCT, we had someone working on a second BS play DII. He's pretty new to quizbowl, though.\nby mhayes\nI played D2 at the 2012 SCT. I wasn't new to quizbowl, but I never qualified for ICT as an undergraduate.\nby evilmonkey\nHorned Screamer wrote: How many graduate students have played D2, and from what teams?\nTexas A&M considered putting our two grad students who are new to quizbowl in D2, but it became more convenient to just put them on the team with Jeff Crean. We'll likely have at least one of those two on our D2 ICT team. One of them scored -0.5 ppg playing on a DI team (on the DII set) last year (his first ever quizbowl tournament); the other hadn't played quizbowl since he scored under 10ppg for a non-playoff team at HSNCT. I don't think it is inappropriate at all for either of them to play DII.\nAs a former regional coordinator, I'm curious as to what's the plan now that ACUI is going to a 8-region model instead of a 15-region model. Some of these regions look pretty big (here, there's a map toward the bottom) or awkwardly spread out. NAQT might want to consider multiple tournaments per region, or there will be some hefty travel for some teams.\nWe certainly anticipate that there will be multiple SCT sites per region under the projected restructuring of the ACUI regional map.\nAs long as ACF is talking about this stuff...\nmarnold wrote: Also, as long as we're putting on the table things people have been saying in other places: the D-Value for D1/D2 is obviously ludicrously broken. Northwestern had 4 powers/game on the D1 set and they're behind a team that put up 4 powers/game on the D2 set against much, much worse competition? Absurd.\nDid this get fixed? Even if not once-and-for-all finding a solution to the D1-qualification on D2 packets problem, at least making the adjustment less rewarding for the D2 players. It seems like nothing happened on the autobid/field expansion front, but surely this could be fixed much easier.\nWe aren't yet ready to announce changes to the D-value system, but it is something we are working on and we fully expect to have a revised system for dealing with combined fields in place for the 2014 SCT.\nPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:51 pm\nDropping a line here that anyone who attends/works at an ACUI member institution who wants to get their hands wet should check out this opportunity:\nDevelopment work is needed in the ACUI Academic Challenge Program area. Please contact Brian Magee at [email protected] if you are interested in hearing more about the program.\n(Link to page)\nby ryanrosenberg\nSo I emailed the guy whose email was on the page, and this is the response I got.\nRyan--\nThank you for the email regarding academic challenge. At this point ACUI no longer has a formal relationship with NAQT as of June 30th. We are looking to explore new areas of academic challenge in the near future.\nThe Predictable Consequences wrote: So I emailed the guy whose email was on the page, and this is the response I got.\nBrian's statement is accurate. Here's a new thread for the discussing the conclusion of the NAQT-ACUI agreement."