Team Missouri A finishes sixth in all-star tournament!
Congratulations to Team Missouri A for earning sixth place out of twenty-nine teams in the 2018 National All-Star Academic Tournament! Team Missouri B finished in nineteenth place.
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Fri Jul 20, 2018 9:56 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 
MSHSAA Rules Changes 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010
Posts: 218
Post MSHSAA Rules Changes
Hey guys,


For those of you who don't know, there has just been a somewhat major change in the MSHSAA rules -- all regular season tournaments have to follow a small subset of the rules at the MSHSAA state series. They can be found on the bottom of page 3 here (the rules which are not enumerated are the ones we have to follow. You are hopefully capable of reading, but to summarize, it means: no powers, no negs, that stupid recognition rule, and an absurd protest procedure at every tournament you play, regardless of whether it's 20/20 or MSHSAA-format or something else.

I just sent an email to MSHSAA, and the members of the Advisory Committee responsible for this change. I'm just a high school student, they probably don't care what I have to say. I was hoping everyone who reads this could send off a quick email to them as well, asking them (politely, so they can't dismiss your argument out of hand!) why they made the change and whether it is possible to reverse it -- my email doesn't mean much and yours doesn't either, but if enough people send emails, maybe they'll listen (or perhaps not). In any case, please tell every Missouri high schooler, or maybe coach, you know to email about it -- I don't have a Facebook or anything so presumably you can spread the word better than I can. It doesn't have to be long (I've already made basically every point that I think can be made in my email, all you gotta do is sort of jump on the bandwagon!), so do it!

The email address MSHSAA lists is email@mshsaa.org

For the AdCo members, I have their email addresses; if you would like them please email me at igoroogenflagenstein@gmail.com -- I've been told it'd be best not to just paste their names here.


Thanks everyone!

Also I'll copy the emails I sent to MSHSAA and the AdCo members in my next post, if you want to read them. Feel free to rip off any ideas or something from them, but don't just straight-up copy -- better to have a short original thing.


Last edited by Mewto55555 on Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.



Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010
Posts: 218
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Email sent to MSHSAA:

Quote:
Hello,

I am writing about a recent change in the Scholar Bowl rules; I apologize if this is not the proper email address to send such things to (if so, it would be greatly appreciated if you could let me know what the address is).


My name is Max Schindler; I'm a senior at Ladue and the captain of our Scholar Bowl/”quizbowl” team. Yesterday, I was apprised of a rules change for Scholar Bowl -- on the bottom of page 3 of the Scholar Bowl rules book it notes that:


The SCHOLAR BOWL RULES are applicable for the regular season, as well as the District and State Series, with the following exceptions. The areas of Scholar Bowl competition listed below may be modified or not used during the regular season by event hosts after majority consent of participating teams. All participating teams must be apprised of any rules modifications in advance of the event.


This is, I believe, a marked change from last year, when regular season events could have far more leeway in setting appropriate, tournament-specific rules (though obviously basic rules, like eligibility and not playing tournaments in September) were followed. However, many of the rules now being forced upon regular season tournaments range from rather silly to downright detrimental to running a tournament well. Many of the rules, too, deviate from what has become the norm for quizbowl in the rest of the country -- while it's understandable for the MSHSAA State Series to have its own format and set of rules, the many nationally competitive teams in Missouri (5 schools had teams make it to the playoffs of NAQT's national championship last year) also prefer to play tournaments as similar to nationals as possible to prep better.

My analysis comes from being on one of the best teams in Missouri and from my experience directing multiple tournaments attended and loved by dozens of teams; I recognize that there are a number of other perspectives throughout the state possibly different from mine and that these must also be taken into account when setting rules -- this is just all the more reason to allow for more flexibility, so that everyone can be happy. Any generalizations I make (like references "most" or "almost all" tournaments) are derived from my experience at the fantastically run MOQBA tournaments I've been to, which are run under the 20/20 format, similar to the rest of the tournaments in the country and respected national tournaments; having never attended a MSHSAA-format tournament outside of the state series I know nothing of what they are like.


Anyway, the following rules are not listed, and therefore, unable to be modified -- I have included my thoughts on possible problems/reasons to allow flexibility for each rule (for many of the rules, I don’t feel they are modified often enough to warrant commentary on my part, so I just wrote something to the effect of “this is fine;” that said, there’s really no real reason to insist they be followed to the letter if a tournament director deems a slight alteration expedient):

A: Defines Scholar Bowl; this is neither actually a rule nor problematic.

C-1- a through d: This is perhaps the most unfortunate of the rules which are necessitated. I strongly urge that all of these be made able to be changed for regular seasons at a tournament director's (henceforth "TD") discretion. I'll lay out the problems for each sub-heading:

a. This rule is about points and timing. It stipulates that all tossups be worth 10 points. However, many question providers who supply sets for pyramidal 20/20 tournaments (including NAQT, the question provider also for the MSHSAA-format state tournament) have powermarks in their set to reward deeper knowledge -- these confer a (typically) 5 point bonus to the 10 points already awarded for a correct answer (so 15 total for a correct buzz). Also, many tournaments choose to include "negs", a 5 point penalty for an incorrect buzz prior to the end of the question. I see no reason why the TD should not be able to run a regular season tournament in this manner, should the teams agree. As for the timing rules, many tournaments simply use 5 seconds for everything -- 5 seconds to buzz after a tossup ends, up to 5 seconds to answer, 5 seconds to confer on a bonus -- again, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

b. This rule is about recognition. At regular season tournaments I've been to which lacked this rule, all a player had to do was look at their buzzer -- if it was lit up, then they obviously were the first to buzz and don't need a spotter to tell them to answer. Should someone blurt out the answer when another player buzzed, they could just be negged for conferring and penalized that way. There is no reason to penalize someone who buzzes first and says the right answer. Also, this rule has devastating consequences for the way tournaments are run -- should it be mandatory, it will probably necessitate another staffer in each room, unnecessarily restricting the sizes of tournament fields for want of enough staff.

c. This is a decent rule (although timing practices should, again, be able to be changed), though it doesn't appear to allow for a the 5-point neg penalty, should TD's want it.

d. This is again fine, except for the timing.

f. This is fine.

C2a. Conferring and deferring -- Many tournaments (including nationals) use the rule that anyone on the team may direct an answer to a moderator, even if (s)he is not the captain. This saves the trouble and unnecessary declarations of officially deferring while still maintaining its functionality; the moderator can then just ask the captain what the team's answer is, if it's at all unclear (though in practice it almost never is unclear). This isn't a huge deal, but it'd be nice to have the option.

C3. This is fine.

E. This is also fine.

F. This is mostly fine. However, TDs should have the option to make subs only allowable at the half or before overtime -- if teams sub in the middle of halves, it can slow the game down a lot, and make it harder for stats entry.

G. Protests: The intent of this rule is very good, however, it still should be modifiable due to primarily three issues. First, the hassle of filling out a protest form is often unnecessary -- in almost all cases protests can be verbally relayed to the moderator and then verbally relayed to a protest judge/committee without there being a problem (e.g. "Player answered X at Y point in the question and insists it was correct at that point" is hard to relay poorly), and if there's a problem it can always be written down on an ad hoc piece of paper. Secondly, not all protests necessarily need to be reviewed. If a protest wouldn't alter the outcome of the game (say, a 10 pt swing on a bonus in a 500 point blowout), it's silly to hold up the game while waiting for them to be evaluated. As is often the practice, moderators can just say "protest noted, we'll look into it if it matters," mark it, and go on with the game, saving everyone time and making tournaments run faster. Lastly, the two wrong protests per game limit is not necessary -- if obviously frivolous protests are being made, the moderator can easily halt that, and, if it matters to a game, every issue should be resolved. However, on well-written sets like NAQT's, this rarely comes into practice (though I have less-than-fond memories of a Questions Galore-provided packet at 2010 State which had at least 3 blatant errors). Overall, I think TDs should be able to decide what protest rules to employ to make their tournament run well.

J. Many of these are very good (though if I heard about a coach giving answers to his team at one of my tournaments, I'd kick him out not just of the game room, but the entire tournament, and tell him never to return!), though I am a bit bemused by #3's reference to hats -- one of my teammates is very fond of his completely inoffensive fedora; if no one in the room has objections to the wearing of hats inside, why can't he wear it?


In any case, a general rule of flexibility should be allowed for -- if deviations from the rules of MSHSAA Districts/States are noted in tournament announcements, as they almost always are, teams should be allowed to self-select. I have no problem with a tournament on the other side of the state using slightly different rules than one I attend, especially on generally trivial matters like timing, points scored on tossups, or protest procedure.


Also, a question arising from the rules: Are the introductions of sections B and C modifiable? I can only assume they are, as B makes references to 4 quarters, despite many tournaments running games in halves, not quarters, and similarly, C references two-part bonuses when many tournaments run 3-part ones, (and of course, the 50 tossup, 20 bonus format of MSHSAA is listed in the modifiable C-5 section), but I just wanted to check.


Thanks in advance for your explanation of why this change occurred!


-Max Schindler

PS: I was also a tad confused at the mention of regular season in the Scholar Bowl manual, which on the bottom of page 3 notes that:

“The Scholar Bowl Rules (as published separately in the “Rules Book and Duties of Officials”) shall govern District and State Series play. The use of this format and these rules during the regular season is strongly recommended to all schools”

This seems to indicate none of these rules are unalterable, and I was wondering which of the two manuals overrides the other (I assume the “rules book” supersedes the “manual,” but if I’m mistaken please correct me). If my assumption is correct, then it may be prudent to correct the misleading language in the manual.


and, very similar email sent to AdCo members:

Quote:
Hello,


My name is Max Schindler; I'm a senior at Ladue and the captain of our Scholar Bowl/”quizbowl” team. I am writing about a recent change in the Scholar Bowl rules; I understand you were on the Advisory Committee that suggested it, and I was curious as to the reasoning behind it. Yesterday, I was apprised of a small change on the bottom of page 3 of the Scholar Bowl rules book, which notes that:


The SCHOLAR BOWL RULES are applicable for the regular season, as well as the District and State Series, with the following exceptions. The areas of Scholar Bowl competition listed below may be modified or not used during the regular season by event hosts after majority consent of participating teams. All participating teams must be apprised of any rules modifications in advance of the event.


This is, I believe, a marked change from last year, when regular season events could have far more leeway in setting appropriate, tournament-specific rules (though obviously basic rules, like eligibility and not playing tournaments in September) were followed. However, many of the rules now being forced upon regular season tournaments range from rather silly to downright detrimental to running a tournament well. Many of the rules, too, deviate from what has become the norm for quizbowl in the rest of the country -- while it's understandable for the MSHSAA State Series to have its own format and set of rules, the many nationally competitive teams in Missouri (5 schools had teams make it to the playoffs of NAQT's national championship last year) also prefer to play tournaments as similar to nationals as possible to prepare better.

My analysis comes from being on one of the best teams in Missouri and from my experience directing multiple tournaments attended and loved by dozens of teams; I recognize that there are a number of other perspectives throughout the state possibly different from mine and that these must also be taken into account when setting rules -- this is just all the more reason to allow for more flexibility, so that everyone can be happy. Any generalizations I make (like references "most" or "almost all" tournaments) are derived from my experience at the fantastically run MOQBA tournaments I've been to, which are run under the 20/20 format, similar to the rest of the tournaments in the country and respected national tournaments; having never attended a MSHSAA-format tournament outside of the state series I know nothing of what they are like.


Anyway, the following rules are not listed, and therefore, unable to be modified -- I have included my thoughts on possible problems/reasons to allow flexibility for each rule (for many of the rules, I don’t feel they are modified often enough to warrant commentary on my part, so I just wrote something to the effect of “this is fine;” that said, there’s really no real reason to insist they be followed to the letter if a tournament director deems a slight alteration expedient):

A: Defines Scholar Bowl; this is neither actually a rule nor problematic.

C-1- a through d: This is perhaps the most unfortunate of the rules which are necessitated. I strongly urge that all of these be made able to be changed for regular seasons at a tournament director's (henceforth "TD") discretion. I'll lay out the problems for each sub-heading:

a. This rule is about points and timing. It stipulates that all tossups be worth 10 points. However, many question providers who supply sets for pyramidal 20/20 tournaments (including NAQT, the question provider also for the MSHSAA-format state tournament) have powermarks in their set to reward deeper knowledge -- these confer a (typically) 5 point bonus to the 10 points already awarded for a correct answer (so 15 total for a correct buzz). Also, many tournaments choose to include "negs", a 5 point penalty for an incorrect buzz prior to the end of the question. I see no reason why the TD should not be able to run a regular season tournament in this manner, should the teams agree. As for the timing rules, many tournaments simply use 5 seconds for everything -- 5 seconds to buzz after a tossup ends, up to 5 seconds to answer, 5 seconds to confer on a bonus -- again, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do this.

b. This rule is about recognition. At regular season tournaments I've been to which lacked this rule, all a player had to do was look at their buzzer -- if it was lit up, then they obviously were the first to buzz and don't need a spotter to tell them to answer. Should someone blurt out the answer when another player buzzed, they could just be negged for conferring and penalized that way. There is no reason to penalize someone who buzzes first and says the right answer. Also, this rule has devastating consequences for the way tournaments are run -- should it be mandatory, it will probably necessitate another staffer in each room, unnecessarily restricting the sizes of tournament fields for want of enough staff.

c. This is a decent rule (although timing practices should, again, be able to be changed), though it doesn't appear to allow for a the 5-point neg penalty, should TD's want it.

d. This is again fine, except for the timing.

f. This is fine.

C2a. Conferring and deferring -- Many tournaments (including nationals) use the rule that anyone on the team may direct an answer to a moderator, even if (s)he is not the captain. This saves the trouble and unnecessary declarations of officially deferring while still maintaining its functionality; the moderator can then just ask the captain what the team's answer is, if it's at all unclear (though in practice it almost never is unclear). This isn't a huge deal, but it'd be nice to have the option.

C3. This is fine.

E. This is also fine.

F. This is mostly fine. However, TDs should have the option to make subs only allowable at the half or before overtime -- if teams sub in the middle of halves, it can slow the game down a lot, and make it harder for stats entry.

G. Protests: The intent of this rule is very good, however, it still should be modifiable due to primarily three issues. First, the hassle of filling out a protest form is often unnecessary -- in almost all cases protests can be verbally relayed to the moderator and then verbally relayed to a protest judge/committee without there being a problem (e.g. "Player answered X at Y point in the question and insists it was correct at that point" is hard to relay poorly), and if there's a problem it can always be written down on an ad hoc piece of paper. Secondly, not all protests necessarily need to be reviewed. If a protest wouldn't alter the outcome of the game (say, a 10 pt swing on a bonus in a 500 point blowout), it's silly to hold up the game while waiting for them to be evaluated. As is often the practice, moderators can just say "protest noted, we'll look into it if it matters," mark it, and go on with the game, saving everyone time and making tournaments run faster. Lastly, the two wrong protests per game limit is not necessary -- if obviously frivolous protests are being made, the moderator can easily halt that, and, if it matters to a game, every issue should be resolved. However, on well-written sets like NAQT's, this rarely comes into practice (though I have less-than-fond memories of a Questions Galore-provided packet at 2010 State which had at least 3 blatant errors). Overall, I think TDs should be able to decide what protest rules to employ to make their tournament run well.

J. Many of these are very good (though if I heard about a coach giving answers to his team at one of my tournaments, I'd kick him out not just of the game room, but the entire tournament, and tell him never to return!), though I am a bit bemused by #3's reference to hats -- one of my teammates is very fond of his completely inoffensive fedora; if no one in the room has objections to the wearing of hats inside, why can't he wear it?


In any case, a general rule of flexibility should be allowed for -- if deviations from the rules of MSHSAA Districts/States are noted in tournament announcements, as they almost always are, teams should be allowed to self-select. I have no problem with a tournament on the other side of the state using slightly different rules than one I attend, especially on generally trivial matters like timing, points scored on tossups, or protest procedure.


Thanks in advance for your explanation of why this change occurred!


-Max Schindler



(my emails had working hyperlinks, I'm too lazy to reformat for forums)


Fri Sep 28, 2012 7:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006
Posts: 816
Location: Not quite Baltimore. Not quite Washington, D.C.
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
I knew MSHSAA was going to pull something like this. I just knew it.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:56 pm
Profile WWW
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
To any students who are writing letters, I would strongly recommend being measured and reasoned in your writing and not letting frustration overwhelm the letter. For one thing, there are some coaches who are quite pro-pyramidal quizbowl on the advisory committee, and some coaches who are new to the advisory committee didn't even vote on this issue, so obviously, you don't want to alienate them with offputting language. Otherwise, I've heard there are more students out there who would like to voice their opinion on this, so by all means, please write about this if you have similar objections as Max.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:27 pm
Profile

Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 99
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Max, know that I am with you, and other coaches will too, once they hear about what happened. I will add that MSHSAA and the Scholar Bowl Advisory Board plans to send out a survey on game-style preferences this winter in an attempt to see what/if any adjustments need to be made. I'm confused as to why both parties would then choose to institute these changes before the results from the survey are known.

I am of the mind that, in a democracy, that we should live and let live, but that wisdom seems to be going unheeded.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:46 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5599
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
So what happens if tournaments don't follow these new rules, or moderators repeatedly forget to recognize players when they buzz? On the surface, these rules are unenforcable, unless MSHSAA intend to have officials at every tournament and then report to them Monday morning.

Max, you did an excellent job with your letters as quoted.


Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:34 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010
Posts: 261
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
I find it interesting that MSHSAA failed to mention this in its "Scholar Bowl Rules Changes" section. And that they would hand down such a drastic mandate two weeks before the start of the season.

I don't find it surprising. I find it...interesting.


Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:31 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
My other suggestion is that, if you do want to write to MSHSAA about this, send them a physical letter addressed to Stacy Schroeder, rather than an email that can easily be ignored and which goes to MSHSAA's general email account. Their address is:

PO BOX 1328
Columbia, MO 65205-1328


Sun Sep 30, 2012 7:13 pm
Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007
Posts: 501
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
"I neglected to update the phrase in the Manual after the advisory committee’s change for rules coverage. The rulebook is correct, the manual is incorrect.

Stacy Schroeder
Associate Executive Director
Missouri State High School Activities Association
573.875.4880"

This is what Ms. Camp, the former coach at Liberty was able to find out after contacting MSHSAA. It would seem that they do intend for these new rules to govern all MO high school tournaments.


Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:47 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5599
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Again, (on account of tournament descriptions not yet being updated on the MOQBA Web site, nor there an FAQ/response to this reactionary imposition) what would MSHSAA do if a tournament hosted by a member school were to stick to NAQT rules rather than kowtow to this?

On a sidenote (and I'm probably the only one who finds it worth noting), the same year they insist we do our scoring by plus-tens, they introduce one of the most complex points schemes for football district rankings. It's not difficult to add an extra five points to someone who answers a tossup correctly on a rare reference.


Wed Oct 17, 2012 9:35 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Good news! MSHSAA's official position is that powers are allowed as a format change, with them interpreting it as "Each tossup is worth 10 points and an extra 5 points is then rewarded for each power," as per their rules interpreters, who asked Stacy Schroeder.


Fri Oct 19, 2012 2:30 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5599
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
That takes the teeth out of my dentured dachshund. Excellent interpretation, and I regret not being able to make it Saturday to witness it in action.

As far as the recognition rule: from a radio broadcast/podcast standpoint, pointing doesn't generate too many of decibels. While I agree that it is redundant and often stymies the flow of a game, I would have to chalk this up as a "When in Rome" situation. With that said, is it permissible to ask coaches and teams before each match if they wish to dispense with the rule in the interests of time?


Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:33 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
L-Town Expatriate wrote:
As far as the recognition rule: from a radio broadcast/podcast standpoint, pointing doesn't generate too many of decibels.

Do we broadcast quizbowl?


Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:39 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010
Posts: 218
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
ashkenaziCD wrote:
L-Town Expatriate wrote:
As far as the recognition rule: from a radio broadcast/podcast standpoint, pointing doesn't generate too many of decibels.

Do we broadcast quizbowl?


Even if we did, god forbid the moderator have to say "that was Max who buzzed" after the fact instead of "sucks to be Max, who just got negged 5 for having the correct answer." When in this Rome, I'd want to stab Caesar.


Tue Oct 23, 2012 6:13 am
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5599
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
ashkenaziCD wrote:
L-Town Expatriate wrote:
As far as the recognition rule: from a radio broadcast/podcast standpoint, pointing doesn't generate too many of decibels.

Do we broadcast quizbowl?

Depending on whether the question set will be used again, games could be carried live. Podcasts (or tape-delayed broadcasts, back before the iPod) have been done, with NAQT having several national tournaments from years past on their Web site. That would be one reason why vocal recognition shouldn't be entirely eschewed (provided there's no commentary when announcing points.)

Otherwise, there's no problem with the mere point/glare at the guy/gal behind the lit buzzer. Hence the question if MSHSAA would throw the book if moderators asked both coaches and teams before a game if they were willing to dispense with the rule.


Tue Oct 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006
Posts: 1376
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
The deal with this is NOT necessarily that recognition is a fundamentally bad thing. It certainly has its legitimate uses.

The problem is that it shouldn't be MANDATORY.


Wed Oct 24, 2012 9:04 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011
Posts: 81
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
I feel like this is becoming the birth control argument of quiz bowl. (The sad part is that this isn't a joke.)


Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:20 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010
Posts: 218
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Nonsense, even birth control opponents have more reasonable arguments than people in this thread who have been mandatory recognition apologists.


Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011
Posts: 81
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Todd Akin: legitimate answers are always recognized.


Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009
Posts: 1638
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Wow, this is off topic. Digression over.


Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:19 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5599
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Mewto55555 wrote:
Nonsense, even birth control opponents have more reasonable arguments than people in this thread who have been mandatory recognition apologists.

So why would someone you deem a "mandatory recognition apologist" ask twice (with no answer provided as of yet) if MSHSAA would throw the book if we didn't comply with the extension of this rule? Seriously, what would MSHSAA do if a member school were to host a tournament and the director said to not bother with full recognition? Would they prevent anyone on that school's team from competing in any other MSHSAA activity, or demand NAQT and PACE not allow the school into their national tournaments?

While I regularly issue recognition as though it's for the benefit of a hypothetical listening audience keeping score at home (mind you, I work in broadcast media and have to put up with a God-awful version of quiz bowl aired here in the winter), I've no problem with there being little if any recognition. And while I believe MSHSAA have their reasons (which someone has to attempt to explain other than "idiots don't want us to have good quizbowl"; it's called being a Devil's advocate), extension of the recognition rule is unenforceable, unless they plan on having compliance minders at every tournament in the state. I seriously doubt MSHSAA will go through the trouble to penalize member schools who host tournaments that don't give full recognition.

Dogmatic opposition to this mandate is all fine and dandy, but unless you intend on screaming "Sic Semper Tyrannis" from the shoulder of Keane Street (which I do not advocate) or providing an active resistance to this and other mundane MSHSAA rules (heck, start wearing hats to tournaments), then this thread is mere sound and fury.


Wed Oct 24, 2012 11:57 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Rules Changes
Kyle, I think the thing you're missing is that we already know all the reasons behind the rule that any devil's advocate might bring up, and we don't care because the reasons are still dumb. You aren't doing any thought provoking by bringing up all these points we already have heard before.


Thu Oct 25, 2012 12:18 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Forum style by STSoftware for PTF.
Translated by Maël Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr