Looking for practice material?
Find thousands of archived packets FREE for practice and study use at the Quizbowl Packet Archive!
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:58 am



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ] 
NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
mshsaa.org wrote:
On Thursday, September 16, 2010, NAQT was selected by the MSHSAA Board of Directors to be the question provider for the 2010-11 MSHSAA District and State Series in Scholar Bowl (formerly known as Academic Competition). The Board’s selection of NAQT was based on a recommendation by the Scholar Bowl Advisory Committee.


Full announcement. More details will be available soon on mshsaa.org and naqt.com.


Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:24 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010
Posts: 70
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
HUZZAH! :D


Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:26 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010
Posts: 209
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
YES YES YES! I have no idea how this happened, but I'm not going to argue it!


Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:48 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009
Posts: 207
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
:shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D :shock: :D


I AM REALLY SORRY ABOUT THIS SHAMELESS EMOTICON SPAM (OK NOT REALLY THAT SORRY) AND I AM ALSO SORRY ABOUT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL RIGHT HERE BUT I THINK THIS DESERVES IT.


Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:58 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 807
Location: Not quite Baltimore. Not quite Washington, D.C.
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Holy crap!! :o


Mon Sep 20, 2010 3:58 pm
Profile WWW

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009
Posts: 207
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
ok so apparently Dees says this isn't that great or something? idk Sam just mentioned it? Could someone please explain?
I'd like to know why my hopes were thrown into the heavens and are now being dashed down to the cold, cold, earth.


Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:00 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
To repost what I said on hsquizbowl, I am fully opposed to this bid, which uses speedchecks as the majority of their tossups. This is not the improvement you are hoping for.


Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:02 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010
Posts: 150
Location: Savannah, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Why not regular NAQT stuff? :cry:


Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:17 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
What Charlie refers to is that the MSHSAA format will remain the same in 2010-11; that is, the first and third quarters (1/3 of possible points) will use questions similar to NAQT's speed check series (1-2 line questions that contain 3-4 clues).


Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:34 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010
Posts: 150
Location: Savannah, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Well, it isn't quite what everyone hoped for, but is definately better than QG. Its more of a comprimise between the old and new. Why exactly isn't it all regular NAQT anyways? Why was the speed check put in there?


Mon Sep 20, 2010 4:36 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5391
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
It's a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, not everyone in Missouri has been exposed to the awesomeness that is NAQT. The programs we don't talk about here have a tendency to do the whole "study lists, play conference foes, good job on the buzzer, now don't do drugs" thing. A radical change in format, no matter how inherently superior it is over the current format, this soon before the start of the season, would startle these teams. (Brick walls and SUVs also come to mind here.)

Subtly, it makes contests that use the full NAQT format more appealing to said teams. They may come expecting another run-of-the-mill tournament, but instead they will get an enriching experience. If it's run properly (and let's not forget we have several competent TDs on this board and across the state, and a statewide advocacy group operating tournaments on NAQT format, with its members willing to volunteer at and generally aide in the operation of other tournaments) it will make pale their prior experiences, and put more pressure to convert the state's official format to 100% NAQT.

It's a step in the right direction, and it's the very in we need to dump this drawn-out, arcane format in favour of what has become the national standard.


Last edited by L-Town Expatriate on Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:51 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
ChippytheSavage wrote:
Why exactly isn't it all regular NAQT anyways? Why was the speed check put in there?


Our primary concern here was keeping games to a manageable length.


Mon Sep 20, 2010 5:53 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010
Posts: 218
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Will the question distribution be the same (i.e. math)?


Mon Sep 20, 2010 7:59 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Yes.


Mon Sep 20, 2010 8:32 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
The sets will contain computation, if that's where this is going. Precise distribution to be released soon.


Mon Sep 20, 2010 11:41 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009
Posts: 359
Location: Near East St. Louis
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Hmm, guess that's not much better then, since the format was always one of the biggest problems. Like Kyle said, hopefully it can be a stepping stone to actual good quizbowl at state.
And at the very least there's a lower likelihood of blatantly incorrect answers. I think.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:48 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5391
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
I don't know how computation's going to work out, but last year's tournament at S&T showed how effective questions on math concepts can be. I hope there are several of these in place of questions that make sure we all know how to balance our checkbooks and calculate interest on title loans that I pray no one on this forum ever resorts to taking.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:20 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
These new sets (like our regular-season high school sets nationwide) will contain a mix of both computational and conceptual math questions.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:29 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
The following is the distribution of the sample round that we submitted with our bid.


Short tossups (1st/3rd quarters):

Mythology 1
Literature 5 (2 US, 1 each British/continental Europe/world)
Language 1
Physics 2
Astronomy 1
Biology 2
Chemistry 1
Miscellaneous Science 1
Computational math 5
Conceptual math 2
Visual art 2
Music 2
History 4 (1 US, 2 European, 1 world)
Geography 1
Social science 1
Current events 1
Sports 1
Pop culture 1
Business 1
Home economics 1


Tossup/bonus (2nd/4th quarters):

Religious literature 0/1
Literature 3/4
Language 1/1
Physics 1/1
Biology 1/1
Chemistry 1/2
Miscellaneous Science 1/2
Computational math 3/3
Conceptual math 1/2
Visual art 2/2
Music 1/1
Miscellaneous fine arts 1/0
History 2/2
Geography 1/2
Current events 1/1
Pop culture 0/1
Industrial technology 0/1
Foreign language 1/0


Tue Sep 21, 2010 11:01 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009
Posts: 359
Location: Near East St. Louis
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
bt_green_warbler wrote:
Short tossups (1st/3rd quarters):

How short are we talking when you say short tossups?


Tue Sep 21, 2010 1:37 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010
Posts: 209
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
One line, 3-4 clues, I believe.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010
Posts: 150
Location: Savannah, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Quote:
Computational math 5
Conceptual math 2


:? So basically like old Missouri questions (minus the wrong answers/clues) for the 1st and 3rd quarters, and "regular" NAQT 2nd and 4th?


Tue Sep 21, 2010 2:44 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5391
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
ChippytheSavage wrote:
Quote:
Computational math 5
Conceptual math 2


:? So basically like old Missouri questions (minus the wrong answers/clues) for the 1st and 3rd quarters, and "regular" NAQT 2nd and 4th?

Sounds like a subtle way of saying "Here's 30 crap-by-state-bylaws tossups that you love to hate so that you get the good stuff from us. Go on, convince MSHSAA to save time & money by dumping those tossups. Go on." :wink:


Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:27 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010
Posts: 70
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Now, I didn't see the original distribution, but only 1/1 pop culture the entire game? Though I don't think anyone has ever claimed that trash represents a significant number of points, that seems lower than usual.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:33 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5391
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
And I just reviewed the list again. Two European history but only one US history? Interesting setup, do explain.

Also, it looks like the count for T/B topics is way off. I count 28 bonii and 21 tossups.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 6:47 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Quote:
Also, it looks like the count for T/B topics is way off. I count 28 bonii and 21 tossups.

This is pretty clearly for replacement bonuses. The replacement tossups seem to be factored mostly into the first/third quarter count.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:40 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010
Posts: 70
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
And what's more, each individual science catagory has at least as many tossups per game as U.S. history does! As a math/science player i'm not complaining, but that seems silly.

</distribution based complaints> :wink:


Tue Sep 21, 2010 7:53 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2010
Posts: 150
Location: Savannah, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
WilliamofOrange wrote:
And what's more, each individual science catagory has at least as many tossups per game as U.S. history does! As a math/science player i'm not complaining, but that seems silly.

</distribution based complaints> :wink:


As a history player, I am not too fond of this. :(


Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:01 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
I guarantee there was more of each individual major science than US history mandated by the MSHSAA in every past MSHSAA series. Most people never really look at the actual MSHSAA distribution, but it's always been a little bit off.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:03 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
ashkenaziCD wrote:
This is pretty clearly for replacement bonuses. The replacement tossups seem to be factored mostly into the first/third quarter count.


Charlie has this one right.

Worth noting that this is only one round's worth of the distribution; the entire set will have a "smoother" distribution and even out, for instance, the ratio of US/European history.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:10 pm
Profile WWW
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5391
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
ashkenaziCD wrote:
Quote:
Also, it looks like the count for T/B topics is way off. I count 28 bonii and 21 tossups.

This is pretty clearly for replacement bonuses. The replacement tossups seem to be factored mostly into the first/third quarter count.

Back in the days when we still thought Chip Beale was half-decent and schools tried to get away with running a tournament where math calculations received 60 seconds, I found it easier to balance it based on 50 questions, and then divide an extra packet amongst the others for backups. Evidently this too is an inferior concept.


Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:23 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Will NAQT be awarding HSNCT bids to the winner of every district tournament?


Wed Sep 22, 2010 1:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
The details of HSNCT qualification are still under discussion, but will be announced soon.


Wed Sep 22, 2010 9:27 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010
Posts: 261
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
What examples of these "speed check" questions are out there for a preview of what is to come?


Fri Sep 24, 2010 6:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
I have just posted a round of last year's speed check series over on hsquizbowl. If the moderators here have the power to add attachments, that would be great.


Attachments:
Speed Check Series #25 round 1.pdf [149.83 KiB]
Downloaded 154 times


Last edited by Jeffrey Hill on Fri Sep 24, 2010 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Attached sample

Fri Sep 24, 2010 9:10 am
Profile WWW
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5391
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
As the old fart who has appointed himself an ombudsman, I want to raise some points brought up on HSQB:

From http://hsquizbowl.org/forums/viewtopic. ... 34#p196299
Quote:
The former, according to R. Exact details to be determined, but probably something like:

-the district tournaments will share questions with 2 introductory (A-level) sets

-the state tournament will share questions with one of the spring IS sets

Note that we only used seven of our ten sets in Missouri last year, so we believe this can be done without crowding out existing tournaments.

This sounds like IS sets—those used at tournaments all around the nations—will be divvied up for this. Is NAQT making sure that these packets aren't being used within a 250-mile radius of the state's borders? While it's interesting (and perhaps fitting) to see MSHSAA's tournament treated as though it's a run-of-the-mill invitational, it'll be asking for trouble if this winds up being overlooked. Not saying that it will happen, though, but you never know.

And Chuq's block-o-text explanation of his vehement opposition to the bid
Quote:
These are actually the reasons this bid is so damaging. Questions Galore's product was incredibly unpopular statewide because, even though most coaches do not support anything other than one liners because that is pretty much all they play, it had all those flaws in a systemic way that no coaches could ignore because it kept hurting their teams, eliciting groans from players, and otherwise making the game unenjoyable. Because of that, the MSHSAA series was coming under increased scrutiny from all sides, and coaches then were much more willing to entertain the idea of going to real pyramidal quizbowl in formats that actually make sense. I am firmly convinced if the state series continued to look that unacceptable, there would have in relatively short order (5 years max) been a form of larger scale display of unhappiness in the MSHSAA from coaches that would have put good quizbowl in a much better position to become widespread. Instead, with NAQT coming in and making the MSHSAA series marginally less unenjoyable but not improved at all to the level it should be, all I see this leading to is the MSHSAA format, which is already vestigial and far overdue to be scrapped, becoming that much more entrenched with coaches who may have otherwise eventually been convinced to abandon it because of the quality of questions. The issues in Missouri are not solely those of question quality, but also those of format, distribution, schedules (the state chapionship has 3 preliminary games which are randomly assigned without any attempt to use a pool or a swiss pair, even, and then the top 4 seeded teams advance to a single elimination bracket, leaving the "best team in the state" crowned after only 5 rounds, to emphasize to you one of the hilarious ways that MSHSAA botches the state series schedule horrendously), and excess rules, and the only issue that most coaches were becoming sensitive to of late is question quality. If the question quality is so awful that coaches stop taking the MSHSAA seriously, then I think more of them will be willing to seriously reconsider all of those other issues. Instead, with the question quality no longer being obviously unacceptable to most local coaches, who have hardly played pyramidal quizbowl, I strongly predict that any attempts to fix all the other areas will be indefinitely put on ice, because those are the "traditional" ways things are done and most coaches do not question MSHSAA policies. I have been told that NAQT hopes to be able to exert their influence over the MSHSAA in a larger way in the future, but I can tell NAQT right now that unless they are to get themselves in a position where they are the only company to bid on the sets year in and year out, and they then take a hard line stance and refuse to bid on the set unless MSHSAA overhauls all of their quizbowl structure, these things will probably never change now.

Most of us may agree with Chuq's desire to see a Bolshevik-style overhaul of MSHSAA's role in Academic Competition, but this moderate here thinks it might work out anyway.

As noted above, NAQT budgets that the inclusion of MSHSAA's playoffs will use up all their IS packets for the year in Missouri. At last check, only one tournament using NAQT questions last year shuffled them around for a modified MSHSAA format. The rest were straight NAQT. Unless NAQT intend on expanding the number of IS packets or doing the diluting for tournaments, then the majority of tournaments in Missouri using NAQT questions will be in proper NAQT format. And coaches wanting to know how the NAQT questions work will either have to their their teams to a tournament that either uses NAQT questions in NAQT format or a similar product that is (with apologies to programs that are writing questions in-house, but merely for the sake of embellishing the quality of NAQT) a cheap imitator. And unless they want nothing but rapid-fire questions as a way to keep their kids from tipping cows or smashing mailboxes all weekend, then they're going to realize how inherently superior the pyramidal format is. That, I believe, is what NAQT is hoping for.

Chuq has one aspect spot on: issues with question quality are the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the issues with how MSHSAA determines a state champion. Problem, though, is that it's the same playoff structure used in nearly every other team competition in the state. And it has shown problems in other sports. One only needs to look at Class 6 Football in Kansas City to see how lousy strict geo-districting is. Despite constantly being ranked top 10 throughout the year, Rockhurst, Blue Springs, or Blue Springs South have to face each other in sectionals. Even if the teams are one-two in the polls and are both 11-0, having obliterated everyone in their path, they wind up meeting each other in sectionals, and only one of these powerhouses can make it to the next stage in the playoffs.

However, letting things fester until there's an earth-shattering upheaval isn't the best way to deal with things. Discourse and consensus must prevail, followed by getting the strength in numbers needed to make it impossible for MSHSAA to ignore or dismiss such a claim. And it must be done to ensure the highest quality for the most people, not for the elite few who live and breathe only quiz bowl. We should start a brainstorming thread to devise and discuss the most ideal playoff system or systems.


Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:32 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 20, 2010
Posts: 68
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
L-Town Expatriate wrote:
This sounds like IS sets—those used at tournaments all around the nations—will be divvied up for this. Is NAQT making sure that these packets aren't being used within a 250-mile radius of the state's borders? While it's interesting (and perhaps fitting) to see MSHSAA's tournament treated as though it's a run-of-the-mill invitational, it'll be asking for trouble if this winds up being overlooked. Not saying that it will happen, though, but you never know.


These sets will be used at several tournaments within 250 miles of the Missouri border. (For instance: IS #97A is our first projected conversion; it is being used at Western Kentucky, Springfield-Decatur, and Oklahoma State.) We plan on informing these hosts that they should not invite Missouri teams to their tournaments. A Missouri team that does play an out-of-state tournament using one of these sets will not be permitted to attend districts (because they have heard the questions before).


Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:41 am
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010
Posts: 261
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
ashkenaziCD wrote:
Will NAQT be awarding HSNCT bids to the winner of every district tournament?


In ordering questions for our conference tournament/regular season, I was informed that our league will serve as a qualifier for the HSNCT.


Tue Oct 12, 2010 6:23 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
Well, all tournaments written by NAQT are qualifiers for nationals. My question had more to do with finding out whether NAQT was treating each district championship as an individual tournament, or whether they viewed it as simply a part of the state tournament in determining who the top 15% is (because it could theoretically mean different teams would qualify for nationals, and it would be more complex to find out one way than the other). At the MACA convention though, Chad Kubicek said that all districts would be treated as a tournament, which I think means that only each district champion would get a bid due to the small size of the districts.


Tue Oct 12, 2010 10:53 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010
Posts: 261
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
ashkenaziCD wrote:
Well, all tournaments written by NAQT are qualifiers for nationals.


Sure, what I wasn't sure about, which I didn't make clear (at all), was whether they would serve as qualifiers when the questions were written in the Missouri format. It makes sense that they would, since NAQT is still the provider, but I found it worth noting for anybody purchasing Missouri-style NAQT questions.

But again, I wasn't clear in specifying that we were buying Missouri format.


Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: NAQT selected as 2010-11 MSHSAA question provider
No matter the format it is my understanding that all NAQT-written tournaments (other than JV things, and maybe some other rare situations?) are national qualifiers for the HSNCT, although PACE would never give qualifier status to a MSHSAA format event.


Wed Oct 13, 2010 7:37 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Forum style by STSoftware for PTF.
Translated by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr