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 Tue Apr 24, 2018 9:13 pm



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010
Posts: 261
Post MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
At least driver's ed is gone...

Meeting Summary:
http://www.mshsaa.org/Advisory/News/17/ ... spx?id=408

Survey Results:
http://www.mshsaa.org/Activities/Info/S ... &storyid=1


Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:25 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5518
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Quote:
(tabled)4. Recommended that the Board of Directors provide an exemption for NAQT that would allow the organization to host a tournament within the borders of Missouri and invite Missouri schools (Missouri schools would represent a minority of attendees), without being required to alter their tournament rules and style (i.e. timing rules, breaks, etc.) due to the multi-state format of their rules and procedures.


Looks like NAQT was trying to locate a national tournament here?


Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:42 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006
Posts: 1361
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
The fact that they tabled that discussion is prima facie evidence that they don't seem to care about the success of Missouri quizbowl on a national scale at all. It's as if they want to live in a bubble and pretend that quizbowl doesn't exist beyond their borders - instead, what is "out there" is some kind of too-long, too-many-clues, bizarro-timing, non-curricular abomination that doesn't deserve to be associated with their clearly superior product.

The survey results are very interesting...


Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:46 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: St. Louis, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
If I had to guess I would say it was the SSNCT. Mshsaa couldn't possibly have jurisdiction over a nationals that occurred within the school year. (I doubt 2012 NSC was sanctioned, nor should it had to have been.) My overall takeaway is that there's a lot of people who have no real opinion, quite a few that feel strongly the opposite of my view, and probably just as many that do share my view. There weren't many clear majorities. I'd be curious to see a breakdown of these teams by how many events they do a year. In the meantime, the work goes on.


Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:50 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 6237
Location: In between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown (aka Johnson County, KS)
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
L-Town Expatriate wrote:
Looks like NAQT was trying to locate a national tournament here?

St. Louis would be one of the better sites for a tournament like SSNCT since there is a good concentration of small school eligible teams in states like Missouri (all public schools in classes 1 and 2, as well as a good chunk of class 3), Illinois, Ohio, and Alabama, for which St. Louis would be a much more convenient site. I assume it was held in Minneapolis because it was probably easier to get it set up with R. Hentzel living there.

Here's a map of where the SSNCT participants came from:

Image
(click map for interactive Google map)

One interesting note is that (unless I misread the location of a couple of the NY/VT schools), Minneapolis is further north than ALL of the 48 schools that attended. I would have to assume if MSP weren't a Delta hub, it would have been much less successful.

For a central location, the best sites are probably along I-70 and I-64 (or between) - St. Louis, Indianapolis, Columbus or Cincinnati, OH, or Lexington or Louisville, KY. Of those, I think St. Louis would be among the lower-priced airports for distant teams to fly into.


Wed Jul 23, 2014 7:56 pm
Profile WWW
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: St. Louis, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Plus NAQT also ran a national at the Hyatt downtown for CCNCT in 2013, and it ran pretty well so doing 50 there would be a snap.


Wed Jul 23, 2014 8:06 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5518
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Just need to keep plugging along, keep promoting, keep proselytizing. #PreachingToTheChoir #RuleOfThreePlusAlliteration


Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:36 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5518
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Also, any word on who the new advisory committee members are from KC and South Central?


Wed Jul 23, 2014 10:35 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013
Posts: 131
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
For this coach (and for my program at Fort Osage), the survey results were extremely disappointing. I took over a program that had gone to a few tournaments a year (using the "old" system of 4 quarters, Questions Galore, questions about Driver's Ed, etc.), and began implementing changes (namely, 20/20 questions, tournaments that allow you to play all day). My assistant coach and I were hopeful that the survey would push the KC-area teams into being more like St. Louis-area schools, who (by my impressions) have embraced the national format. However, I feel (maybe Chicken Little-ish) that these results will give KC-area schools more incentive to stick with the old way of doing things, instead of embracing high-quality Quiz Bowl.
When we qualified for Nationals in 2013 and went to the PACE tournament in Maryland, we were extremely out of our element. We had a great time and enjoyed the experience, but, my students all agreed that had we been playing 20/20 questions earlier, we would not have finished dead last out of 72 teams. My goal for Fort Osage is that WHEN (not if) we qualify again for Nationals, we will be much better prepared! For that reason, we had a team meeting at the end of last school year, and discussed the upcoming season. EVERY student wanted to go to tournaments featuring high-quality questions, not play-your-3-games-before-lunch-and-hope-you-don't-get-a-poor-draw-type tournament (which the KC-area has a large majority of). As L-Town said, we just need to keep plugging away...

Thanks for listening to my extended rant...and hopefully changes will come...FOSB


Thu Jul 24, 2014 12:24 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: St. Louis, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Josh, I highly encourage you to register for WUHSAC then.


Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:10 pm
Profile
Online

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009
Posts: 1630
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Every state that has undergone significant positive reform in the past few years (Alabama, Illiniois (at least with respect to the format), Virginia, etc.) also had false starts such as these disappointing survey results. We're definitely on the right track although it may take a little longer to get there.


Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:42 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 1843
Location: St. Louis, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
And if we took this survey 5 years ago, it would have been really dispiriting.


Thu Jul 24, 2014 4:46 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
I agree with Jason and Sean. This survey both shows how far Missouri has progressed, and just how much more work needs to be done. Before MOQBA was founded, so few teams even grasped what "national-style" quizbowl was that the old format surveys would have made many readers here cringe, and whenever truly good quizbowl was run, it was an aberration that lots of coaches hated sitting through. The fact that there are actually 31% of respondents asking for MSHSAA to adopt the national style format is a massive sea change, and if the people who understand how much more rewarding pyramidal quizbowl is keep promoting their version of the game, I don't think it would be even another 5 years before you could get over 50% of respondents to consistently clamor for the right kinds of changes to the state format.

All I can really say here is that it's more important than ever for the allies of pyramidal quizbowl to double down on hosting good tournaments, working hard to convince new teams to attend said tournaments, and then working to convince those teams to dedicate themselves more seriously to preparing for pyramidal quizbowl. That was always the bread-and-butter of MOQBA when I was a member, and now that I've moved on all I can do is call for other people to step up and help shoulder just a little of that burden.

Specifically to you Josh, don't despair! The fact that there is more than 1 coach in Kansas City who actively prefers pyramidal quizbowl (and even more importantly, at least 3 tournaments each year that run on pyramidal questions!) is all the hope you need to cling to. I don't know how feasible it is for you to increase your hosting calendar by one tournament, but really, right now what Kansas City most desperately needs is just to be forcefed as many good tournaments as possible. When I was in Columbia, the key ingredient for good quizbowl to take hold was Mizzou being willing to host between 3-5 tournaments every year. Yes, we still had to sometimes nudge attending teams in the right direction to make sure they fully understood what they were doing, but we couldn't have done that without giving them a real-world reason to care (namely, our increasingly large, well-run tournaments). Once teams got enough exposure, the dominoes quickly fell and now Hallsville, Hickman, Rock Bridge, Helias, Jefferson City, Centralia, and who knows who else in the area are willing to run good tournaments, and Central Missouri is one of the most legitimate local circuits in the country. Kansas City is no different - MOQBA failed there simply because we only had one school in the city willing to consistently host anything, and they didn't have the resources to host more than 2 (perfectly fine) events each year. I guarantee you if Kansas City can have five good tournaments in the next year, you will start to see real changes, because in my experience, the fight you face in Kansas City is not really against entrenched quizbowl preferences, but rather simply against inertia from the vast bulk of coaches there who just do not seem to care all that much about quizbowl.

Good luck to everybody! I hope this season ends up having even more tournaments than before, and more new teams than ever before playing good quizbowl! I have faith!


Wed Aug 27, 2014 3:06 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006
Posts: 4134
Location: Columbia, MO
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Separately, I think the following points of attack should be pursued by people who care about these kinds of things after reading the rules and the survey.

1) I found the wording of many of the survey questions to be very poorly and inaccurately written so as to obviously bias the answers. They kept asking respondents to answer things about whether they thought it was better for more "questions" to be included in games. Of course anybody is going to think that more "questions" is a good thing! The issue at stake is not that there are "too many/few" questions in any particular format, but rather, whether it would be better to have more TOSSUPS. If you count each tossup AND each bonus part (i.e., every chance to score points) as a single "question," then 20/20 ACF Format leaves you with 80 "questions," and MSHSAA format leaves you with 90. That's still a difference, but it's a far cry from the "20 vs. 50" dichotomy that this survey presents. So the argument should then be addressed in the following way: should we shift more points in each game into the bonuses in order to better reward teamwork and depth of knowledge, and is the tradeoff of those 10 "questions" worth giving hosts the ability to add 4-5 more games to a schedule in the same amount of time as it takes to play 5 tossup-heavy MSHSAA games? What if you make up for the loss in points by offering powers, which brings it back to 900 points? Obviously to me the answer of those questions is a resounding "yes," and I think these are easy points to sell, especially when you combine them with discussing just how on earth the ridiculous MSHSAA schedules are generated in the first place. Really, how on earth did they come up with those ridiculous randomly assigned 3-game prelim formats? They make no logical sense and produce incredibly unfair results, and if you shifted this format, you could instead VERY easily run complete round robins at both districts and state in the span of 7 games. All you have to do is think for about 2 seconds to realize the obvious superiority of every team at state playing every other team compared to the current regime.

2) It shows astoundingly poor judgement, callous disinterest in the well-being of this game that they are tasked to promote, especially among the most disadvantaged schools, and egomania that MSHSAA would not approve a Missouri-hosted national championship for small schools that are often some of the poorest, most disadvantaged student bodies out there, and who make up OVER HALF of MSHSAA's audience. The reigning champion is a team from Missouri that is poised to repeat their title, and there are undoubtedly dozens of other local teams who would love to play the SSNCT, and who would derive great benefits from the tournament, and who could actually raise the money to attend if all they have to do is drive to St. Louis for the weekend! In what universe would anybody who wants to give students the best possible options to excel academically think that banning this tournament is an acceptable decision? And the notion that MSHSAA should be allowed to exercise oversight over a national organization's tournament, much less hijack the rules of a national championship, is a jaw dropping demonstration of their delusions about their role as a facilitator of the game. If I were a small school coach, I would be out in front of their offices holding signs and yelling together until they reopen the discussion and immediately approve it the rule change. This is beyond ridiculous and could only make them look bad were anybody to bother bringing it up to the press and the legislature.


Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:48 am
Profile

Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005
Posts: 55
Location: TJ (Joplin)
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
As someone who was involved in the discussion on the advisory committee but is 100% in favor of good quiz bowl in Missouri, let me just mention the following:

1) I agree that the survey approached the major issues for Missouri in the wrong way. A couple of us managed to insert the wording "national format" rather than the original "NAQT format" even though a majority of the Advisory Board seems indifferent that there is a fairly homogeneous national standard in place for quiz bowl, which looks nothing like MSHSAA format. I also pushed for a "no preference" option on most questions as I felt that many coaches would simply not be familiar with any format but MSHSAA's. But, of course, the problem has never been "there are too many/few XXX questions," it has been that Missouri state format simply fails to align with any other legitimate structure.

2) There is still much conflict over whether MSHSAA's Scholar Bowl activity is meant to align to a state curriculum or whether it is a comprehensive knowledge bowl competition as is typical throughout the country. Again, I can't help but think that a severe lack of information on the part of many coaches has led to the perception that quiz bowl is a school-, conference-, or state-based activity, rather than a nationally recognized competition.

3) There is certainly an air of condescension on the committee, in the sense that most members seem to be pushing for "easier" questions for "most teams" and not " those hard pyramid questions," regardless of how many times the basic structure of the pyramidal question is explained to them.

In short, there is an inevitable resistance to any change in the Missouri format. In time, and as high-quality quiz bowl tournaments become more prevalent and more accessible in Missouri, I believe that MSHSAA will adapt. I can't help but recognize the improvements in the current format from just 7-8 years ago when I was participating, and I hope that this will continue to be the trend.


Sun Aug 31, 2014 11:52 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5518
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Nate Kinast wrote:
2) There is still much conflict over whether MSHSAA's Scholar Bowl activity is meant to align to a state curriculum or whether it is a comprehensive knowledge bowl competition as is typical throughout the country. Again, I can't help but think that a severe lack of information on the part of many coaches has led to the perception that quiz bowl is a school-, conference-, or state-based activity, rather than a nationally recognized competition.

I'm going to throw out this rhetorical question:
If Scholar Bowl is suppose to conform to Missouri's curriculum standards, why does DESE have no say in how the activity's run?


Mon Sep 01, 2014 3:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004
Posts: 4379
Location: Ozark, Missouri
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
Nate Kinast wrote:
3) There is certainly an air of condescension on the committee, in the sense that most members seem to be pushing for "easier" questions for "most teams" and not " those hard pyramid questions," regardless of how many times the basic structure of the pyramidal question is explained to them.


This, at least, ought to be easy to disprove. One look at how much higher the scores are at districts and state since NAQT started writing them should put to rest the notion that the pyramidal questions are "harder."


Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:24 pm
Profile WWW
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5518
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
DeckardCain wrote:
Nate Kinast wrote:
3) There is certainly an air of condescension on the committee, in the sense that most members seem to be pushing for "easier" questions for "most teams" and not " those hard pyramid questions," regardless of how many times the basic structure of the pyramidal question is explained to them.


This, at least, ought to be easy to disprove. One look at how much higher the scores are at districts and state since NAQT started writing them should put to rest the notion that the pyramidal questions are "harder."

To paraphrase a certain former coach: questions are hard if you don't know the answer. Or perhaps more aptly, questions are hard if the other team gets it first because they read the whole book and not just the bite-sized summary put together by Patrick's Press.


Mon Sep 01, 2014 8:45 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010
Posts: 261
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
The things I hear:

1) I can't get my kids to travel. On a Saturday? Please!

2) I don't want my kids to get discouraged because they lose.

3) Well, __________ High School has always been good.

4) ___________ is just going to win State anyway.

5) We lost to you on 20/20, but beat you on MSHSAA, sooo...

6) I'm going to have to play ___________? They're class four!

And I wish each one came from distinct individuals, but they don't. It's a chorus of this stuff when I talk to coaches in the northeast.


Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:29 pm
Profile
Online
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 5518
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Post Re: MSHSAA Advisory Decision and Survey Results
CentraliaCoach wrote:
The things I hear:

3) Well, __________ High School has always been good.

4) ___________ is just going to win State anyway.

6) I'm going to have to play ___________? They're class four!

And I wish each one came from distinct individuals, but they don't. It's a chorus of this stuff when I talk to coaches in the northeast.


If a Class One football coach said "Valle Catholic" in blanks 3 & 4 and "Webb City" in blank 6, there'd be an interim coach on the sideline next Friday night. You build character by taking on the Valle Catholics and Webb Cities of your activity, not by shirking them and only playing Parks & Rec teeball.


Mon Sep 15, 2014 11:36 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 MaĆ«l Soucaze © 2010 phpBB.fr