Bad quiz bowl

[TLEberle]

Last week I was listening to the Freakonomics podcast, and in a very special episode the quiz team of St. Paul Academy took on author Steven Leavitt and his family. Things start off innocuously enough with a Quick Ten and the ad break, but after that the material tail-spun into some of the poorest questions I've ever heard. One of the medal winners dealt with the origin of the word Fhqwgads, and then this zinger for ten, paraphrased and ending because one of the teams won the Wild Gunman draw:

Careers were ruined, specifically that of Columbia university professor and Today show regular Charles Van Doren. Scandals involving quiz shows such as 21, $64k Question and Dotto caused public uproar and a ratings downturn. As a result, there were no more big payoffs on shows, and they were not allowed a million-dollar prize until 1999... (presumably it was going to finish "FTP: Name this show hosted by Regis Philbin and Meredith Vieira.")
Answer: Millionaire

The question I have is: who would play material like this? Early "clues" either lead nowhere or are impenetrable, and the questions go out of their way to punish knowledge on the topic when they buzz early. And worse than that, the Millionaire question was factually wrong while being preachy and not getting to the point. It wasn't fun to listen to because I was unable to play along with the material. Do teams actually seek out this format of play, or do they play some of the straight-up material and find it too hard, then hope that they can win the quick draw race when the Big Clue starts?

[Jimmy Owen]

Sounds like a ripoff of "Quicksilver."

[gameboy2000]

and they were not allowed a million-dollar prize until 1999

You forgot the $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime in 1986.

[Dbacksfan12]

and they were not allowed a million-dollar prize until 1999

You forgot the $1,000,000 Chance of a Lifetime in 1986.

Travis didn't forget a singlet hing.

[Matt Ottinger]

Last week I was listening to the Freakonomics podcast, and in a very special episode...

The question I have is: who would play material like this?

Without knowing anything about the podcast in question, it sounds like this was a quiz bowl game organized and written by people who don't know as much about quiz bowl as they think they do.  Anybody with any real experience writing decent material would never have come up with something as bad as your example.

Jimmy's reference to Quicksilver, while typically obtuse, is still rather apt.  The "fun" of Quicksilver was the twisting and turning of the question, so that you weren't entirely sure what was being asked until the last moment.  Quiz bowl is not supposed to work that way.

Do teams actually seek out this format of play, or do they play some of the straight-up material and find it too hard, then hope that they can win the quick draw race when the Big Clue starts?

I can tell you from experience that "real" quiz bowl players cringe (and worse) at this sort of thing every bit as much as you did.

[mmb5]

Quiz bowl is not supposed to work that way.

But sadly until the mid-90s, it did.

[parliboy]

Having zero quiz bowl experience, and admittedly talking out of my ass, the classic Fame Game question format has often struck me as the closest thing to a quiz bowl style question.

[clemon79]

Having zero quiz bowl experience, and admittedly talking out of my ass, the classic Fame Game question format has often struck me as the closest thing to a quiz bowl style question.

Yes, but the knock is not on the question style itself, the knock is on the ridiculous swerve at the end. The time-released information question is perfectly fine so long as every bit of information in said question does indeed lead to the answer. The above was a really long-winded let's-make-people-listen-to-my-awesome-writing way of getting to "what game show did Regis Philbin and Meredith Vieira host?"

[Adam Nedeff]

I've been a quiz bowl player and a moderator and from both ends of the spectrum, you hate it. As a player, it sucks having to listen to peals of information that are of absolutely no use to you. Either the stuff at the start of the question is too esoteric, or, as is the example here, it's general information that has nothing to do with the actual question ("The Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, an event commemorated on July 4 each day with Independence Day. Also in July, a holiday once known as Dominion Day...") As a moderator, you grow to hate these questions because, if you care about what you're doing, you'll sit down and practice reading them and preparing for them, and...yeah, it feels like an enormous waste of time.

I will say, for a player, the one redeeming value of them is the "WTF?" reaction you can get from the entire room if you manage to fire off the correct answer quickly. My shining achievement in quiz bowl one day: "After World War II, Captain Jonas Grumby and his friend Willy purchased a..." and I rang in immediately and guessed "Gilligan's Island." Other than that, yeah, screw this question style.

[Matt Ottinger]

The above was a really long-winded let's-make-people-listen-to-my-awesome-writing way of getting to "what game show did Regis Philbin and Meredith Vieira host?"

That specifically is still pretty common in even professional quiz bowl writing.  You'd be amazed at the number of questions we get from NAQT with ridiculously arcane and obscure references that then end with "Name this author of Moby Dick".  I've gotten to the point that I'll even reference it on air, calling them "jump ball" questions that just come down to reflexes.

The more pressing problem with the "Millionaire" question above is that off the first sentence, a smart player might easily buzz in and say "the quiz show scandals".  Once you've started dropping specific references, and certainly by the end of your first complete sentence, you need to be sure that there's only going to be one place that your question is going.

And parliboy, you and your ass are exactly right.  A well-written Fame Game question has a lot in common with a well-written quiz bowl toss-up.

[Matt Ottinger]

I will say, for a player, the one redeeming value of them is the "WTF?" reaction you can get from the entire room if you manage to fire off the correct answer quickly. My shining achievement in quiz bowl one day: "After World War II, Captain Jonas Grumby and his friend Willy purchased a..." and I rang in immediately and guessed "Gilligan's Island." Other than that, yeah, screw this question style.

But see, to me that's an example of a good question, or at least a good start to one.  There are going to be people who know that reference.  In fact, in many formats, a good writer has placed an obscure but still gettable reference at the beginning of the question, and a player scores a "power" bonus for getting the answer correct off that first nugget.

[clemon79]

But see, to me that's an example of a good question, or at least a good start to one.  There are going to be people who know that reference.  In fact, in many formats, a good writer has placed an obscure but still gettable reference at the beginning of the question, and a player scores a "power" bonus for getting the answer correct off that first nugget.

I agree completely. The genius of that lead is in the subtlety: if you know Jonas Grumby was the Skipper's real name, and you pick up on the subtlety of them going out of their way not to mention Gilligan by name by using his way-obscure-even-to-a-lot-of-TV-geeks first name, you can logically suss out from just that that they're gonna be looking for the name of the show, and not "Alan Hale" or something like that.

[gameshowcrazy]

But see, to me that's an example of a good question, or at least a good start to one.  There are going to be people who know that reference.  In fact, in many formats, a good writer has placed an obscure but still gettable reference at the beginning of the question, and a player scores a "power" bonus for getting the answer correct off that first nugget.

I agree completely. The genius of that lead is in the subtlety: if you know Jonas Grumby was the Skipper's real name, and you pick up on the subtlety of them going out of their way not to mention Gilligan by name by using his way-obscure-even-to-a-lot-of-TV-geeks first name, you can logically suss out from just that that they're gonna be looking for the name of the show, and not "Alan Hale" or something like that.

Willie was not really Gilligan's first name, he didn't have one at all.  Several years after the end of the run of Gilligan's Island on CBS, the cast was reunited on a talk show (I think Dick Cavett, but I could be wrong on that part) and the question of Gilligan's first name came up.

Bob Denver and Sherwood Shwartz said Gilligan didn't have a first name, but if he did, it would probably have been Willie.

And thus the urban legend began...

[clemon79]

And thus the urban legend began...

I sit corrected. What fascinates me about it, though, is the attention to detail...you are literally the first person I have seen to use the standardized spelling "Willie," and you're the one debunking the urban myth! Every time I have seen this mentioned in the past, it's ALWAYS with the nonstandard "Willy." Which, at least for me, is part of what cemented it in my head as legit.

[Matt Ottinger]

Bob Denver and Sherwood Shwartz said Gilligan didn't have a first name, but if he did, it would probably have been Willie.
And thus the urban legend began...

I dunno.  I usually think of an urban legend as something that is A) wrong and/or B) unsourced.  If there's record of the creator of the character and the person who played the character agreeing on a first name, even decades later, I for one would accept that as canonical.