“…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. ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/selecting-the-team http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/selecting-the-team?opendocument&comments Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:44:37 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/the-practice Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/the-practice?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/the-practice
Practice is one of the ways, and the most popular way, of getting better at College Bowl.

Writing questions and studying new material can also be highly effective. But practice sessions uniquely provide the opportunity for coming together as a team, drilling recall skills, rehearsing game strategy and preparing for the match environment; all while having the fun of playing matches.

While people with experience in College Bowl, high school quiz bowl formats, sports psychology, and even televised quiz shows generally know the benefits of practice, it’s my observation that a lot of people without experience in these activities assume that practice is of little benefit. “How can you prepare for this stuff?,” they ask. “You either know it or you don’t, and you don’t know what you’ll be asked.”

With new teams, coaches and coordinators joining College Bowl each year, it’s natural that some newbies don’t yet appreciate how quickly teams can improve and how effectively they can prepare for the RCT under the right circumstances. This post is focused at them, though I hope it will include some ideas that even the most experienced teams can adopt to refine and improve their game.

Many ideas for drills and practicing can be found in Chapter 6 of the Program Guide, “Coaching Your Team,” pages 46-56, available on our web site at:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/coachingyourteam.pdf .

Other resources for coaches are available under the “Coaching Your Team” tab in the “Campus Program” portion of our web site.

The Group Experience

How well will your individual team members function as a team, and what can be done to get the team to the point where they function most effectively?

Bottom line: if you’re just putting your team together now, your team has a better chance of performing well as a team if you can hold a total of at least 10-12 practice sessions during January and February. Fewer then eight and most of the benefit you get will be procedural; i.e. the team will gain some comfort with the rules and the playing situations. More than about 15 and you risk team burnout.

Even if you can only hold a few practices, the team will benefit, particularly in the areas of player recognition, acceptability of answers, and the rules changes for this season.

That said, more practices can create an advantage over teams that have fewer practices.

Try to practice for at least an hour, and no more than an hour-and-a-half, each time. In addition to any drills, play at least two matches each practice.

The “group process” is one of the most heavily researched and best understood areas of psychology. It is a powerful force that can effect great changes in individuals, promote personal growth and allow those individuals to develop ways to work more effectively as a whole than as the sum of their parts.

A College Bowl team fits the definition of a “task group.” Practices are the sessions that can allow the group process to work its magic. Effective groups go through predictable stages of development.

We’ll talk more about the specifics of those stages in a blog post or series of posts, sometime after the RCT. In the mean time, any text book on group psychology or the group process will describe them in detail. In a three-stage or four-stage model, the idea is to hold enough practices to have a chance get your team to the third stage, where they operate with improved effectiveness.

Especially if:
1. you have a new team
2. the majority of the team you’re sending to the RCT is rookies, or
3. the majority of your program is new,
spend one of those practices in a social event. The “service project” idea I wrote about last month would be good such event. The importance is to allow the group to bond socially and interact before you put them in a car and send them to the RCT.  

Practice Drills

Several ideas for drills are listed on pages 51-52 of the Program Guide. The “Password” drill on page 52 is highly recommended and can be fun to do in the car on the way to the tournament as well. It encourages free association and linkages, which are important in quick recall. (I think this drill is actually based on an old Avalon Hill game called “Facts in Five.”)

The “wait to be recognized” rule (Rule 11, and many other citations) can be taught in simple drills and during the practice matches. Moderators can use pauses, looks and other nonverbal means to try to get players to answer during all-toss-up drills. If the recognition rule is specifically practiced, it’s easy to learn; if it isn’t practiced, it will bite you during an RCT match.

Drills can also be specifically tailored to help teams develop in knowledge categories where they are weak. Anything that exposes team members to common answers and their clues may pay off down the line.

Teams can improve their bonus conferral by specifically looking at that aspect while playing a series of bonus questions. Conferral works best when everyone participates and when the captain has the clearest understanding of how certain a teammate is when offering a response. It’s been my observation that most captains don’t designate as often as they should, and bonus-only drills are also a good place to work on that.

Another drill, actually a test, which can have some benefit, is to have a player take a lockout signaling device in each hand. Give the player three to five tries to signal so simultaneously that both lights on the lockout go on. Lighting both can be done on nearly any system when the two signals occur closer together than the tolerance of the lockout system, which is usually on the order of one millisecond. What can be learned from this drill is that some players habitually hold the signaling device in one hand, when they actually would have a slightly faster response holding the signaling device in the other hand. Learning to hold the signaling device in the hand with the quicker response can give an advantage of a few milliseconds in a buzzer race, where several players try to signal at the same instant.

Rehearsing Game Strategy

Clock strategies, which are strategies designed to use the time given to a team to respond to a question in order to gain an advantage over an opponent, can be rehearsed as they come up in practice match play, and in specific short games. For instance, play a four-minute game where one team begins with a 200 point lead. The short game can be used for teams to get a feel for situations where the strategies do or don’t work, and to better gauge the point where the strategies should start being employed. The various strategies have been discussed earlier in posts entitled “Standard Strategy,” “Fast Break Strategy,” “Four Corners Strategy,” and “Control Strategy.”

Practice matches also offer the opportunity to discuss the more general strategies and tactics involving the various question types. These tactics are discussed pretty thoroughly in pages 53-56 of the Program Guide, the “Rules of Engagement” and “How and What to Answer” posts of this past September, and last months “Questions from the Inbox” posts on list answers.

Preparing for the RCT Environment

One of the principal axioms of sports psychology is that rehearsal improves performance, and that the closer rehearsal can be to the conditions of the actual competition, the more effective it will be. This applies to both actual practices and to envisioning and mentally rehearsing potential game situations.

Depending on how well-staffed the RCT is, you can usually expect it to have the full complement of game officials. Your practices may have the most benefit if you practice with a full set of officials as well.

Rotate players through the Game Official positions. This helps get teams used to that they will face many different officials, with different levels of experience, at the RCT. You’ll also find some players who enjoy being officials more then playing, which helps prepare your program for the point when you may want to host your own high school or intercollegiate tournaments.

If you haven’t selected your RCT team yet, try different combinations of players and captains. Even once you’ve selected your team, it may be wise to mix it up a little, as last-minute player changes do occur occasionally.

Run your practice games with eight-minute halves, and follow game procedures as strictly as you can. This includes procedures for resolving discrepancies. Don’t let players interrupt a match to point out an error or question a ruling; teach them to note it to bring up for discussion at the end of the half. A blog entry specifically focusing on discrepancies and resolving them effectively will be coming up before the RCT.

O play practice matches strictly under the rules, it helps to know the rules. At some point before the RCT, every player (and every Moderator and Judge) should take the on-line rules quiz. It’s available at:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/rulesquiz/welcome.html .

Keeping Focus in Practices

Some players lose their intensity in practice because there are no stakes. Intensity can be picked up by adding some real competition to the matches. One way to accomplish this is to invite a nearby College Bowl team or High School team to scrimmage with you.

Mark Dawson, who has recently joined us at College Bowl HQ, tells me of a “Keep the Table” drill he participated in during the 1990’s, when he was practicing with the Emory team. You need 9 to 12 players, plus the Game Officials, to do this. Divide the players up into three teams so that the teams are about evenly matched. Play two teams against each other for an all-toss-up mini-game. The team to answer five questions correctly, the team that loses sits down and is replaced by the third team, and the next mini-game starts. Though the stakes are just the pride of being able to keep playing, it’s enough to make the drill more competitive.

Resources for Practices

Having players write questions and use them at practice, is an excellent source of practice material. Over time, this allows teams to build up a large store of original practice questions.

Unused Campus program questions can also be read for practice. And especially for new teams, there are 57 practice games from previous years available at:
http://www.collegebowl.com/games/samples.asp .

And 14 more recent games, including 5 from RCT and NCT playoff rounds, are available at the same site, but password protected. Your Campus Coordinator has the password; it’s the same one that was used to register for the RCT.

High school questions and questions from other formats are better than nothing, but have a limited value because they follow their own unique conventions. The best practice material is the material closest in form to the tournament you are competing in.

Next post will be on selecting your RCT team. ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/the-practice http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/the-practice?opendocument&comments Fri, 12 Jan 2007 15:51:56 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/six-weeks-and-counting Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/six-weeks-and-counting?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/six-weeks-and-counting
The Regional Championship Tournament weekend is six weeks away! Early registrations look promising – this could be the largest and most competitive field in several years.

There’s still time to hold a Campus Program Tournament and become eligible for the RCT’s. Orders can be placed by mail, by phone at 1-800-234-BOWL, or on our web site at:
http://www.collegebowl.com/store/catalog.asp .

Be sure to let us know your tournament date, so we can get the question packets to you in time!

Posts over the next six weeks will discuss topics that will help players, coaches, and game officials prepare for RCT weekend. This post will be on some general reminders and hints for everyone.

Review the Rules

New teams need to learn them, and returning teams need to note several changes for this year. Earlier posts on this blog explained a lot of the changes, and they’re also explained on our web site at:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/rulechanges07.asp .

Game officials, coaches, and new and returning players alike should all review the rules quiz:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/rulesquiz/welcome.html

Finally, if there are things you are uncertain about, now is the best time to ask! Either send a comment or email me privately at tfm@collegebowl.com. Several earlier blog posts answering rules questions are already up.

Review the Resources

There are many sections on the College Bowl web site designed to assist coaches, players, and game officials. The most valuable are Chapters 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Program Guide.

For Game Officials: Chapter 3 has job descriptions and instructions:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/campusvolunteers.pdf

For everyone: Chapter 4 has the rules and case studies of resolving scoring discrepancies:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/gamerules.pdf

For Coaches, or whoever is running the practices and selecting the team: Chapter 6 is for you:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/coachingyourteam.pdf

For everyone attending the RCT: Chapter 7 has some ideas and tips:
http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/attendingtherct.pdf

Register Your Team for the RCT

Teams attending the RCT need to register on-line, and must submit eligibility forms through the mail, by February 5, 2007. Campus Coordinators have received email telling them how to register on-line, and will get a reminder next week. Contact me if you have any questions or problems.

Want to know who is already registered and coming? Team rosters are posted as we receive them at:
http://www.collegebowl.com/teamrostersrpt.asp

Six weeks in advance, four schools have already selected their teams and sent-in their rosters.

Make Your Travel Plans and Reservations

The College Bowl web site is currently up-to-date with schedules and hotel information:
http://www.collegebowl.com/regionalinforpt.asp

You’ll also be getting updates directly from your Regional Coordinator. Many of the hotel blocks are reserved in conjunction with the ACUI Regional Recreation Tournaments, and those blocks may fill up early! If you need hotel space, you should probably reserve it soon.

Practice Your Team

The next blog post is going to be on ways to get the most out of practices. There are already some tips in the Program Guide, Chapter 6, referenced and linked to above.

As I mentioned before the holiday break, one of the best ways for players to improve their game is to write questions for practice. There are some resources for this on our web site, including writing templates and links to question content resources:
http://www.collegebowl.com/games/writing.asp

sample RCT packets:
http://www.collegebowl.com/games/samples.asp

and our guidelines for how we distribute subject areas within a packet:
http://www.collegebowl.com/games/qdistribution.asp .

Some players are very resistant to writing questions, seeing it as a burden. But it really is one of the best ways to improve quickly with a reasonable amount of effort. Players who set a goal and achieve an output of writing just five toss-ups and five bonuses each week show marked improvement in both the number of questions they answer, and the speed with which they answer toss-ups.

Read This Blog

The College Bowl Blog will be focused on the RCT for the next six weeks. Topics I plan to cover include, in no particular order: efficient practice strategies, team selection, resolving procedural and factual discrepancies, more rules case studies, more tips for moderators, tips for judges, tips for scorekeepers and reset/announcers, and sports psychology at the RCT. Some of these may take up more than one post, and some may be combined.

And, if you there are other topics you want addressed, or if you have any questions about the RCT, please let me know! ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/six-weeks-and-counting http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/six-weeks-and-counting?opendocument&comments Fri, 22 Dec 2006 14:07:20 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/happy-holidays Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/happy-holidays?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/happy-holidays
In the last minute crush to meet deadlines, there hasn’t been as much time to post this week as I’d hoped. So this little announcement will probably be the last post on the College Bowl Blog until early 2007.

I’m going out of town shortly and will only be able to check email or comments every couple of days for a bit. So there’ll be a few delays, but I‘ll get back to you eventually.

Thanks to all who’ve sent in ideas for things to discuss! Nearly all the posts between now and the last weekend in February will be on helping players and officials prepare for the Regional Championship Tournament. Some of the less time-critical topics will have to wait until March. If there’s anything specific to playing at, or volunteering for, an RCT that you would like discussed, please send it on and I’ll address it in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, for players the single best thing you can do over the break to prepare is to write questions for practice. Writing questions helps you anticipate question topics that will come up in the RCT and NCT, and helps get you into the head of the question writers, so that you can answer those questions sooner. It’s a subject I haven’t talked much about yet – because it deserves a thorough treatment, and there is a great deal to discuss – but you’ll find a start on pages 50-51 of the Program Guide, available online at http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/coachingyourteam.pdf . Set a goal of writing two toss-ups and two bonuses a day, and that little time spent will payoff greatly down the road.

And, speaking of the RCT, online registration has gone live. Your Campus Coordinator should have received an email with instructions on how to access it. Some had already gone on break by the time the page went up, and they’ll be getting another notice in early January. Let me know if you have problems, but I may not be able to help you, especially if your question is password-related, until I get back. The RCT registration deadline is February 5, 2007.

Have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy Kwanzaa, a Festive Festivus, a Cool Yule, and/or a Happy Holiday! ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/happy-holidays http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/happy-holidays?opendocument&comments Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:42:23 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/service-economy Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/service-economy?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/service-economy
You’re a college student. You have a lot of things to do besides College Bowl and are usually overcommitted. But before you reject this next suggestion out of hand, please read this whole post through, because it’s a simple idea that is easy to execute and the key to unlocking a lot of doors for you and your College Bowl program.

Once each semester, work as a team for a few hours to perform some university service or community service. In fact, this works best if you perform a community service in one semester and a university service in the other.

At the risk of sounding cynical, I’m going to focus on the many and varied practical benefits this will bring your program. There are many ethical and moral reasons this is a great idea, but if you tend to think along those lines you’re either already doing something like it, or are instantly sold on it. So I’m going to focus on those who read this and whose first response was “what’s in it for me?”

An occasional act of a little service has both immediate and long-term benefits. It brings a steady stream of positive attention to your program. It sets you apart from other teams in the eyes of faculty, staff and administration. It establishes different types of university and community connections that are not usually available to students, and can open up new resources and sources of funding that would otherwise be unavailable to you. Finally, the experience of performing it bonds you stronger as a team, and has benefits when you play.

What’s in it for me?

Publicity. Some community services projects provide more of this than others, but all give you a good name. Work two hours answering phones during a PBS pledge drive, and their news division may become interested in doing a story on you. Anyone you help will be grateful, and most will, without you asking, write a letter to a Dean, President, or even to the Editor for newspaper publication, saying what great people you are to help them out.

With university service, everything you do is positive publicity. Except for pure service organizations, very few clubs ever get involved in any university service. Every faculty and staff you come in contact with while performing the service will notice it, and will discuss it on a grapevine that has tentacles in every aspect of the university.

Access and Support. It’s mostly invisible to students, but universities run on an underground economy of favors. Faculty and staff departments, and often sections within departments, operate mostly autonomously, and depend on trading favors when they have to get something done that requires going outside of the usual channels. They develop a strong sense of obligation.

Community service, especially if it results in even small favorable publicity for the university, makes administrators more favorably disposed to any requests you may have. It gets you access to community resources you might not otherwise have available. And, it provides extensive networking opportunities that can pay off down the road.

But in terms of access, it’s university service that has a strong effect most students don’t anticipate. Helping set up the university Christmas party, or cooking hot dogs at the Spring staff picnic, makes you an unexpected and highly visible player in the economy of favors. While staff and faculty are increasingly service-oriented towards students, as the “students as consumers of education” model increases its hold on universities, taking a part in the economy of favors sets your group apart from other students, and gives you capital that can be realized when you need more volunteers for your tournament, you host a tournament and want to use a special room that’s usually off limits to student groups, or you need some additional funding for a special event.

Group unity. Some teams never see each other outside of practices and matches, and prefer it that way. Others consist of a tight group that hangs out a lot together. Most are somewhere in between the poles of that spectrum.

A planned group activity outside of the usual team activities is a good way to build group cohesion, increase group trust, and integrate new members into the team. Teams that never get together outside of practices or matches don’t build trust quickly, and that can lead to misunderstandings and other problems on bonus conferrals. Teams that hang out a lot together often unintentionally create barriers that make it harder for new players to join, which can lead to a loss of potential talent. All teams benefit from outside activities or experiences that can make them understand other members in a different light.

Legendary player and current Tennessee-Chattanooga coach Charlie Steinhice, whom I’ve mentioned here before, was reminiscing to me earlier this month about teams he has been with that didn’t start pulling together as a group until they started having occasional meals together, and got to know each other outside of quiz bowl activity. Having occasional social time is great for any team. Working together on a service project is an even more powerful tool that forges group unity because it creates a more meaningful shared experience, especially if it is structured in such a way that the usual cliques or subgroups within the team are broken up and rearranged.

Exactly what services are we talking about here?

What I’m not suggesting are services where there is a clear and direct benefit, such as being one of several groups that cleans up a stadium after an athletic event in exchange for a small stipend. Such activities are fine as fund raisers, are perceived as such, don’t have as much lasting benefit, and should be considered separately.

Here are a few examples of the types of service I’m talking about. Many others are possible, depending on your community and school.

Community Service:

Staffing phone banks for a few hours during a charity telethon.
Raising funds for a local charity.
Running matches as an activity at a senior citizens center or home (write some “nostalgia” questions to replace any youth-oriented pop culture).
Long term services for the truly ambitious: assist a high school team or Upward Bound Knowledge Bowl team in a disadvantaged area.

University Service:

Setting up, serving food at, or cleaning up a faculty or staff social function.
Serving as ushers at graduation or commencement.
Set up, clean up, or usher at a faculty or staff awards ceremony.
Help Freshman move into their dorms.
Set up or clean up Freshman orientation.

When does it pay off?

The group unity benefits are immediate. There’s a chance for other immediate benefits too, such as publicity and increased visibility for your team. Most benefits are long-term, and with each semester and year that you do service activities, the benefits grow.

It’s important to do the activity as a group. While performing the service, do something that reminds people who you are. If you have a team t-shirt, these activities are the times to wear it.

Student groups are notorious for a lack of follow-through, in part because they all experience turnover every year, and major turnovers every few years. Performing a service project or two will impress administration, faculty, and staff. Coming back and doing another one each semester, and then year after year greatly elevates that impression. While universities like to claim they treat all student groups equally, in reality, to paraphrase Orwell, some groups are more equal then others.

Having each member of your team spend just a couple of hours once each semester in a service project will elevate your program to the status of the most favored and privileged groups, while making you stronger as a team. Though most benefits may be intangible, over time you’ll see them as invaluable. ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/service-economy http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/service-economy?opendocument&comments Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:27:02 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/bride-of-questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers-revisited Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/bride-of-questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers-revisited?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/bride-of-questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers-revisited
The Story so Far

Previously on the College Bowl Blog - in the post Questions from the Inbox: Lists of Answers, Richard Dunlap commented about a situation calling for a list response:

One more variant on this question: Suppose the list were:

“Nevado, excuse me, NevaDA

Idaho

California

Utah

Arizona”

The key issue, of course, is if the first line is one response or two. I've seen this issue pop up twice that I remember, in both cases as a spectator, with two different rulings.

To which I responded:

Great question! This simple looking example actually brings up at least five key issues: 1) how exact must pronunciations be, 2) how should players respond if they are unsure of a pronunciation, 3) is pronunciation an instance where a player can give a technically incorrect response and then self-correct it, 4) does a player correcting a response on a list count as a separate answer, and 5) are the rulings in these instances reviewable or judgment calls? I'll give my take on these questions in the next blog post. Meanwhile, anyone else who wants to take a crack at them is encouraged to leave a comment or email me their thoughts.

To recap: a bonus question asks for five states given as a single list. In this instance, “Nevada,” “Idaho,” “Utah,” and “Arizona” would be considered correct, and “California” is an incorrect response. In giving the response, the captain stumbles over the first response, and restates it. How should the Game Officials handle this, which rulings may the other team request be reviewed, and what in general are the best tactics for pronouncing responses?

Pronunciation

Judging pronunciation in responses is tricky because it’s affected by many variables outside of the control of players or game officials. Poor room acoustics can make it difficult to hear. Accents, rates of speech, and speaking problems such as stutters or lisps can alter pronunciations. English may not be the native language of the player. And questions occasionally ask for responses of words that players may have read but rarely heard.

And while I’m focusing on players in this post, Moderators have the same pronunciation issues. As a rookie Moderator at my first RCT in 1982, I was impressed when, during the pre-read, an older professor who was Moderating asked for help pronouncing poet Percy Shelley’s middle name of Bysshe because it was a “reading word” for him and not a “spoken word” (it rhymes with “fish”). This is especially true when the question is on a subject outside of a player’s or Mod’s personal area of interest, but very educated people will rarely but on occasion show some problems with simple words. My maternal grandfather, a well respected attorney and civic leader in Florida, was an adult before he learned that the word he thought was pronounced [my zeld] was correctly pronounced [miss led] – “misled” was a word he read often, but so rarely used in conversation that there hadn’t been an opportunity for others to correct it for him.

So, what should players and Game Officials do? On toss-ups, players should give the pronunciation they think is correct, but try to give a standard pronunciation. On bonuses, the conferral allows Captains to check pronunciation when responses are considered.

For game officials, the general principle in accepting an answer is that the response is correct if it is pronounced in a way that makes it appear that all the letters are there and in the proper order. An example often given in rules discussions is “Yosemite” National Park will be accepted as [YOH sem ight] and [yoh SEM ih tee] as both pronunciation are ways a reasonable person who had not heard the word could try to pronounce it after seeing the spelling. Throwing in syllables that would require extra letters, or clearly leaving out letters (for example, in an answer calling for Faulkner’s Yoknopatawpha County, giving [Yok na taw pha] for [Yok na pa taw pha]) make the response incorrect. These are general guidelines.

Regional differences in pronunciation create unique problems that are very hard for question writers and editors to anticipate. In parts of central Appalachia, for example, the word “crayon” can be pronounced as if it were almost the word “crown.” Mods and Judges are reminded that when in doubt, always ask a player to repeat or spell an answer until the officials are satisfied they understand the response. (This latter is different from a “more specific” prompt, of which there can be only one per toss-up or bonus part).

Other problems occur when proper names use or have acquired nonstandard pronunciations. The rapper Fifty Cent pronounces his name correctly in his rhymes, but a number of his fans have taken to pronouncing it as “Fitty Cent.” That seems to me to be on the border between a pronunciation issue and a nickname. I personally would accept “Fitty” but a good case not to accept it can also be made.

Like proper names, per rule 29 titles and quotations “must be exact.” I’ve discussed the various problems with titles in the earlier post How and What to Answer. The pronunciation issue often comes in with titles or quotes where the non-English form is accepted. Les Miserables may be a good example. The correct pronunciation will be on the card, but a player who pronounces it as [less mih ser a bulls] should be judged correct.

These are guidelines, and there are many cases that present unique issues. Having Game Officials apply judgment reasonably, fairly,  and consistently is the standard; and different officials may reasonably differ in application in certain instances.

Correcting an answer

Can a player correct an answer once it has been given? The answer to that question depends on the circumstances, and the judgment of Game Officials plays a role. Before examining this issue further, it is helpful to look at how a somewhat similar situation is addressed in the Rules Quiz. To check it out, go to http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/rulesquiz/question10.html and then return here using your browser’s back arrow.

In the “Millard Fillmore” example in the rules quiz, two different choices were offered, and both were deemed correct. The philosophy behind that is a balancing of the need to keep the game fun and player friendly for participants of widely differing skill and experience levels, with the need to have exact acceptable forms of response. Additionally, the rules need to be written so that they can be administered at all tournament levels by Game Officials with widely differing skill and experience levels, and where a tremendous diversity of Campus Programs exists.

It is difficult to evaluate “Nevado, excuse me, Nevada” without being in the room to witness it. In the judgment of the Mod or Judge, is the player trying to stall? If so, the bonus should go dead at that point, before the other responses in the list are given.

But if the player made the correction quickly and proceeded, my ruling would be that the player was clearly trying to restate the answer instead of changing it, and the vowel sound is close enough that I might as a Judge accept it. I would not count “Nevada” as a second answer, but as a restatement of the first. I would then decide if “Nevado,” the first thing said, was a reasonable pronunciation. I might accept it at the Campus program or even the RCT round robin levels; I would not accept it in the RCT playoffs or at the NCT.

However, if the player said “Nevado, excuse me, Ohio” then the player is trying to change the answer, not correct the pronunciation. The principle of “first word said is counted” must be followed, and in a list bonus I would count those as two responses.

We can complicate this scenario further by assuming that the player giving the response has a stutter, as well as a thick regional or national accent. These can be such individual situations that they are difficult to discuss in abstract and come up with a precise ruling that would apply to each case.

Can these Rulings be Reviewed?

Continuing the thread of ambiguity that is running through this blog entry, it depends what “reviewed” means.

Players may always address any concern about anything related to the match with Game Officials at the half or at the end of the game. Game Officials are expected to review the match among themselves at the half and at the end of the game, and make adjustments they feel are appropriate. Rules 42 through 50 spell out the procedures to follow. Before RCT weekend, I’m planning to devote an entire post or two to Game Reviews, so I’m only going to lightly touch on the subject here.

If a player feels an answer should have been accepted, or an opponent feels an answer should not have been accepted, they should bring the matter up with the officials at the appropriate time. Game Officials should always be willing to discuss their rulings with the players. When procedural issues are clear, the incident can usually be resolved without convening the Game Review Committee. When some factual issues are involved, at the RCT and NCT levels the Game Officials have a precise procedure they are required to follow.

On judgment calls involving timing, promptness, stalling, conduct, pronunciation or how a player delivered an answer, in almost every case the Tournament Director will back the Officials provided their decision was reasonable, fair, and applied consistently. As noted, these are difficult to review unless you were a witness to them. If players feel these rulings are unreasonable, or are partial to one team, then the Captain should ask to discuss this with the Game Review Committee or the Tournament Director before signing the score sheet. Once the score sheet is signed, no review is possible.

As long as human beings are Game Officials, there will be differences in how rules are applied. Human beings will always make mistakes, and may not realize they’ve made one, until it’s discussed with them. Players can get an informal review of anything with the Game Officials in the room, and while it might not change an immediate outcome, it might make future rulings more consistent. If the players feel strongly enough, they should request a higher review, and not sign the score sheet until they have the review. But on judgment calls, the burden is on the players to make their case, and they need to be sure of their ground.

Through discussions such as this, better guidelines can be established, and consensus reached. This will hopefully lead to better adjudication of future cases. Thanks for a great question! ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/bride-of-questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers-revisited http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/bride-of-questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers-revisited?opendocument&comments Wed, 6 Dec 2006 15:15:32 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers
I’m guessing that every time someone emails me a question about College Bowl, there are probably at least ten other people with the same question who don’t get around to asking it. So, periodically I’ll post questions I’ve received and the responses, with some slight rewriting to make them more generally applicable. I’m open to any questions on any topic even marginally related to College Bowl. If you want the question and response kept private, that’s cool. Though for questions I post here, I won’t include the name of the sender without explicit permission to do so.

Here are two questions on a theme: evaluating correct responses given as a list.

List Responses

Question: Consider this bonus question:

For 5 points each, please give me the five fastest growing US states according to the US Census Bureau as of the end of 2005.

The answer given on the card:

Nevada
Arizona
Idaho
Florida
Utah

The team answers:

Nevada
Idaho
Florida
Texas
Utah

Do they get 15 points for having the first three right and then getting a wrong answer? Or do they get 20 for having four out of five?

Under rule 27, it would seem that the "clear and precise" answer ended after the third item. Is that a proper interpretation?

Answer: As the bonus in the example is phrased, they get 20 points for four correct answers. Each list response is evaluated individually; the response list given is usually not evaluated as a list per se. As phrased, the list order is not important, the individual answers in it are. So, the evaluation goes:

Nevada - correct
Idaho - correct
Florida - correct
Texas - incorrect
Utah - correct.

The list order is only considered if it is specified in the bonus. Such specific language is usually along the lines of "list, in order x." If "list, in order from greatest to least" had been specified, they would have gotten 10, as only Nevada and Utah are in the right place.

The idea that responses in a list are, unless otherwise specified, to be evaluated individually and independently of the other responses is also basic to understanding Rule 32: that responses in a list such as "the third one" are not acceptable. The order only matters if the bonus specifically says it matters. I suspect the reason for this interpretation, and to its corollary in Rule 32, is that it's reflective of the scattered way teams generate possible responses to this type of bonus while conferring. Requiring them to then organize the answer in a precise list is an extra step that can be specifically added to bonuses when it is felt that a little extra difficulty is appropriate. Otherwise, each response within the list is to be considered individually and independently.

List Responses Follow-up

Question: Same question, but the team responds:

Nevada
Idaho
Florida
Texas
Arkansas
Utah
California

Would the team get 15 points for three correct since their fourth correct answer was beyond the five requested?

Answer: You're absolutely right. The question called for 5 answers, and only the first 5 responses given would be evaluated. Only 3 of the first 5 given were correct, so they get 15 points. ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/questions-from-the-inbox-lists-of-answers?opendocument&comments Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:00:29 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/control-strategy Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/control-strategy?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/control-strategy
Sorry for the delay in posting this final part of the Strategy Tetralogy. Some gaps in posting are inevitable; we do more than College Bowl here and lately it’s been busier than usual, but this gap was too long. I’ll try to make it up with more frequent posting between now and Christmas. I certainly appreciate all the enthusiastic feedback I’ve gotten, public and private, and will work to provide you all with the content you want.

Control Strategy is acting to control the pace of a College Bowl match from the outset in order to give a team a perceived advantage. By far, it most commonly occurs when a team is playing Fast Break Strategy from the first toss-up and never lets up. Teams playing Four Corners from the outset are today quite rare, though in the early 1980’s were slightly more common. More recently, a hybrid strategy combining the two has been independently observed that appeared to have at least a mildly disorienting effect on some experienced opponents.

That Control Strategy is seen as often as it is, and that it even has an effect at all, is odd in a way; a trained and experienced team can easily counter Fast Break or Four Corners by doing the opposite. And the question must be asked: since every clock strategy requires teams to answer toss-ups before the strategy can become effective, if you’re getting most of the toss-ups so you can dominate the clock, do you really need a total-game clock strategy, since you should be getting most of the points anyway?

Experienced teams use Control Strategy to guard against losses from talented but inexperienced teams. The premise behind a Fast Break Control Strategy is that a team that is used to a fast pace, and that can impose that pace on a match, will have an extra advantage over teams not accustomed to playing at that pace.

Control Strategy is only effective for teams that have match experience and have practiced the strategy. Perhaps that is why some teams use it; in effect, its use is an announcement that a team has reached a particular level of sophistication.

But it has negative effects, and I’ve come to believe it’s misguided. I grow increasingly less fond of it with each passing year. If, by discussing Control Strategy and how to render it ineffective, it can also be rendered less common, this blog may have performed a service to the quiz bowl community. Though I will note that the hybrid strategy has interesting cognitive implications, and is not a strategy I can summarily dismiss at this time. And, there are fans of Control Strategy who disagree with me. As one pointed out to me after reviewing this post in draft: as long as there are clocks, there will be clock strategy. I just like clock strategy used in the endgame, but YMMV.

Before I discuss my reservations with these strategies, we’ll discuss how these strategies work. Then we’ll look at how over-reliance on them can lead a good team to unexpected defeat.

Effects of Fast Break and Four Corners Control Strategy

See the earlier CBlog posts on this College Bowl web site entitled Fast Break Strategy and Four Corners Strategy for a description and discussion of the various tactics involved. As Control Strategy, either of these is implemented over the entire game, rather than only as an endgame strategy. The hybrid of the two involves switching between Fast Break and Four Corners either at regular or random intervals during the course of the game.

Fast Break and Four Corners Control Strategy can both be effective in how they influence the actions of the other team. If an opponent is not used to a fast pace, the additional demands that pace places on concentration can be a cognitive distraction, and interfere with efficient answering. If an inexperienced opponent tries to slow the game down and counter the fast pace, they will commonly make mistakes that cause them to miss scoring opportunities they would otherwise have. Likewise, an opponent used to a fast pace may react with frustration to a Four Corners control strategy, and that frustration can become a cognitive distraction, as well as leading to the opponent trying to speed the game up and missing scoring opportunities.

As a side effect, Control Strategy can also cause the Moderator to react. Especially if Fast Break is used as the Control Strategy, an inexperienced Mod may adapt reading tempo to the dominant strategy and change reading pace to match the strategy. This has two added effects on the Control Strategy: it multiplies the effectiveness through reinforcing the strategy, and it creates an impression in the opponent, who usually notices the Mod’s change of pace, that the Mod is biased towards the team using the strategy. The perceived unfairness of the situation then may become the focus of the opponent, and distract them from playing and responding as effectively as they otherwise would.

When to Use Fast Break or Four Corners Control Strategy

These Control Strategies will be most effective, and indeed may only be effective, when you have practiced the strategy you will use, and when your opponent is inexperienced with strategies. Under those circumstances, an experienced but less talented team may be able to readily defeat an inexperienced but more talented team. For a more talented team looking to avoid potential upsets, the Fast Break Control Strategy is attractive because it results in more scoring opportunities in the game, and thus reduces the chance of upsets. For a less-talented team facing a more-talented opponent; the Four Corners Control Strategy is seductive because fewer scoring opportunities may seem to increase the likelihood of an upset, but it can backfire when an opponent jumps out to a big lead early, and suddenly the team employing Four Corners wishes they had more scoring opportunities to catch up.

Hybrid Strategy

Interviews at the time provide a lot of evidence that controlling the pace of the entire game has been viewed as an advantage since the radio shows of College Quiz Bowl in the 1950’s, and endgame strategies date from 1953-54, the first season. Teams rediscovered Fast Break, Four Corners, and Control Strategies independently in the 1960’s, 70’s, and 80’s.

I first noticed a Hybrid Control Strategy being used in the 2005-6 season, and it was also noted by another observer at the same tournament. I can’t recall ever it being discussed before, let alone being used; and, until being educated to the contrary, believe it to be a new innovation. It certainly seemed to be effective in some circumstances, particularly against very experienced teams that were used to controlling the pace of the match.

Hybrid Strategy (for want of a better name, suggestions are welcomed) involves switching between Fast Break and Four Corners periodically at regular intervals, at random intervals, or after specific events (such as every time your opponent makes an incorrect interrupt of a toss-up). This strategy leaves one team in control of the pace while making the other team uncertain. Unlike the other Control Strategies, it is one designed to be most effective against experienced teams, particularly those who normally use Control Strategies.

The strategy appears to work through disrupting the control of the opponent. Because a team using this strategy sometimes works with the opponent’s Control Strategy, and other times works against it, an opponent used to working at a certain pace has alternate experiences of their strategy being frustrated, and their strategy being used against them. If only because of the novelty aspect, Hybrid Strategy appears to have a discomforting effect on teams used to setting the pace, and that discomfort can become a distraction. Until it is more widely play tested and observed, however, the actual worth of this strategy is difficult to judge.

Countering Control Strategy

While the Hybrid Strategy may provide a counterweight to the two more traditional Control Strategies, there are two time-honored ways that have also proven effective in countering Control Strategy: do the opposite, or ignore it. Doing the opposite involves just that: responding to a team in Fast Break by going to Four Corners, or a team in Four Corners by going to Fast Break.

Ignoring another team’s Control Strategy is harder then it sounds, but becomes easier with experience. It involves not reacting to the other team, staying in Standard Strategy at a comfortable pace, and focusing on the questions.

If your opponent’s Control Strategy has gotten the Mod to change pace, ignoring is harder to do, and teams must be proactive, asking the Mod at the half, and during the game if necessary, to read at the Mod’s normal pace. Note that such a request is only likely to be effective if you’ve actually noticed the Mod changing pace in response to a team’s strategy, as the Mod will probably check with the Judge to see if this has happened.

It bears repeating: strategies only work for you when you’re getting the toss-ups. If your opponent gets the toss-ups, your opponent controls the pace.

When Good Strategy Goes Bad

There are several circumstances where Control Strategies can backfire. One is when a team stays in its Control Strategy and ignores the circumstances of the endgame. If, for instance, you are using a Fast Break Control Strategy and have a 100 point lead with two minutes to go, staying in Fast Break is giving your opponent more scoring opportunities to mount a comeback.

Another drawback of Control Strategies, which the Hybrid Strategy takes advantage of, is that a team that is used to controlling the pace can get distracted when they lose that control. Too much focus on the strategy can result in less focus on the question, and answering questions and scoring points are what usually wins games.

Finally, Control Strategies can annoy your opponent in a motivational way. Use of Control Strategy is tantamount to telling the other team that you expect to dominate, and that you consider them to be less-experienced. A good team will use this as extra motivation, and it is never wise to hand an opponent a motive to defeat you. It’s better to let them find their own motivation without your help.

Why Use Control Strategy?

Why, indeed? It can be countered, and it can become a distraction. My personal recommendation for teams is to stay in Standard Strategy until the endgame, and then choose Fast Break or Four Corners if and when the circumstances are appropriate. But I do not expect every team to take this recommendation, and predict that at nearly every Campus Program Tournament and Regional Championship Tournament there will be at least one team trying Control Strategy every game. Control Strategy does have respected proponents who enjoy it as a part of the game. Hopefully this discussion will provide newer teams a chance to prepare for it, and knowledge of how to react to it.

A Final Note to Moderators and Judges

While these strategy discussions have been mostly targeted to players, I hope that game officials find them useful as a guide to what the teams are doing. Moderators and Judges in particular need to be aware of these strategies, and the influence thy can have on Moderator reading pace. Mods must be careful to see that team strategies do not unduly influence the reading pace. To be neutral to teams, Mods need to follow the same reading style every game, regardless of what the teams do. Please see the Things in Moderation post for more, and I’ll be discussing the different styles possible in a later post. Mods reading too fast to be understood need to slow down, and Mods only getting through 16 toss-ups in 16 minutes need to speed up; and Mods must pay attention to team feedback on pace. But to adjust pace solely due to one team’s strategy is to favor that team, and Mods must be neutral. Most Mods who react to team pace seem to do so unconsciously, without thinking about it. Being aware that it can happen is essential to preventing Mods from reacting to team strategies.

Next post will be a trip to the mailbag to answer some questions. ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/control-strategy http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/control-strategy?opendocument&comments Fri, 3 Nov 2006 16:48:12 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/four-corners-strategy Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/four-corners-strategy?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/four-corners-strategy
The opposite of Fast Break Strategy, Four Corners Strategy is used by the College Bowl team that is winning the match during the endgame to protect the win through reducing the other team’s scoring opportunities. When the winning team controls the toss-up or the bonus, every legal opportunity to take time off of the clock is employed. But Four Corners is not just about killing clock time – a team must be scoring points while doing so.

Though Four Corners Strategy on the surface seems to have no negative effect on scoring efficiency, some of the possible tactics do have the potential to not only waste scoring opportunities, but to virtually hand points over to the other team. Teams employing this strategy also walk a fine line between using all of the time that is available to correctly answer questions and score points within the rules, and “stalling,” which can disallow a correct answer.

This will be the longest of the four Strategy posts, as killing clock time is a delicate process. Several of the tactics involved have clear pitfalls. You do not need to use every tactic to employ Four Corners effectively. Coaches and players need to pick and choose the tactics they’re most comfortable with, knowing that some have the potential to backfire and potentially lose the match.

Before discussing this strategy, it’s a good idea to review the Game Rules germane to this issue. In particular, Rules 11, 18, and 20 deal with toss-ups; Rules 22, 23, 24, and 25 deal with bonuses; and Rules 28, 33 and 34 deal with forms of answers. They can be found at http://www.collegebowl.com/pub/gamerules.pdf.

Tactics

Four Corners is the Fabian strategy of legal delay - using every allowable opportunity within the rules to kill clock time. This can only be done when a team controls the clock: after signaling on a toss-up or while receiving a bonus question. The fundamental technique is to use the maximum amount of time given to respond without “stalling.”

“Stalling” is not defined per se in the rules. It is specifically prohibited by name in rules 11, 23, and 25; and implied in rules 18 and 22. In Rules 11 and 23, “stalling” is contrasted with the “natural pause,” which is allowed.

As a Mod or Judge, my practical rule for defining “stalling” and “natural pause” is as follows: “Stalling” is not promptly answering (or designating someone on a bonus) when called upon to do so, or embellishing a response beyond reason (what is “reasonable” as a response for toss-ups and bonuses will be discussed in those sections).  A “natural pause” is enough time to inhale sufficient air to vocalize the response, i.e. a brief intake of breath. For players with stutters or other speech impediments, “natural pause” must be judged on a case-by-case basis; though it is incumbent upon the Mod and the Judge to be consistent to the individual player over the entire match.

Rule 34 allows players to spell answers to questions, even when the question does not call for spelling. Spelling answers can be used as a clock-killing tactic, but it is a perilous undertaking. If the answer is spelled incorrectly, the answer is incorrect. The Mod will stop the spelling the moment it becomes incorrect, so in addition to being incorrect and a blown scoring opportunity, a misspelled word may not even take up any additional time. The spelling must be delivered without a pause, or the Mod will rule it incorrect at the point of the pause.

In addition to losing a scoring opportunity, if a spelled answer is the first response on a toss-up, and is ruled incorrect due to a misspelling or a pause, the opposing team can then signal, be recognized, and respond with the answer just handed to them, which they may not otherwise have known as quickly, if at all. Coaches and players should decide in advance if these risks are acceptable before using spelling as a Four Corners tactic. Like the Preemptive strike, discussed below, spelling answers is a tactic that can backfire, and teams employing it assume all risks for using it.

Toss-ups

My advice is to play toss-ups in Four Corners exactly as you do in Standard Strategy. Signal as soon as one answer is clear, respond with the minimal amount of information, and, when the other team has negged, always wait until the question is completed before signaling. Use the bonus to kill clock time.

Aside from spelling the answers, much of that can be done to kill extra time on a toss-up has minimal effects. Players should still try to correctly be the first responder of a toss-up. Wining the bonus opportunity provides the best environment for slowing the game down. When the other team has incorrectly interrupted a toss-up, it is more important then ever to wait until the toss-up is completely read before anyone signals.

Remember that at the end of the toss-up, players have three seconds to respond before the toss-up is ruled dead. Unfortunately, some Mods and Judges count time more quickly than others, and lesser-skilled Mods and Judges call the time inconsistently. When Four Corners is used as an endgame strategy, players should have had enough opportunity to recognize how the Mod or Judge is calling the time to be able to use it judiciously. The most important thing is to score the points and get to the bonus, so don’t fret about not taking advantage of an extra second or two at the end of the toss-up as long as the correct answer is given.

Players sometimes try to embellish answers on toss-ups with extra words. The important principles to remember when embellishing toss-ups are first, that the first response given is the first response judged; second, that incorrect information anywhere in the response invalidates the response; and third, lesser-known long forms of correct answers may not be on the answer card, and giving them could throw what would otherwise be a clear win into a discrepancy situation that needs to be resolved after the game.

Certainly, the full titles of “Tintern Abbey” or Tristram Shandy are not going to be found on a question card. They’re just too long. If you try to recite them and get one word wrong, you miss the question. Finally, the odds of something with a really long formal title coming up at the right moment are pretty low. Rather than memorizing the full form of such an answer, it’s more productive to study other subjects. Besides, when you give minimal information and are prompted, prompting kills time too.

The Preemptive Strike

The Preemptive Strike is my term for deliberately negging in the final seconds of the game in order to preserve the win. Per Rule 20, if the clock runs out after a player has signaled on a toss-up, the player still gets a chance to be recognized and respond. Though the tactic of deliberately negging to kill the final seconds has been discussed in many quiz bowl fora over the years, it’s actually quite rare for it to be potentially useful. And there are so many potential dangers in voluntarily reducing a team’s score in order to kill time that I do not recommend this tactic in any case. Your mileage may vary.

The tactic is only useful if a team goes into the final seconds of a game with a very small lead. Using the preemptive strike reduces one team’s score five points in order to prevent the other team from potentially scoring ten toss-up points.

Another factor to consider in using this tactic is that no bonus points can be scored until the bonus part has begun. So the Preemptive Strike could conceivably be used to kill enough time that the other team may get the toss-up, but won’t have time to score any bonus points. In those situations, the Preemptive Strike can be considered taking a five point deduction in order to allow the other team to score ten points but not 30 points. In either scenario, the number of times the Preemptive Strike could be useful is small.

Taking a voluntary point reduction to kill time is risky for two reasons. The first is that the visible score may be wrong. I have a very clear memory of an endgame situation I watched from the audience, where the board score indicated a 10 point lead, but I knew that a scoring error had occurred and the lead was only 5 points. Had the team in the lead used a Preemptive Strike based on the score they saw, instead of preserving the win they would have forced a tie-breaker, and opened the door to a loss.

The second risk, related to the first, is that the score on the board or the computer monitor at the end of the game may not be the final score. Procedural and answer discrepancies occur even with the very best game officials and the most carefully reviewed questions. When discrepancies are reviewed, a score adjustment is a possible outcome. It is never certain what discrepancy issues will be raised until time has expired. Once the preemptive strike has burned those five points, they are gone forever; and a team may shortly afterwards find themselves in a situation where they wished they had those points back.

A team uses the Preemptive Strike at its own risk. When it backfires, that’s a negative consequence of the choice, deliberately made, to reduce the score. It’s seldom useful, but even when it is potentially useful, I don’t recommend it. I think it’s better to use the few seconds that would have been killed to try to score 10 points on the toss-up, which is a more certain way to protect the match lead.

Bonuses

Bonuses are where teams have the most opportunities to kill clock time without stalling. The opportunities occur with conferral and designation. What I said about embellishing answers in the Toss-up section also applies here, except that the conferral allows opportunities to double check multiple responses, e.g. Creator/Creation, that can legitimately kill some additional time.

Teams have five seconds to confer on each bonus part. In Four Corners, you use all five of them. You don’t have to talk, you can meditate silently on the response until prompted for an answer. It’s better, though, to check the answer, especially if someone is going to attempt to spell it. Once prompted, answers or designations must begin quickly. Pauses occurring when giving answers or designating a person will stop the answer. When conferring, do it in low tones so as not to give the Mod and Judge a reason to think that an answer is prematurely being directed towards them.

Designate whenever you can. Designation can occur with words or gestures (Rule 22); feel free to use both. Be careful not to embellish the designation. Saying “I designate Tom Cunningham” in a normal voice is fine. That player must then begin the answer promptly. Designating in an exaggerated and slow tone of voice, with a full name (“I designate George Herbert Walker Bush”) or designating with a description (e.g. “I designate the person to my left, the gentleman from the great state of Delaware, the first state to ratify the Constitution…,”) etc. will result in a team being called for stalling, and a scoring opportunity missed. Four Corners isn’t just about delay, it’s about delaying while scoring points, or it may not be effective.

When to use Four Corners

My rule of thumb for Four Corners is 75 points per minute. In other words, it should be started when you have a 75 point lead with a minute to go, a 150 point lead with two minutes to go, a 225 point lead with three minutes to go, etc. See the discussion in Fast Break for the math and caveats. Four Corners may also be advisable in the endgame when a team has the lead, and the other team starts Fast Break Strategy; though if an opponent starts Fast Break too soon, and misses scoring opportunities, it may be better to not adjust your pace, stay in Standard Strategy, and watch them self-destruct.

The next post, on Control Strategy, will complete the quartet of posts on strategy and tactics. The posts after that, in no particular order, will probably be on the stages of team development, answering questions that have been emailed to me, and sharing a secret of getting almost anything you want from college administrators, faculty, and staff. ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/four-corners-strategy http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/four-corners-strategy?opendocument&comments Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:25:26 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/fast-break-strategy Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/fast-break-strategy?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/fast-break-strategy
The clock strategy I call Fast Break uses every tactical opportunity to reduce the time a toss-up and bonus pair takes to be read. Scoring opportunities are maximized as more toss-ups are read. Scoring efficiency drops, though, as clues are missed; and there may be an increased number of negs, which give the other team free shots at toss-ups.

Fast Break is easy to learn, simple to execute, and hard to master. It involves the selective and intelligent use of what are, in other circumstances, bad habits and sloppy play. It’s a strategy designed to keep a team that’s behind in contention for the win as long as possible, but it can engender a psychological desperation that ensures the loss. It also may be the only thing that makes the win possible.

Prior to 2001-2002, the tie-breakers used after head-to-head to select playoff teams led some teams to play the entire game in Fast Break mode. Points per-toss-up is currently used, after head-to-head, as the second tie-breaker; and that is a statistical tie-breaker that minimizes the differences in scoring opportunities while maximizing the effect of scoring efficiency. Unless used as a part of Control Strategy, to be discussed about two posts from now, Fast Break is best used only in end-game scenarios, to give a team that’s behind more opportunities to score points and win the game. We’ll discuss when to use it after discussing what it is.

Tactics

This is a hurry-up strategy. A team minimizes question time to maximize response opportunities. Interruptions occur at every opportunity, during toss-ups and bonus parts.

But ideally, stupid interruptions are avoided. The time to interrupt is carefully chosen to avoid, as much as possible, wasting scoring opportunities. The Captain chooses the interruption times on bonuses. On toss-ups, four players are individually choosing an interruption point without consulting the others. All these decisions are made in a split second with all the information that’s available.

As in Standard Strategy, and every strategy, always respond with the minimal answer – the minimal amount of information that clearly and precisely indicates your answer. When you’re sure of both creator and work, Creator/Creation Is Your Friend. Say “hello” to your little friend.

Take greater risks than you otherwise would. But don’t be reckless. That’s a fine line defined with experience, and is in different places during toss-ups and bonus parts.

Toss-ups

This will make more sense as we later discuss in more detail the active cognitive process of answering all questions, but think of it now as a process of filtering or narrowing-down answers from a pool of answers in your mind as you hear the clues. The Standard Strategy rule is, when that Universe of All Possible Answers is reduced to a set with one element, you signal. The Fast Break Strategy rule is that when the Universe of All Possible Answers has been reduced to two choices, and one is more likely than the other, you signal and give the more likely one. And of course, if that Universe is suddenly reduced to one, always buzz immediately.

When “more likely” means “buzz now” is a point that can only be learned with experience. I suggest starting out in practice with an idea that buzzing during Fast Break is o.k. when one choice in your instantaneous judgment is 75% or more and the other is 25% or less. The only way to certainly learn what the chances really are is to test that judgment against a similar set of answers in a timed environment.

(The above 75/25 split is recommended when the Fast Break is being used as an endgame strategy. When used as a part of Control Strategy, players should have the possibilities narrowed down to one answer before interrupting a toss-up.)

When the other team has negged, signal as soon as you have the answer down to one response and are allowed to answer. You already have one more piece of information that the other team didn’t have: their wrong answer has been ruled out. That may be enough to narrow your response down to one. Don’t play probability games here; no one on the other team can signal against you, and the valuable bonus opportunity is yours for getting this right. Try to ensure the points – wait for confirming clues if you need to – and buzz when you’re certain.

If you’re just guessing, wait until the end and do the mental “one-count” discussed in Standard Strategy. But, somebody MUST guess. Don’t ever let a scoring opportunity go silent.

Bonuses

Captains must interrupt the bonus as soon as all answers are indicated. Other players may interrupt as well, but they must know how to do it properly. Conferral is kept to a minimum.

It is important to avoid missing scoring opportunities. Listening to lead-ins and bonus parts is critical. Too often when using this strategy, the bonus is interrupted with a single answer, when a little patience would have shown that two answers were required.

Mods should stop reading once an answer is clearly directed towards them. Once you’ve begun an answer, that’s all of that bonus part you’re going to hear.

Pay attention to the bonus value. The four-part bonus is so rare as to be almost extinct. If a bonus says “for five points per answer” it’s either going to be in one part or two. If it’s two parts, there are probably two answers required for each part. When that’s likely the case, don’t interrupt until you’ve heard enough of the second half of the bonus part. The second half will very often follow the word “and” or "by." Listen for those words before answering when you have reason to suspect more than one answer in a part.

If you interrupt with one answer, and the moderator responds with two, that’s a strong tipoff that you interrupted that part too early. Don’t make the same mistake on the second bonus part.

When interrupting, Creator/Creation is again your friend.

It is acceptable to use hand or other physical gestures to confer while the bonus is being read, especially to call for the designation. In a pinch, players don’t spend time checking answers their certain of with the Captain, and the Captain doesn’t spend time checking certain answers with the team. The Captain may interrupt the bonus to designate.

Scoring efficiency will drop when Fast Break is used. Some scoring opportunities will be missed. You can’t let that bother you. Move on to the next bonus part or question.

When to use Fast Break

The Captain should be watching the clock in the second half. Fast Break should be started as soon as a critical threshold approaches.

Exactly where that threshold exists depends on the moderator, the teams, and the packet. At an NCT game between two average teams, or an RCT match between two better teams, a good Mod should be hitting between 20 and 24 toss-ups per game, 22 +/- 2.

That works out to a range of about one toss-up and bonus pair every 48 seconds, to one toss-up and bonus pair every 40 seconds, with 44 seconds being the average. Disregarding negs, that means that with 100% bonus conversion, an average of 35 points can be scored every 44 seconds. But remember, these are averages and a best case scenario. Both quicker and slower clusters of toss-up/bonus pairings will randomly occur, and even the very best teams rarely achieve a bonus conversion rate much above 70%.

So my rule of thumb, between average teams at an NCT with a competent Moderator, is to start Fast Break when you’re down by 50 points per minute of time. If you’re trailing by 50 with a minute to go, 100 with two minutes to go, 150 with three minutes to go, etc., it’s time to start Fast Break.

That rule of thumb will go up or down depending on the Moderator, the teams, the general circumstances, etc. Clock strategy is more an art than an exact science.

It may also be time to start Fast Break when the opposing team has started Four Corners. That Fabian strategy will be discussed next. ]]> http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dxcomments/fast-break-strategy http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/fast-break-strategy?opendocument&comments Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:15:54 -0700 http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/standard-strategy Tom Michael http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/standard-strategy?opendocument&comments http://blog.collegebowl.com/collegebowl/cbblog.nsf/dx/standard-strategy
To make commenting on each part easier, I’m breaking the discussion of Clock Strategy into four posts. They’ll come a couple of days apart. This post is on the Standard Strategy for optimal play. Posts on Fast Break (hurry-up), Four Corners (slow-down), and Control Strategies will follow in that order.

I don’t make any claim to have invented any of the tactics or strategies discussed in these four posts. All were first used in GE College Bowl or College Quiz Bowl; the most any modern player can do is claim to have discovered them independently or adapted them to new circumstances.

The clock governs the match. Play occurs when the clock is running, and stops when it isn’t. The rules allow, and sometimes even encourage, teams to use various tactics that can increase or decrease the time that a toss-up and bonus pair takes to play.

“Strategy” refers to how a team uses those tactics to react to the clock within the game rules. Teams can set their pace to maximize or minimize scoring. They can also use controlling the pace to disrupt the other team’s rhythm. Each choice, though, involves trade-offs in scoring efficiency.

Before looking at the trade-offs, we’ll look at the strategy and tactics that maximize scoring efficiency. “Scoring efficiency” is defined here as the maximum amount of points a team would have scored on a set of questions if they were read without a clock, where the pace of the game was not a factor, and ea