"University Challenge" scandal...

[weaklink75]

The team that won the championship has been disqualified for fielding an illegal player...

Here's the story...actually, the team has been getting a lot of press the last few weeks because they were smashing their opponents in the knock-out  rounds, and their captain had been getting some press as well for scoring two-thirds of the teams total points...

You ever have a problem like this on QB Matt? (I know the reason you put the Pop Quizzes in is to get everyone involved in the game)

Here's the BBC press release...

[NickintheATL]

From personal experience, ruling a contestant ineligible is not an easy decision to make.

On "Clue Me In", we found out that the winner on a particular episode was dating one of the camera operators.  We ended up ruling her ineligible based on the requirements.

Do I agree with the BBC?  Yes, I do.  Those rules are there for a reason, and quite honestly, he should have known better.

[calliaume]

I'm just trying to figure out if we have a family connection to "The Human Google."  (Gail Trimble's surname is the same as my wife's maiden name.)

Not likely, but Karen's got all the experience on game shows in the family (two appearances on the Baltimore edition of It's Academic -- one as contestant, one as prize presenter for Giant Supermarkets).

[Jeremy Nelson]

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' post=\'209340\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 01:34 PM\']
Do I agree with the BBC?  Yes, I do.  Those rules are there for a reason, and quite honestly, he should have known better.
[/quote]
True. If he knew that he would graduate before the full competition was over, he should have asked somebody if he was eligible. After the team qualified and got through the first two rounds, they should have just swapped in an alternate. It's hard for me to believe that nobody else on the team had any suspicion about his eligibility.

[Unrealtor]

I can understand disqualifying the team. However, I think it's a bad call that he was let on in the first place, if (as he claims) the producers knew he was going to finish his studies before the championship, and it's a bad rule if it's worded so that you can lose eligibility during the middle of a competition due to something predictable like that.

[Kevin Prather]

[quote name=\'Unrealtor\' post=\'209347\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 12:14 PM\']
I can understand disqualifying the team. However, I think it's a bad call that he was let on in the first place, if (as he claims) the producers knew he was going to finish his studies before the championship, and it's a bad rule if it's worded so that you can lose eligibility during the middle of a competition due to something predictable like that.
[/quote]
It reminds me of the American Idol spinoff from 2003, "American Juniors." One of the winners, Lucy Hale, was 14 when she won. The show had a max age of 13, but since Lucy was 13 when she first auditioned, she was grandfathered.

It seems like a show should have a written rule discussing how that sort of situation would be handled, so it's not left to a judgement call.

[Matt Ottinger]

[quote name=\'weaklink75\' post=\'209337\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 01:45 PM\']You ever have a problem like this on QB Matt? (I know the reason you put the Pop Quizzes in is to get everyone involved in the game)[/quote]
If by "problem" you mean one player dominating the proceedings (despite our Pop Quiz), then good heavens yes.  Anybody with quiz bowl experience can tell you that one strong player could easily defeat entire teams singlehandedly, and it sounds like Trimble was such a player.  Our most recent such player was Kurtis Droge, who led East Lansing to three consecutive championships 2006-2008 and made a name for himself in national competitions.

If, though. you're asking about forfeits due to disqualifications, then no, we've had nothing like that.  For one thing, high school enrollment is less fluid than college.  Our players aren't likely to have stopped attending mid-semester.  Also, we're pretty loose when it comes to who's allowed to play.  I've had sons and daughters of good friends as contestants, plus my "day job" is working for one of the schools that participate on our show.  None of that would fly on a national level.

Still, all the apologies and claims of ignorance from the disqualified team seem a little disingenuous.  If you're playing for a college team and you're not actually going to that college, you ought to know that could be an issue, even if you're never read the rules.   Seems likely that he (and likely his teammates) just kept playing and hoped that the BBC either wouldn't find out or wouldn't disqualify them if it did.  Since there's no prize money, they had little to risk except embarrassment.

[TLEberle]

[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' post=\'209340\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 11:34 AM\']From personal experience, ruling a contestant ineligible is not an easy decision to make.[/quote]What's the hard part? If someone violates the rules, they should be punished.

Since the season is over, it doesn't do much good to replay any of the affected games, but the first thing I'd do is disallow that particular college from future contests. Second, any team that lost to Corpus Christi -- Oxford while they were in violation should get a premium spot in the 2010 contest.

I don't know how many of the Forum members follow University Challenge, but the Final was a fantastic episode, and if there are still people seeding it I recommend you snatch it.

[NickintheATL]

[quote name=\'TLEberle\' post=\'209384\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 08:58 PM\']
[quote name=\'NicholasM79\' post=\'209340\' date=\'Mar 2 2009, 11:34 AM\']From personal experience, ruling a contestant ineligible is not an easy decision to make.[/quote]What's the hard part? If someone violates the rules, they should be punished.
[/quote]

Well, the situation I quoted was in a gray area.  Maybe it's not a good comparison in some respects.  But, essentially, you're right.  And they were punished, believe you and me.

[colonial]

Who is responsible for determining the eligibility of "University Challenge" players and teams?  Is it the BBC, Granada, College Bowl, or are the schools and players expected to police themselves?

Based on my experience as a quiz bowl player, it used to be the role of the schools and the governing bodies to determine eligibility.  My sophomore year of college, we had an eligibility issue with a player (he was in a dispute with the school over financial aid and bills), and the school blocked him from registering for classes for the spring semester.  He had qualified for our CBI team the previous November, but CBI told us that if he was not registered for the spring semester, we had to replace him with the alternate.

After winning Regionals (where the player in question served as an assistant coach) and a few weeks before Nationals, said player finally resolved his dispute with the school and was allowed to register for the spring semester (he had been attending classes in the interim as a "non-credited" guest).  Over the next few days, the team had to fax and mail several pages of evidence to CBI to confirm that he was a student again.  Three or four weeks before Nationals, CBI gave us the approval to have him on our roster.

Obviously, CBI is not producing U.S. tournaments anymore, and I'm not sure how the other U.S. national organizations handle eligibility issues (when I was biz manager of TRASH, we ran "open" tournaments where eligibility was restricted to players 18 years of age and older, and we warned hosts and teams, in no uncertain terms, that those under 18 are not allowed.  One school lost hosting and playing privileges for a year for getting caught violating the rule).  I'm curious if UC has schools police themselves, or the show and its partners handle those issues.

JD