Why Aren't More Teams Contending for the Championship? Options

[John Angelis]

As I filled out my March Madness bracket for college basketball, I got a little bored this year. I love trying to pick upset teams to get into the Sweet Sixteen, and last year was a real treat for me, when George Mason got into the Final Four. But, in the end, it's usually about picking some combination of #1, #2, or #3 teams to get to the Final Four. And worse, it's usually the same teams year after year: some combination of North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, UCLA, and other big name schools. At least this year, we have Ohio State and Georgetown too...but those teams also have a long history of basketball success, if one looks back a decade or so. College football is even worse in terms of variety.

What bothers me lately about Bible Quiz is that we seem to have the same problem in our game. And in our game, there are no "recruiting budgets", ha, to make a difference in what kids each church gets. It's statistically improbable that all the good quizzers are at the same churches year after year, right? But just look at the results from the last three National Finals:

2004
1 Church at Briargate #1, Colorado Springs CO
2 First A/G, Lexington KY
3 Grace A/G, Spring City PA
4 Cedar Park A/G, Bothell WA
5 Braeswood A/G, Houston TX

2005
1 Cedar Park Church "Fast and Furious," Bothell WA
2 First Assembly of God #1, Lexington KY
3 James River Assembly of God "Salt," Ozark MO
4 Braeswood Assembly of God, Houston TX
5 Crossway Church, Valencia PA

2006
1. Church at Briargate, Colorado Springs CO "Speed and Finality"
2. Cedar Park Church, Bothell WA "Beyond Blessed"
3. James River Assembly of God "Joy," Ozark MO
4. First Assembly of God, Lexington KY
5. Braeswood Assembly of God, Houston TX

Three teams have finished in the top 5 each year. One team has won two of the past three years, and that team isn't even included among the teams that finished in the top 5 every year. We have a distinct lack of variety in who is placing well at Nationals. Why should I, as a coach, tell my kids to study 2-4 hours a day when it is nearly impossible that they can break into the top 5 at Nationals, let alone be the National Champion?

I think the problem is even deeper than the top 5 stats I just showed. Usually, there are at least a few "self-made" quizzers at Nationals, who become great quizzers despite not being on a team that goes to Nationals very often. They expose their church to top-notch quizzing, inspire/teach their teammates to improve, and create new National championship contenders. This is often how we get new teams in the top 5. A few more recent names you might recognize in that category are David Rees, Kent Piacenti, and Dan Marlow.

However, we are no longer creating such quizzers in our game. Name one quizzer like that since 2000. Maybe, Michael Pearson and Zach Sullivan; but both had the benefit of being coached by experienced, talented former quizzers as coaches. My question is, why aren't we producing those type of quizzers anymore, outside of the top 5 programs listed above? Where is the next Kent or Dan, who by sheer hard work and paying careful attention to what top teams do, transforms themselves into a great quizzer? What has happened to our game that a smart kid can no longer come in, dedicate him/herself to studying, and become a great quizzer? It's even more disappointing because we have the Internet now. It should be easier, not harder, for teams to learn more about how to quiz well. Yet, the problem has gotten worse.

I think my point is clear. The way the game has evolved has led to "quiz monopolies." The same few teams are winning all the trophies, and few strong new teams are emerging. I say this in NO WAY to shame those teams. Any solution cannot be about bringing the top down to the bottom. This is not in any way designed to make people on those good teams feel bad about their accomplishments. What, we're going to ask "Please, coach, stop getting 50+ kids in your church excited about Bible Quiz, it's not fair to the rest of us. Just get 10 this year."? No way!

But, to pretend there is no problem seems wrong to me. Some invitational results this year have made me optimistic that there may be more variety in National finishes, but that remains to be seen. I will list some solutions next time. What do you think? First, is there a problem? And second, is it a short or long-term problem? Will it go away if we do nothing, or do we have to change some of our rules?

[John Angelis]

While I'm at it, let me sketch out why I think BQ has gotten to this place. I don't want to suggest what should be done to fix these issues yet. But here's some starting points, if you agree with my first post.

1. The questions for Nationals have become too predictable. Now, because one can get 30 sets of Nationals practice sets and so many practice sets from outside writers, there is less uncertainty about how to prepare for Nationals among veteran teams. Thus, they can always beat out teams who lack the National experience they do. This wasn't as much a problem when the writer changed yearly, or when there weren't so many practice sets. I think this is the clearest way in which 2004-2006 (or, even 2001-2006) has been different from past quiz cycles, and thus it might be the biggest cause.
2. Free movement of quizzers. This cannot be constrained, as parents will always have the right to move where they want. It's a problem for high school sports too. But it definitely has contributed to why some teams have not fallen back in the standings once their top quizzers have graduated.
3. The effect of a coach with Nationals experience has become too important. I finally had to admit this to myself recently. It was hard, because I like to think of quiz as a quizzer's game first, and a coach's game second. In addition, I have high respect for the quizzers I helped coach over the years. However, I'm still surprised that, for example, the team I helped coach the last two years was able to get to Nationals as a two-person team out of the Great Lakes Region. I did not help them very much; my schedule was too busy for weekly practices or lengthy concordance prep. Yet, what insider knowledge I did have seemed to make a big difference in winning/losing different matches.
Nowadays, when I hear of a good new team, the question for me is not "Who are their quizzers?" but "Who is their coach?". More often than not, the answer is a veteran Nationals ex-quizzer or coach. The only Top 20 exceptions to this at last year's Nationals that I can think of are Elkton, Binghampton, and the Harvest; and I may be wrong there as well.
4. It's not possible to be successful at Nationals without multiple coaches/quizzers preparing concordance for study. This is a big barrier for teams to jump until someone has told them how or walked them through it. Concordance has become very important (too important?!) for post-season success.
5. Lack of information flow between teams. I freely admit that my senior year, without some of the tips I received from quizzers via AIM and e-mail as to what I should be studying, I may not have made it to Nationals. However, I don't think that it works that way anymore. Everything seems much more closed and guarded now. We seem to be becoming a closed quiz society. I'm not sure I would use the term "one big country club" for Nationals as one friend did, but I'm not sure I can contest his description, either.

All right, the forum is pretty quiet now with Regionals nearing, but maybe I can get a reply or two to this...

[Richard Fair]

John,

Your stats are a little misleading. James River has a great quiz ministry, but the rosters on the 2005 and 2006 teams were completely different. I believe 2005 was Brandon Porter, April Pryor, & Blake Porter. The team that finished 2nd in 2006 was Brittany Porter, Gina Fortunato, & Laramie Mitchell. I would say that the reason there are the same programs strong year after year is b/c a system has been set-up that allows for smooth transitions for novice quizzers into A league. Also, too, these teams understand the preparation for Nationals and don't look at in-depth study into things like concordance as something special. It's just what needs to happen.

Another thing is: Most teams that win nationals don't do so in their first year; most of them don't place that high in their first year. Yes you have your George Mason's, but in the end, we knew George Mason wouldn't win it all, they just did REALLY well. The same is true with quiz. I do agree with you, Jon, that coaching is plays into it more than quizzers.

[Kent Kloefkorn]

John - following up on Richard's posting, Cedar Park, Bothell, WA had completely different teams those three years. Two of the three starters were replaced each year! I believe Briargate also only had one individual on their 2004 championship team that was also on their 2006 championship team.

Furthermore, Briargate also had a different head coach in 2004 vs 2006, and Cedar Park had a different head coach in 2006.

So again, building upon Richard's post, I believe you have to factor these facts regarding these three teams into your analysis.

[John Angelis]

Jeremy, what makes this issue so complex is that I believe the teams at the top are balancing competition and "let's have fun" rather well. It's not as it may have been in the past, where some coaches would pour all their resources into just a few quizzers and leave the rest to fend for themselves or even kick them out. All the teams at the top have developed great "farm systems" in that they have dozens of kids trying quiz at the beginning of the year. That's why I'm emphasizing so much that I don't want the top teams to be penalized. I might want them to write books for the rest of us, ha, or teach us how to recruit kids out of our youth groups like that, though.

Richard and Kent, usually a team needs a year at Nationals to be a contender, I would agree. While I'm carrying on the basketball analogy, if I take a 7-footer who never played before and put him in the NBA, he's not going to be very good at first, most of the time. But look at the pattern in the 1990's. Sometimes, teams do come in for the first time and do very well, if that team is good. I'm thinking St. Clair Shores 1994, Tulsa 1999, and the Texas teams in 1997 and 1998, just off the top of my head, not to mention how teams like Lexington and Sarver turned one year of Nationals experience into top 3 finishes. Why can't that happen anymore? We did go through a somewhat similar phase, perhaps, in 1992 and 1993, when the top teams were Parkcrest, Lakewood, Bartlesville, and Braeswood. But once the star quizzer(s) graduated, you didn't see any of those teams coming right back into the top 5, except for Bartlesville (and that is because Lisa Wooton was one of the best quizzers of all time, and they still kept their 3rd quizzer in 1994). There was some reload time involved.

Your point about the rosters changing strengthens my argument that there is a problem. I left that out of my argument, but that's what really convinced me there was a problem to begin with. You can say that a Lexington or Braeswood finished so well because they had 3 years of a Jared Paige or Jon Galliers; certainly, a quizzer like that is strong drop-off insurance even when other quizzers graduate. But when a team turns over its entire roster from one year to another, and stays in the top 5, something is definitely wrong with the game. Why can't the teams that don't graduate any quizzers catch up, when the one team graduates some seniors?

Kent, I don't know that the coaching changes were truly meaningful in either case, as the "new" coaches in 2006 had coached those quizzers before at Nationals and knew the system. If we were talking about some quizzer's parents or a youth pastor having to become coaches instead of quiz professionals, then it may be more of a point. Because you are one of the coaches involved, I'll avoid speculation as to whether the coaching changes were upgrades

Oh, and just to respond to Bryan; it's a great debate indeed. But the problem is, it seems to have ended the last 5-6 years; I can't provide any evidence that great quizzers have made a coach great. Instead, more often it's decent quizzers becoming great under the tutelage of a great coach.

And I certainly agree, Jeremy/Bryan, that more teams should set a National championship as a goal on Day 1. If a team has been to Nationals last year, finished in the top 12, and have the same or better quizzers this year, I would be disappointed in their coach if they aren't aiming for a championship. This is especially true with so many graduations among the top 5 from last year.

On a boring personal note as to why I think so, my coach did that with us right after we finished 12-7 at Nationals with a 7th grader and 2 9th graders. That 12-7 record might have even been the best record our church had ever had at Nationals, but it wasn't enough for him. In my 8th grade wisdom, I thought he was crazy to be setting the goal so high...until we finished 2nd the next year. It was completely because he had set the goal early on and pushed for it all year long.

[Bryce Jensen]

On a side note, I only studied 30 minutes to an hour a day during the summer last year. I guess I should feel guilty or something that I didn't study 2-4 hours a day like other quizzers, but I don't think I did that bad really. Perhaps I'll try that this year. Oh, and I maybe studied the concordance for an hour all year long, so I don't think you need to study it to do well at Nationals. Oh, and I probably studied chapter analysis for about three hours. I'm actually not sure if I'm going to study the concordance that much this year either. I'll have to see once we get the scholarship questions. Of course I don't plan on winning Nationals or anything. I just want to be able to go, and qualifying at regionals is going to be a little harder this year.

[Kent Kloefkorn]

John - in a nutshell, it's all about Quality, not Quantity of quizzers. Every quizzer that entered into the A-1 level at Cedar Park was told where the bar was set. Quizzers will almost always rise to the level where the coach sets the bar for success. You'll find a similar situation at the other teams you mentioned.

The key is EVERY quizzer. The major mistake so often made on other teams is that they "build" around some star quizzer. Their "star" is the center feature of the team, and the rest are the supporting cast. The coach spends way too much time with that one "star" quizzer.

To build a National powerhouse, not every quizzer may work on Concordance material, not every quizzer may work on Quoting, or Chapter Analysis, or 10-pointers.

The key is simple: Each Quizzer works to reach their potential. A coach guides and mentors a TEAM, not just a "Star" quizzer.

Now go back and look at those three teams, and although you'll find some awesome 1st chairs, you'll also find awesome 2nd chairs and 3rd chairs.

Sorry, but there is no trick to question "style" anymore or anything like that. In fact, Richard Ely writes a huge variety of question "styles". (Personally, I like the word "consistency" rather than "style")

You do NOT win Nationals anymore with a strong 1st chair, and a supporting cast. The competition is too good.

There's an old saying - You're only as good as your weakest link. Well, check out those teams weakest link.

[Bryce Jensen]

I entirely agree with what you said about a strong first chair. I don't have much experience as far as Nationals goes, but if Regionals is any indication, you need at least one more very good quizzer along with a great quizzer to win tough rounds.

[Kent Kloefkorn]

I moved Bryce & my conversation offline.

[Karl Dawson]

I think coaching has a lot to do with it, and always has. Even when I was quizzing (all those years ago!) there were a handful of coaches that were experienced and capable of really driving their team to success. Unfortunately, I think that group has gotten smaller, rather than larger. As some people have moved on, there have been fewer to step in and take their places.

I think a big reason for this is that most people don't want to learn. Several of the top coaches I know are willing to share a lot (though obviously not all) of what they know. They are certainly willing to share about motivating students and keeping them on track. The key is that few coaches are willing to ask the questions and learn how to do it better.

The truth is that we can all be better coaches. I learn new stuff all the time, and I'm not afraid to ask questions.

[Doug Black]

To reinforce what Kent says about a strong team: over the past ten years, the national championship team has been the team with the best SECOND chair quizzer eight out of those ten years. (At least I think it was eight. I didn't look it up again) That pounds home the point that a one-person team does not do well at nationals. It is a team effort.

[Richard Fair]

To emphasize what Karl said, I believe you must ask questions so that you, AS A COACH, can get better. Many times, it is easy to get in a rut of thinking they way I always do something is the only way. For instance, I've worked with beginning quizzers and had many frustrating moments when they don't learn things word-for-word right off the bat. My approach has been, quote, quote, quote, quote. For new quizzers, this can wear on them. So, I tried to mix things up by using Pastor Bernie's phrase questions: something I've never done before. I got this idea from asking Fred Fortunato about it. If we aren't willing as coaches to refine our teaching abilities--and I believe that is a huge gift we must pray for as Quiz Coaches--then our kids are missing out because we aren't growing. Another thing to remember is that teens have an amazing ability to succeed and reach goals. Many times as a teacher, there's a temptation to play it safe, and not set the bar too high. Kids want to be challenged, and they want to succeed, it just has to begin at their level, and you must show you have faith in THEM. The coolest thing about TBQ in comparison to JBQ is that you can potentially have new kids show up from nowhere and beat quizzers who have quizzed for 5 years. With JBQ, this is less likely.

[John Angelis]

I think that Karl has a great point about the shortage of good coaches. When good coaches get involved and have at least 2 kids who want to work, the team can go somewhere. But there does seem to be a shortage of good coaches nowadays.

I think that there is a long apprentice period to being a truly good coach for most, and it's hard to hang in there until you understand how it works. After I graduated high school, I was too busy to ever coach a team full-time from the beginning of the year to Nationals. I also took several years off from quiz altogether. But I've been fortunate that a lot of good teams have allowed me to participate and assist in some way (thanks to Warren, Lansing, Minier, West Lafayette, Hermitage, Bowie, and Brunswick), others allowed me to "borrow" their kids and take them to WBQA tournaments as a coach, and two churches allowed me to start/re-start quiz programs for leagues at least. It took a lot of patience on my and their part to make the relationships work or start them from scratch, but I think we both benefitted from that.

I believe that former quizzers too often get trapped into just hanging around their old teams, or thinking that because they can't full-time coach, there's no roles for them in BQ. I'd like to see us further develop part-time and half-time opportunities in quiz for those who can't be full-time coaches but would love to be involved in some ways. Like I said above, I found some, but it took some awkward cold calls of the "Hi, you don't know me, but I'd like to come to a practice and see if I might be of help to you." variety. That way, maybe some of the ex-quizzers can come back and be full-time coaches, once they have graduated/become established in life.

[John Angelis]

One thing, though, Karl and Richard, about asking good coaches for help. I feel rather guilty about pulling aside top coaches and asking them for hints if I am coaching a team that will go to Nationals. If we're already really close to being good, and I'm asking for help, it's a strong possibility that what I learn may put us over the top. They may still share because they're good sports, but I don't know how I feel about putting them in that position. Perhaps I'll try that more this year, but I admittedly have avoided that so far. On the other hand, Kent, Greg, Aaron, and others have shared some of their strategies on the Forum over the years, and if you haven't been paying attention, tsk, tsk, to you.

And yet, that's exactly what the problem is; those teams in the bottom 30 at Nationals aren't moving up to the top 10. As an observer, certainly one can see that "Oh, Coach X really needs to teach his team how to close out matches once they have a lead" or "Coach Y needs to get her top quizzer started on concordance NOW if they want to do more at Nationals" or "Coach Z should teach his captain how to contest better." But who really wants to be "That guy" who walks over to Coach X after the match and brings up that topic?! I meant my appreciation of the churches in the past post sincerely. Few coaches are willing to hear some smartie-pants college kid blather on about "Your kids should be doing X, Y, and Z" and contradict them sometimes on what the teams should be doing.

I would love to see more matching up of coaches and teams to talk about strategy and game plan with each other. I try to do some of that in Ohio with the Eastern teams (sorry, BG, I'll get over there sometime), and have found it very rewarding. Coaching can often be a lonely, unrewarding business, with no one to bounce ideas off of. I do have some coaching friends that I talk with on occasion, and hearing their way of doing things can really help. I also HEAVILY recommend the coaching interviews book, worth its weight in gold. My only complaint about the book is that it doesn't talk so much about how to win games at a high level--more on how to prepare your team instead.

[Eric Lind]

In my experience, it is usually an experienced or naturally talented coach that makes a team into a Nationals contender. Even historically, the self-driven, largely uncoached wunderkind is something of an anamoly. A dedicated coach has a lot more to do with their team's success than most people know.

Back in my quizzing days, our team never could make it past Regionals (in the 2 to Nationals days). Bryan Turner took our coach aside and gave her a number of drills, studying techniques and question analysis that gave us the starting point for hitting the next level. Now, if our coach had used it half-heartedly, it probably wouldn't have helped, but I think she was more dedicated to us getting better than we were. She made us work hard and she worked harder and it really paid off.

I found, during my coaching stint, that if I didn't put in 20+ hours a week writing questions, generating concordance, analyzing the official writer, running practices, etc, that I was doing my team a disservice. They deserved the best support I could give them. I'm not coaching, now, because I simply don't have the time to do that anymore. I can't give up the quiz bug, so the relative simplicity of novice is starting to look enticing, but as the kids get older, I know I won't be able to resist "over"doing my prep work.

Getting a year or two of Nationals experience does go a long way. Most quiz teams have no idea what goes on at the upper levels until they've experienced it for themselves. The problem is that they have to overcome the enormous feelings of inadequacy before they can get better. Getting stomped by Briargate or James River 300+ to 10 can be rather disheartening. The teams that learn from their experiences, rather than being devoured by them, should be able to get much better by the next year.

More teams need to go to tournaments, too. A team learns a lot about where they need to go by July from where they are in February or March. This is, again, where a coach comes into play. A coach that takes apart tournament questions can learn truckloads about the types of concordance and analysis to work on. Most quizzers just don't know how to do this.