“You can choose a ready guide / In some celestial voice / If you choose not to decide / You still have made a choice”

Another Question from the Inbox: Eligibility Rules

Last Fall I received this query:

“…when I read the eligibility guidelines online, I got confused.  It says the following:

The members of the team which wins the Campus Tournament are automatically members of the Varsity Squad. … Which of these players represent your school is your decision. However, we strongly recommend that schools select a Varsity Squad.

This seems a bit contradictory to me.  Do we HAVE to make the winning team members part of our “Varsity Squad” or not?  The last sentence implies that we don’t even need to have any concept of a Varsity Squad – how can we mandate a Varsity Squad (in first sentence) and then say we merely recommend that there is one (in last sentence)?  At [school deleted], we’ve always selected from the top individual players at a tournament, not necessarily entire teams, because we (the organizers) randomly put students on teams, since most of them don’t know each other.”

In the last sentence, it’s the word “select” that should be stressed. The meaning, which I agree isn’t as clear as it should be, is that we recommend selecting all-stars instead of automatically taking the winning team, both for the long-term benefit of the Campus program tournament each year, and because, more often then not, even a slight tweaking of the winning team roster to cover a weak area with a stronger player in that area can make a difference.

A problem with the language is that the definition of "Varsity Squad" had to be left deliberately vague to accommodate the vast individual differences in programs. The language also dates from the way a compromise was reached on the very early versions of eligibility rules. Most of this happened before I got involved with College Bowl, but I think it happened as follows:

Initially, the team that won the Campus Program would be the team that represented the school at the RCT. After just a few years of the modern tournament (c. 1980-81), it became very obvious that schools wanting to be most competitive at RCT responded to this rule by stacking all their best players on one intramural team, and that this had the effect of discouraging new teams from competing in the Campus Program. The solution was to recommend all-stars, but a significant number of schools wanted to keep the trip to the RCT as a prize for the winning team.

By the mid-1980's, the eligibility language evolved as a compromise to allow both approaches, and has had minor adjustments since to recognize the decline in coached teams and the rise in club teams.

In practice, what this means is: Any school may make an unlimited number of students eligible in a year for RCT and NCT play. Only one student on the team at either tournament may be a grad student. Only those students registered for the tournament spend a year of their eligibility. All students must have played in at least one game of the Campus Program tournament to be eligible for the RCT and NCT. How large a group a team practices with, and how large a pool that team is selected from, is up to the school. That practice team, of whatever size, is the "Varsity Squad."

We ask that schools invite all members of the team that wins the Campus program to be in the pool, or try out for it. We do not require that any member of the team that won the Campus Program tournament be a member of the RCT or NCT teams.

Each individual program has its own priorities and goals for its Campus Program. For an outstanding example of this, see the lead story in the January, 2007 College Bowl Newsletter, available on-line at http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/0107news.pdf .

As a general case, we recommend that schools select and train all-stars to represent them at the RCT, and we note the very strong likelihood that the team that won the Campus Program tournament will contain at least one all-star, and probably more than one.

Certainly, schools have won their RCT, and perhaps the National Championship, sending the winning Campus Program team intact to the NCT. But many schools find that over time concentrating experienced, returning players on one team reduce the turnout to the Campus Program, and that the Campus Program works best when players who have RCT experience are split over several teams, and not concentrated on one “killer squad.”

Each school is organized differently, and the selection rules have to work for club teams, coach-run teams, and even the few teams that are run as actual classes.

Whom to Bring?

Pages 46-48 in the Program Guide Chapter “Coaching Your Team,” available on-line at http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/coachingyourteam.pdf , has excellent advice. My own observations and coaching philosophies follow as an addendum, rather than a replacement, for that advice.

The most important is that you should select your lineup to cover the widest range of subject areas. Our web site tells you what subject categories are covered in each game packet, and how they are weighted. See http://www.collegebowl.com/games/qdistribution.asp .

Over enough time, players will increase their depth of knowledge in current areas of expertise, and develop strengths in new subject areas. In the time remaining between now and the RCT, however, it is easier to teach speed, and strengthen existing areas of expertise, than it is to develop new areas.

Back on October 13th, I blogged abut what to look for in a Captain in a post titled “Captain on Deck!” That post, and page 48 of the Program Guide, look at the factors in selecting a Captain pretty thoroughly. The bottom line is that it is better to select a Captain based on maturity, leadership skills, and game play ability, than it is to automatically reward whoever scored the most toss-up points in your Campus Program tournament with the position.

A variety of other factors that depend on how your team is run will also influence selection. If players are required to write and submit questions for practice, the quantity and quality of the work can be useful to consider. A player who has written more will be better prepared for the RCT.

Attendance at practice is another factor worth considering. There is much to be said for rewarding the players who work and prepare the hardest. Those tend to be the players that turn-in the best performances at the RCT.

It’s also critical that the players selected to play at the RCT get along with each other. Personality conflicts, and even outright feuds, have been known to distract teams, and greatly impede performance.

Finally, decision-tree backups and contingency plans for replacing players if necessary. As a coach, I had players occasionally back out at the last minute for reasons ranging from serious illness to Resident Staff interviews. Think about potential replacements ahead of time. Once you’ve made the selection, don’t replace without a very clear reason, or it can be very damaging to team morale; but be prepared for the unexpected contingency.

Questions About Eligibility

For questions about eligibility, or in the event a last-minute substitution is necessary, either email me at tfm@collegebowl.com, or call me at 1-800-234-2695 extension 106. It’s my job to work with you to see what can be done.

If you have any players with special needs, especially those requiring some accommodation, PLEASE let me AND your Regional Coordinator know as soon as possible. The sooner we know, the better we’ll be able to accommodate them.

The next blog entry will be for players, Coaches, Game Officials, and Tournament Directors: in short, everyone involved in a match. It’s the long-promised post on resolving game discrepancies (or, as we used to call them during the olden days, “protests”). We’ll look at both how to advocate your position most effectively, and the resolution procedure to follow.