Looking for practice material?

Find thousands of free archived packets for practice and study from the Quizbowl Packet Archive!

WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Tournament announcements, results, and discussion about specific tournaments.
User avatar
socalcaptain
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:00 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by socalcaptain »

Where should I park tomorrow?

User avatar
OakvilleHSCoach
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2009 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by OakvilleHSCoach »

There are some parking lots on Skinker/Forsyth/Hoyt drive. See map here:

http://www.wustl.edu/community/visitors ... rthmap.pdf

Lab Sciences building is building 57.

On Saturdays you do not need a permit to park in these areas. I only know this because I proctor the ACT and SAT at Wash U on Saturdays.

User avatar
scphilli
Posts: 2097
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:00 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by scphilli »

One quick add on to what Coach Carter said, make sure you do not park in a red zone. Those are enforced on weekends. Yellow zones and meters (the overwhelming majority of the parking) are not checked on weekends.

User avatar
octo
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by octo »

I'll be tweeting our scores as usual. http://www.twitter.com/octothegreat

User avatar
Jeffrey Hill
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 12:00 am
Location: In between the bright lights and the far unlit unknown (aka Johnson County, KS)
Contact:

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Jeffrey Hill »

Just got into St. Louis. Looking forward to a great day of quizbowl tomorrow! If I remember I'll post updates to http://twitter.com/moquizbowl

User avatar
L-Town Expatriate
Posts: 6910
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Contact:

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by L-Town Expatriate »

I've brought my recording equipment up to record matches. You'll already recognise me as the relatively geriatric goofball wearing Clint Dempsey's Fulham jersey, but the studio headphones might also give me away. :P

User avatar
Machina
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Machina »

Good luck to all!! I'll be eagerly awaiting the results in the Ozarks...

User avatar
socalcaptain
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:00 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by socalcaptain »

Finals are currently happening. The four teams in the finals are, with their "carry-over" advantages:

Ladue (1-0)
Northmont (0-1)
Carbondale (1-0)
Rock Bridge A (0-1)

Some good gameplay all day! It was fun to work!

User avatar
Mewto55555
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Mewto55555 »

In superplayoffs,

Northmont beat Ladue
Carbondale beat Rock Bridge

Carbondale beat Ladue
Northmont beat Rock Bridge

At that point it was Carbondale (3-0), Northmont (2-1), Ladue (1-2), Rock Bridge (0-3). Northmont and Carbondale were supposed to play off an advantaged final, but I think Northmont just left (we left the room before the discussion concluded though so I'm not sure).

Also, Dees is good at indoor snowball ambush :(

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

Mewto55555 wrote:
At that point it was Carbondale (3-0), Northmont (2-1), Ladue (1-2), Rock Bridge (0-3). Northmont and Carbondale were supposed to play off an advantaged final, but I think Northmont just left (we left the room before the discussion concluded though so I'm not sure).
This is indeed accurate--congratulations to Carbondale for winning WUHSAC XIII, and to all four of our superplayoff teams for their fine performance! Thank you very much to everyone who joined us today for WUHSAC, especially our wonderful staff, and we hope you all had an enjoyable tournament!

Statistics will be forthcoming within the next couple of weeks.

User avatar
dividebyzero
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Near East St. Louis

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by dividebyzero »

Just to get a different perspective on the tournament, from a player's standpoint how did the tournament go? [enjoyability, smoothness of operation, questions, and whatever else]
I have a bit of a view of what was good and bad from the organizing/staffing side, but I was just curious as to how you guys who played in the tournament felt about it.

bruins4life
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 2:56 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by bruins4life »

All in all, this was an excellent learning experience for my players with the highest level of competition (outside of nationals) that I've seen in my five years coaching. No set is ever perfect this one had a couple of odd giveways per set, but I felt that the better team almost always won the match--which cannot be said with most MSHSAA sets. Beyond that, I saw many well-played and close matches in the afternoon rounds, which is exactly what we all want. RB's A team, had two matches that went down to the last question. So hats off to all of the tourney organizers and to all of the great MOQBA volunteers that are making Scholar Bowl such a stimulating and challenging experience for the students.
Last edited by bruins4life on Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mewto55555
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Mewto55555 »

The tournament itself was excellently run. The free lunch and shirts was a nice touch, and after a brief hitch at the beginning, all the games I played ran smoothly and on time. For the most part, the questions were excellent. In particular, I loved the non-computational math, which, as a player strong in math, I found much more stimulating and fun to play than the computational variety; hopefully more of the Missouri circuit takes this path in the future.

However, there were some minor issues with the set, like an answer being repeated multiple times (in consecutive rounds no less!), an incorrect bonus answer, some questions which were immediately transparent, and a few horrendously easy leadins (in comparison) which should have been near the end or second-to-last line of the question, the number of which seemed to grow as the rounds went on (notably including a giveaway clue in the first line during our round with Northmont). I'm not discussing specifics here due to the upcoming mirrors, but if one of the WUSTL people wants me to, I can tell them some of the things that I noticed for editing purposes.

Hopefully the above doesn't come across as too critical; I really enjoyed this tournament, and some great matches, both with the usual Missouri contingent and the out-of-town teams who came. Hats off especially to Carbondale and Northmont, who were amazing and let us know just how much work we still have to do, and thanks to WUSTL for running such a great event.

User avatar
octo
Posts: 209
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 6:45 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by octo »

This was my first WUHSAC, so I have no idea what previous iterations were like, and so I cannot compare the quality of this set to that of previous sets--in particular, the removal of computational math was certainly a plus. However, the questions frequently suffered from a preponderance of relatively useless biographical clues rather than actual works or actions in the case of tossups on specific persons, random too-hard bonuses or bonus parts, and on a less important note, annoying attempts at humor in bonus leadins. While the tournament was certainly still enjoyable as a whole, correcting these issues in the next WUHSAC would definitely allow the set to more accurately distinguish between the most talented teams in attendance.

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

Mewto55555 wrote:I'm not discussing specifics here due to the upcoming mirrors, but if one of the WUSTL people wants me to, I can tell them some of the things that I noticed for editing purposes.
All attendees and staff are welcome to email us at washuqb@gmail.com with suggestions for what we can fix before our mirrors.

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

Also, teams interested in copies of the set are also free to email us at washuqb@gmail.com. We will be editing (not to mention correctly randomizing) the set before mirrors, but anyone is welcome to ask us for a copy of the set we used yesterday, a copy of the edited set (once it's done), or both.

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

Just to clarify, anyone can ask for a copy of the packet, including players.

cchval
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by cchval »

The only thing I'd have to add as a possible change in the future would be elimination of painfully easy bonus parts. I know there has to be an easy one, but there were a couple that really didn't require any knowledge. Mixing that with some very difficult ones made it a recurring situation where one team could easily 30 a bonus after the other team only gets 10 (with 0 on the rebound) on the previous question. Aside from that and what Max and Sam said, I thought the tournament was well organized and an overall good experience.

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

cchval wrote:The only thing I'd have to add as a possible change in the future would be elimination of painfully easy bonus parts. I know there has to be an easy one, but there were a couple that really didn't require any knowledge. Mixing that with some very difficult ones made it a recurring situation where one team could easily 30 a bonus after the other team only gets 10 (with 0 on the rebound) on the previous question. Aside from that and what Max and Sam said, I thought the tournament was well organized and an overall good experience.
Some of the bonus parts were very easy, but those were meant to be coupled with more difficult middle and/or hard parts to keep average conversion around 15 PPB. More importantly, we were also shooting for 90% conversion of as many easy parts as possible, something which most tournaments (at least at this level) preach but few actually implement. Thus, given this goal, it's hardly surprising that some of the easy parts would have been painfully easy for the strongest teams.

Obviously, of course, bonus difficulty should have been consistent, but I feel that's a separate issue from our having easy bonuses, and more related to our time constraints.

User avatar
Charlie Dees
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charlie Dees »

Some of the bonus parts were very easy, but those were meant to be coupled with more difficult middle and/or hard parts to keep average conversion around 15 PPB
This is not at all the proper way to go about handling bonus difficulty, since it of course is what creates bonuses of variable difficulty. Also, a goal of getting high easy part conversion is great, but here is in fact a limit to it - asking a bonus where, to make up an example, the easy part is "name this son of the Virgin Mary" and then asking another part where the bonus has a normal easy part that does require some more substantial knowledge to get means you are hurting the team that doesn't get the extra-easy parts. I know appropriate-difficulty bonuses is a good goal, but there is a limit to which ease turns into inordinately helping whichever team gets lucky and hits on the bonus that effectively requires no knowledge to get points on. If you are going to ask about those kinds of answers, they need to be presented in a way that makes them more uniform with the rest of the set.

Sam is right on, and the preponderance of biography/meaningless clues has always been a really huge, systemic issue at every WUHSAC I've played or read. People haven't really complained about it in the past because the games were between weaker teams where those sorts of things affected the outcome less, and also the players in the past were less used to any good quizbowl so they didn't have the experience to key into that being frustrating (I did, however, bring it up in my complaints as a player, but they obviously were ignored). Now things are wildly different, so Wash U really needs to modernize and implement a very strict policy in the future about not letting writers include biography clues beyond things that very obviously tie into stuff that is important about the answer. Knowing about how Oe had a handicapped child can be important because he wrote about people with handicapped children, but writing a tossup on a very famous poet that only names a single (quite obscure) title and also includes a vague reference to another group of his works, while otherwise filling up a paragraph about that poet's biography is an unacceptably poor tossup for a tournament like this.

There were certainly misplaced clues, but there will be anywhere, so the clunkers that were scattered throughout, especially the ones in the superplayoffs, are hopefully going to be minimized but I know Wash U wasn't writing those things wrong because of a real flaw in the process other than imperfect knowledge of what's well known, so I wouldn't spend much time worrying about that. It was sort of concerning that the quality of the set clearly decreased over the course of the day - I felt the prelims were very well made, appropriate packets, and then as the playoffs and especially superplayoffs went on things quickly got a lot messier, with things like a tossup that didn't even have all its clues fully written out (since it bracketed what clues were supposed to be inserted). I hope in the future of course that the set will be made at a more consistently high quality across the day, but if that ends up not happening it would be much better for Wash U to make sure the most important rounds of the day are determined by the most polished packets, since there were some questionable outcomes of the close superplayoff rounds due to the vagaries of the poorer questions of those packets.

I did think this set was good apart from the above. Most importantly, Carbondale was able to show that they were clearly the best team in this field because they were doing so much better than everybody else on the good questions and were winning by such wide margins over the top teams. The only other quick things I would like to critique are that I felt the use of the word "author" to describe people composing music is a really poor choice, because even though it is a word that technically can mean that, most players have never heard it used in that context before (since most players don't even know anything about music to begin with), and also to point out that when you have a bonus part, you can't have it say "the equation" and have that be a substitute for the phrase "this equation." If you are asking for something, "the" does not indicate at all that you are asking for it to players, which meant that the questions written as such effectively were not asking questions. I edited those as I read, but many moderators don't know to, and if you drive home to your writers to never write that way that will solve another problem pretty fast.

I'm looking forward to staffing next year and seeing an even better set. I want to see Missouri teams do even better next time around.
Last edited by Charlie Dees on Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Charlie Dees
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charlie Dees »

Also, which randomizer was it that did such a horrid job? I would like whoever wrote it to be told to take it down since it did more to hurt the set than help it.

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

ashkenaziCD wrote:
Some of the bonus parts were very easy, but those were meant to be coupled with more difficult middle and/or hard parts to keep average conversion around 15 PPB
This is not at all the proper way to go about handling bonus difficulty, since it of course is what creates bonuses of variable difficulty.
To clarify, we did what I said in order to make up for the fact that some answers didn't have ultra-easy bonus parts...
ashkenaziCD wrote: Also, a goal of getting high easy part conversion is great, but here is in fact a limit to it - asking a bonus where, to make up an example, the easy part is "name this son of the Virgin Mary" and then asking another part where the bonus has a normal easy part that does require some more substantial knowledge to get means you are hurting the team that doesn't get the extra-easy parts.
...and to avoid precisely this issue.

ashkenaziCD wrote: Sam is right on, and the preponderance of biography/meaningless clues has always been a really huge, systemic issue at every WUHSAC I've played or read.
We're working on this, and I can assure you that the large number of useless clues were neither intentional nor considered acceptable; we will do a better job for next year.
ashkenaziCD wrote: It was sort of concerning that the quality of the set clearly decreased over the course of the day - I felt the prelims were very well made, appropriate packets, and then as the playoffs and especially superplayoffs went on things quickly got a lot messier
I think we didn't realize how many of the clunkers there were, and thus simply put good questions in the early rounds with the expectation that there would be more good questions for the later ones. To be honest, I'm not sure what exactly caused this beyond that.
ashkenaziCD wrote: Also, which randomizer was it that did such a horrid job?
I used Mike Bentley's QuestionMixer, but I made a mistake in how I used it, which was why we had such horrendous issues. That will be fixed (as well as the above issues) for mirrors (and obviously for next year).

In any case, thank you very much for the commentary, and we'll definitely keep it in mind for next year. We welcome any other comments that other people may have.

User avatar
Charlie Dees
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charlie Dees »

Charles, intentionally making some middle and hard parts of bonuses harder than usual in an attempt to "balance out" the distribution is wrongheaded, and it doesn't at all address the issue I brought up. You seem to not understand that, just because it creates an aggregate effect of bonuses "balancing out," the averaging out of bonus difficulty is not the goal, but rather to have individual bonuses be as consistent as possible, given the constraints of answer selection. Just because across the board it works out, it doesn't mean that writing bonuses that way won't also screw over individual teams playing them in matches, especially the close, important playoff ones.

User avatar
L-Town Expatriate
Posts: 6910
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2004 12:00 am
Location: Riding a Mule down the Katy Trail to the State Fair
Contact:

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by L-Town Expatriate »

Chuq is right. Because the number of bonii read are contingent on the number of tossups answered, varying difficulty on bonii to achieve "overall balance" won't work unless every bonus is read. Structure of difficulty within a particular bonus set should be consistent from one to the other.

User avatar
deep_friar
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 12:43 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by deep_friar »

Sorry for not speaking up on time. Specific comments on music, math, philosophy, and social pretend science (not the good stuff like psych, econ, or poli sci) should be directed to me at deep.friar@gmail.com -- I'd like to hear what I could do better.

User avatar
Mewto55555
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Mewto55555 »

So, how about them stats :?:

User avatar
scphilli
Posts: 2097
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:00 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by scphilli »

Good question. Let me see about pestering someone about that.

User avatar
dividebyzero
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Near East St. Louis

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by dividebyzero »

Ok, we've got some stats now. Sorry about the wait, physics test and whatnot got in the way.
For now, here's the results to the Rebracketed Rounds

Someone please correct me if I'm not allowed/supposed to say this, but I have a small piece of advice for moderator and/or scorekeepers. There's a time and a place for nicknames, but scoresheets for a legitimate tournament isn't it. I'm not talking about shortened versions of names. More on the order of putting something that gives no indication of who it's supposed to be. [In case that isn't clear, Lil Brandon doesn't cut it for Joel Rooney. Unless whoever is doing stats has previous experience with Missouri quizbowl, it would be tough to figure out]. Thank you.
Last edited by dividebyzero on Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dividebyzero
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Near East St. Louis

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by dividebyzero »

Superplayoffs Stats

Just to rehash what's probably already been said:
The top two teams from each rebracketed group (see previous post) were Carbondale [1-0] & Northmont [0-1] from one group and Rock Bridge A [0-1] & Ladue [1-0] from the other.

Everyone played the teams they had not yet played in the rebracketed rounds. End results:
1. Carbondale (3-0)
2. Northmont (2-1)
3. Ladue (1-2)
4. Rock Bridge A (0-3)

It's 2 a.m. so chances are I'm messing something up very badly. Please let me know when/if you find it.

User avatar
Charlie Dees
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charlie Dees »

It's 2 a.m. so chances are I'm messing something up very badly. Please let me know when/if you find it.
Superplayoff statistics are supposed to include the relevant games from the playoff brackets (in this case, Carbondale v. Northmont and Ladue v. Rock Bridge A).

User avatar
dividebyzero
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Near East St. Louis

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by dividebyzero »

ashkenaziCD wrote:Superplayoff statistics are supposed to include the relevant games from the playoff brackets (in this case, Carbondale v. Northmont and Ladue v. Rock Bridge A).
That would make a lot of sense, wouldn't it? I don't have my computer on me right now, but I'll go back and put those in as soon as I can. Thanks.

User avatar
Charlie Dees
Posts: 4134
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Columbia, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charlie Dees »

There's a time and a place for nicknames, but scoresheets for a legitimate tournament isn't it. I'm not talking about shortened versions of names. More on the order of putting something that gives no indication of who it's supposed to be. [In case that isn't clear, Lil Brandon doesn't cut it for Joel Rooney.
Ammar is right, and furthermore, I was told back in the day that MSHSAA literally bans you playing under assumed names at their tournaments, making it of utmost importance to not fall into the annoying trap of using pseudonyms in the future.

User avatar
Mewto55555
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Mewto55555 »

Are prelim staaats forthcoming?

User avatar
Mewto55555
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 6:56 pm

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Mewto55555 »

More than a couple weeks ago, Charbroil wrote: Statistics will be forthcoming within the next couple of weeks.

User avatar
dividebyzero
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Near East St. Louis

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by dividebyzero »

To be fair, some of the statistics were put up within a few weeks. I can't speak for the rest of them, though. I returned the scoresheets when I was done with the stuff I already posted, so don't expect me to be posting the rest.

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

WUHSAC Statistics - Preliminaries - Playoffs - Combined (Without SuperPlayoffs) - SuperPlayoffs

My apologies for the delay.

User avatar
scphilli
Posts: 2097
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:00 am
Location: St. Louis, MO

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by scphilli »

I would like this to be the absolute last work in this topic, so please Jeff, if you will close this thread after I say this:

On this day, a high school team edited by a sophomore, someone barely old enough to operate a car, thoroughly outclassed this event which had before it the tradition and prestige of being one of the premier events of Missouri. If that is not enough to make everyone associated with this thing doubly anxious to make it the best it can be next year, I do not know what is.

I do know this: if there isn't anything institutionally looking as it is going to change, I will have no choice but to focus my attentions elsewhere. Which means the rest of you have to deal with a tournament run unfettered by Charles Hang. Which means the 8 of you still around barely have a tournament to cling to. So basically Charles, you can either go away now and I can fix what damage you've done, or you can take this sucker to the ground with you because of your dazzling ignorance and incompetence and I can point and laugh from another vantage point. Either way you just need to give up the ghost that you are in any way capable of running anything apart from people away from your general proximity.

Charbroil
Posts: 1039
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:00 am

Re: WUHSAC XIII (01/29/2011) at WUSTL (St. Louis, Missouri)

Post by Charbroil »

PACE has chosen to affiliate with our tournament, so I'm pleased to announce that Carbondale, Northmont, Rock Bridge A, and Ladue have won additional bids to attend the PACE NSC.

Post Reply