Evening all. The debate continues about reform of the show, both in terms of second round reform and gender equality, with an article in the Times online suggesting it's time to enforce a quota of at least one woman per team, a la panel shows. Again, I'll cover that myself later, once I can find something to say about the subject that Cassiopeia hasn't already. On with the show.
Magdalen College Oxford won through their first match defeating the excellent Pembroke College Cambridge team 220-110, though, as Paxo rightly said, it was a much closer match than that, and some have suggested the victory margin was inflated by those infamous Pembroke penalties. The Magdalen foursome remained unchanged from that infamous match:
Harry Gillow, from Stone in Staffordshire, studying Classics
Chris Savory, from Burgess Hill in West Sussex, studying Chemistry
Captain: Hugh Binnie, from Cheltenham, studying Chemistry
Cameron J. Quinn, from Los Angeles, studying Philosophy and French
The Open University team came through the repechage, losing to the excellent Leicester team before defeating the L.S.E. 180-140. With Leicester surprisingly already out, the Open team were aiming to be the first repechage team to go further than their conquerors since Worcester College Oxford three series ago; they were also the same lot as before:
Danielle Gibney, from Amsterdam, studying Social Sciences
Stuart Taylor, from Stratford-upon-Avon, studying Development Management
Captain: Lynne Jones, from Bolton, studying History and Languages
Kate Law, from Sutherland in the Highlands, studying Engineering
Off we set again then, and Open set off first, taking the first starter and all three bonuses showed they meant business. So did Magdalen too, and off they set as well, taking the next two starters and only dropping one bonus of the six. Another starter went to Magdalen, and they already looked on impressive form. The first picture round, on the opening lines of epistolary novels, went to Open; they took one bonus, which cut Magdalen's lead to 65-40.
Magdalen weren't going to be easy to overcome though (they never are, unless you're Manchester), as Mr Binnie took the next starter, and they took all three of a complex set of bonuses on European country names. Mr Quinn took his third starter of the night to lift the side into triple figures, and again, they took all three bonuses. Magdalen then stumbled a bit, dropping a whole bonus set, then slipping up, and allowing Open back into the game; they took one bonus.
The music round, on fantasias, went to the Oxonians, who increased their lead to 135-55. Mr Quinn then unlocked a set of bonuses on rivers, which saw my local river the Don get a welcome namecheck; they took two. What looked like a lucky guess from Lynne Jones allowed Open back into the game, and all three bonuses went their way; if they kept that up, and could string a starter run together, they could yet catch up. Magdalen had no luck with a set of bonuses on Australian state capitals, their lack of knowledge of which Paxo found very amusing!
The second picture round, on stills from German expressionist films, went to Magdalen, and they quickly hoovered up all three bonuses to take their lead to 190-80. Up came a starter about the Netherlands, and local girl Danielle Gibney quickly shot in for it; she had to, really! Again, the side achieved perfection on the bonuses. Magdalen pulled through 200, though, despite crashing into a set of complex maths bonuses that Mr Savory tried desperately to quickly work out, causing much amusement all round!
The gap now stood at 100 points, and it looked unlikely that Open could close the gap. They did manage to string two starters in a row, and lift their score up to a respectable final tally. Magdalen managed one final starter, and paced their way through the bonuses, taking two of the three. At the gong, Magdalen won 225-130.
Another very pleasant match made watchable by the teams partaking. Paxo rightly described Open as a very fun team to watch; well done to them on three watchably good performances. Well done to Magdalen though on another good performance, and best of luck to them in the QFs.
For the first time since Open's first match, all eight players got at least one starter right. Mr Quinn was best of the night with five (none of which he accompanied by a hair flick, disappointingly), while Ms Gibney was Open's best with three. On the bonuses, Magdalen converted an impressive 22 out of 36 (with one penalty) and Open a decent 12 out of 21.
Once again, it's over to Cassiopeia to find out who's on next week.
Only Connect, once again, eliminated a team who didn't deserve to go out without a win; but I'd be saying the same if the other team had lost. Both were good teams.
That mathematical bonus set was great fun! Chris certainly looked like he was enjoying himself with those.
ReplyDeleteWell, this shows just how much I know about this series, and just how enjoyably unpredictable the second round of UC always is - my prediction that Leicester and Open would both make the quarters is in tatters, despite their first-round face-off being the strongest first-round match by a long way! Bad luck to Open for coming up against two such good teams so early on in the series, but that's the way it falls sometimes.
If the last two series are anything to go by, Manchester will be back next week. I have no idea if that's right, or of who else will be playing next week, but I'm going to guess Bristol. Feel free to correct me if anyone spots anything more official!
Apparently it's Gonville & Caius v. Manchester next week.
ReplyDeleteThanks for that! Another fine match up; whoever loses won't deserve a Round 2 exit. This may just add more coal to the 'Round 2 reform' fire.
DeleteThanks for the review, Jack. Indeed very watchable teams. I was quite miffed about this fixture since Magdalen and Open are among my favourite teams and both very strong teams. On the other hand, at least I was guaranteed seeing a favourite in the QF. The winners of this match and the one from last week were long known though, thanks to an interview with two players that could have been given with some more caution. Anyways, at least Open did get to prove themselves thrice. I still think that something should be done with the format, with knockouts in the QF and rounds earlier on -- perhaps even from the very beginning, preferrably in a way that takes points into account to a greater extent than at present. But I also see where the two (former and current) contestants are coming from.
ReplyDeleteMusicman, Caius & Manchester was my guess for next week - based on which blog posts people are reading. I asked on Twitter but no response so good to see it somewhat confirmed. I wouldn't be too surprised if a London team are up next after that.
In my opinion, a round robin in the second round would make it too bloated and hard to understand for viewers (although nerds like us would have no trouble, I suspect).
DeleteThe more irritating thing for me is the lack of proper seeding. Gonville vs Manchester next week is a good example. This is the highest scoring team from Round 1 facing Manchester, traditionally a strong side and definitely among the best teams remaining. On paper it ought to be a cracker, but it's the kind of match that should take place in the QFs (or later). I'm firmly in the "Anyone But Manchester" camp but still, it'll be a pity to see one of these teams go home so early. Same goes for Open, who were a very good team, better than most of the second-rounders and very likeable of course.
Clearly there is a effort by the UC producers to ensure diversity of universities in the later stages. It's understandable to an extent, because less people would watch if it were always dominated by Oxbridge and Manchester. Caius v Bristol would arguably have been a fairer match-up based on round 1...but of course it could have been a rather one-sided affair. However, the downside is that the overall quality of the QFs is diluted. With all due respect to the likes of Liverpool, LSHTM and Bristol, I would much rather see Open, Caius/Manchester and Leicester in the QFs.
Some good points there. In fact, I'm tempted to say that the first four R2 matches could have been the QF preliminaries based on first round results and the performances of the teams involved in prior matches.
DeleteSomething happened to my wordpress a/c so am posting from an old Gmail, but it is ‘asphinctersays’ (Jack has guessed my identity correctly).
ReplyDeleteInteresting to read the comments on this and Madame Fortune’s blog; here’s my take:
Re. the second round fixtures, I can’t see too much wrong with it so far and think it shows you can’t read too much into a single first round performance.
In an idle two minutes in between work and changing nappies, I worked out the draw if the producers had done it ranked purely on points scored in the first round and then played 1vs16, 2vs15 etc. An alternative way doesn’t spring to mind that wouldn’t be controversial and open to debate regarding for example difficulty of questions between matches or debates around pro or anti-Oxbridge bias. For the sake of argument, I ranked Trinity ahead of LSHTM (150pts) and the four who scored 190 in the following order (Open, Selwyn, Bristol, Glasgow).
I don’t think the producers do it this way as due to the first and second round filming being a month apart, it the second round seeding system were well known, it would encourage sharing results between teams to work out the draw which in turn would lead to greater likelihood of pre-transmission results leaks. So let’s assess the current draw against this ranking:
Leicester vs Trinity: If you seeded the second round based on first round points tallies as above, you’d have had a Leicester (3rd) vs Trinity (14th) match - nobody was particularly excited by Trinity after their 150 point 1st round win, but they are now after they beat Leicester. It was a surprise result and as has been mentioned, illustrates the old adage that you can’t read too much into the first round. A question: With hindsight, do St Andrews have a case that they should have still been in the mix instead of Open as Trinity beat St Andrews by a smaller margin (50 points) in the first round than Trinity beat Leicester (80 points) in the second? You could debate stuff like this all day.
Durham vs York: In essence a 2nd vs 11th match, so a high scoring team vs lower-middle order team. On the strict seeding, Durham would have drawn LSHTM and York played vs St Peter’s, but I can’t see too much wrong with this draw as it transpired.
Magdalen vs Open: At the end of the day, Open were a repechage team, so some may have given them a 15th or 16th seed for the second round rather than the 7th their points tally and my arbitrary ranking gave them. Magdalen only ranked 5th on their first round total, so it seemed a fair draw for Open on paper, a 5th vs 7th isn’t too controversial. That said, I wasn’t surprised by the result, Magdalen are a formidable team (having first hand experience of playing three of them in a humiliating Quizbowl match) and I felt their first round performance was sub-par for them. This is not the fault of the producers and had the producers used the strict points-based seeding, you’d have had a Magdalen (5th) vs Manchester (12th) match, which would I’m sure have raised similar points to the one I’m addressing.
Caius vs Manchester: 1st vs 12th if ranking purely on first round scores, or 1st vs 16th if one were placing the repechage teams 15th and 16th. I don’t see why this is so controversial and the producers have to go on the team they see in front of them, rather than the reputation of the institution in previous years.
As for us? With hindsight I think our second round draw was wholly justified based on our first round performance!
Thanks for the reply and apologies for taking so long to respond. I accept a lot of the points you make. For example, Leicester v Trinity was a fair match up in the end. Leicester clearly flattered to deceive in the first round and when the chips were down against Trinity, they were exposed as a one-man team. Ditto Durham v York. Magdalen v Open possiby...but I reckon the organisers have missed an opportunity by not giving Open an easier chance to reach the QFs, considering the criticism they have received over the lack of women in the show.
DeleteI do not quite agree that the repechage teams should be ranked 15th and 16th in Round 2 seedings. Manchester lost to a strong Selwyn side (perhaps a contender this year) and scored 200+ against a good Sussex team. And it was precisely because of Manchester's reputation that they are put up against an Oxbridge side in Round 1 in the first place. Ok, maybe they should not have been given a very weak team, but I still think the Mancunians have got a bum deal by being pitted against Gonville & Caius in Round 2. I reckon UCL or St. Peter's would have been a fairer opponent. But who knows (well, I suppose YOU do ;-))? Maybe Caius flattered to deceive in their first round match and will get dumped out next Monday. That's the beauty of University Challenge.
I stand by my main point that there is an attempt by UC producers to ensure diversity of universities in the QFs which has the unfortunate effect of diluting the overall quality of the show. In fact, even at the QF stage there's an effort to keep weaker teams apart from stronger Oxbridge sides: last year, it was telling that Cardiff were never pitted against the likes of Trinity Cambridge or Somerville Oxford. Perhaps the producers were eager to avoid a massacre? Some might think this is a good thing, which is fair enough, but I'm more of a meritocrat: I like to watch the best of the best in these contests. After all, there must be a reason why, since 2003, every UC season except one has been won by either Oxbridge or Manchester. This "giving a leg-up" to lesser universities is just futile kow-towing to egalitarianism.
Concerning yourself, can I assume that Oxford Brookes will be playing UCL? Blink once for yes, twice for no. :-)
The other issue has been around mandatory inclusion of at least one woman in each team. I’m against this and any form of tokenism or quotas – time and again in many walks of life, it’s shown itself to be divisive and often only is a blunt instrument to address the effect or result rather than the root cause. In UC’s case, I feel the ethos of the contest is for each institution should be allowed to field their strongest team, regardless of gender or anything else. The barrier to women taking part is not intrinsic to the way the programme operates – on paper it is open to all and many successful female players from recent years immediately spring to mind.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say that I don’t think there is an issue – women certainly are underrepresented – our team was 3 men and 1 woman, but at the test to make the team, there was probably 65 men and 5 women. The issue brought to mind the recent coverage of the lack of BME football managers and talks of quotas. I think the consensus was that something more akin to US sports’ ‘Rooney rule’ was more appropriate – I heard someone talk of ‘enabling the pathway’, which seems sensible to increase participation from all students – perhaps this is something universities should look at, given it is such good publicity for them?
Thanks for your thoughts Simon. I agree that women are underrepresented, but I don't think it's something that needs to be fixed by some sort of quota. I'll post a fuller set of my thoughts some other time.
DeleteAgreed. For me, the reasons for the gender imbalance in UC (and quizzing in general) are obvious: men are much more likely to "flaunt" their knowledge in public, since many - if not most - women regard intelligence as an attractive trait. For the most part, the contrary is not the case. Couple that with the mockery and abuse that UC contestants routinely receive on the Internet, and it's hardly surprising that women choose not to take part. Quotas aren't going to do much to change any of these things.
DeleteI really appreciate the points raised by asphinctersays. My most recent thoughts about the format are here: http://universitychallengecrush.blogspot.de/2014/12/in-or-out-bum-deals.html
ReplyDeleteI reckon I'll have a post about diversity (again!) within a week or two.
Hello, Jack
ReplyDeleteNice Sharing about university challenges, I hope that it will help us
Buy College Term Papers for Cheap
Hi, Jack
ReplyDeleteCan I call you Jackie, This Nick name is perfect for you :)
I like this post
Thanks Buddy
University Assignments Help