Week 270: Predictably present
and So your rival got press, what are you going to do about it?
I had committed to the idea of this edition after the MSNCT after seeing a number of answers go by the wayside as players passed on bonus parts. But this article popped up and the headline and subhead basically confirmed I should do it.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/2025/05/12/university-challenge-irish-finalist-theres-always-a-shakespeare-question-so-i-read-his-complete-works/
I might quibble with the particular instance of this idea, but that’s only because I know the Oxford A-Z of Shakespeare exists and it would take me less time to grind it, but the guiding premise is beyond solid.
If in your surveillance of the format you find something that is so common that one example of the class of answers or clues is present in every set, or every round, then you should prepare for that class of clues or answers as if you predict it will come up every time. To not alert and prepare your team to that possibility is only to invite regret later on.
Let’s call this class of clues “predictably present” clues. They aren’t necessarily the same clue over and over, but they’re a class of clues which appear associated with a set of answers, usually late in the question as if they were a giveaway, despite their difficulty as an answer being inappropriate for the level. And because you have observed them in the past, and seen them over the course of your matches, you can safely predict that they will appear later, and take action so your team can profit from your prediction. Since I’ve already made the case for charting rounds of the television show in earlier parts of the book from where this will appear, this is just maneuvering the idea into a different event format. You need evidence to predict what will be present in future rounds, and then you have to make those predictions to choose what study guidance to give your team. It’s not necessarily the unique clue, but the type of common association the clues have to the answer.
The basic template of this is: We know that when the writer asks about [this subject], they tend to use a clue about [this specific aspect of the subject] despite the general class of [other aspects of the subject] not usually being asked about in this level of competition.
Let me work you through a general example from last year’s MSNCT that I had noticed in it and previous years and meant to talk about, carefully eliding over the prohibition of talking about this year’s set.
We know that when the writer asks about [the history of the Soviet Union], they tend to use a clue about [analagous figures in Animal Farm] despite the general class of [other details of Animal Farm] not usually being asked about in this level of competition.
It’s rare but it’s not unheard of to ask details of Animal Farm at that level, but it’s much more common to use Animal Farm as a late clue for George Orwell. It’s not the last clue for a question about a figure from that era of the Soviet Union, but it’s a clue that rewards detailed knowledge, and so can be placed ahead of the last clue without disrupting pyramidality. That’s why it’s used, despite being a bit of a swerve from the throughline of the question’s theme. It won’t mislead, and an experienced player will pick up the point, and recognize it faster than an inexperienced player.
When these are used in tossups they’re usually tied to a small table of data and due to their frequent use, they’re a bit of a chestnut. You learn them as the one thing you need to know about the work, rather than any actual details of the work. Other examples are the movements of Holst’s The Planets, instruments in Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf, and any number of geographical landmarks.
Now when these sort of predictably present clues congregate in bonuses, they’re usually drawn from longer tables like:
States and Capitals
Countries and Capitals
Senators & Governors of states (geographic answers to current events questions)
World Leaders (geographic answers to current events questions)
Books and Authors
And they’re either a short supporting clue in part A, or the entirety of the clue in part B. This accomplishes two things: it’s a clue that can be written short, making the bonus take up less time and keep the game moving; it’s a clue that experienced players, ones who’ve noticed the pattern and prepared for it, convert easily. It allows differentiation in the bonus, some zeros become 10s. As hard as it is to see sometimes, writers want their questions to be answered correctly. And for those that miss those clues and their coaches, it becomes a first step towards improvement that is common enough that any player can see the difference studying that yields.
Why do I mention this now, at the point where the season is over? Because I thought of it during the event. In my neck of the woods, there aren’t a lot of middle school competitions, and I haven’t attended a local one. I do see these patterns when I read for other events, but it’s at this tournament where for me this particular solution is most prominent, and offers the best bang for your buck (or time and effort equivalent).
In the book, predictably present clues are going to slot in among the post-mortem items for tournaments. Not necessarily end of year tournaments, but after the first non-television event and everything subsequent. Once you can show that quiz bowl is not random, but there are patterns, that these patterns can yield predictions about how to improve, yielding paths to study, and that that makes the next set of results testable not only for the team result, but how the packets are constructed. That is a way for a coach to get the team to buy into the entire idea of a year-round team. And once they buy into that, and you show them that things can be predicted, they aren’t going to go back to just playing television until they lose one game.
As we’re working through the championship season, I know that there’s tons of press releases going out, one for every school’s appearance in a championship. And while there’s a tremendous value to the team profiled, there’s also value that the publication of publicity gives us to developing teams in the area.
There’s of course the simple matter of awareness, by having a newspaper story out there, people from other school districts in the area may discover there’s an activity that other local schools are competing in, and succeeding, having reached the top level. That article shows there’s an endpoint, a target to reach at the end, and that article shows there’s a benchmark to overcome nearby.
There’s two motivating questions that every newspaper article can stir; one is aspirational towards the end goal: “If they can do this, why can’t we?”, the second (long termed “spite” by college teams) is directed towards defeating the immediate goal “What’s so special about them?” Both are potent motivators to get teams started, but as much as I’d like to thing the first question produces success and gives you the ability to stick with the long development of a team, the latter question is far more potent to move a program from not existing to existing.
These two motivations can align and benefit your team in different ways. If your pressure suddenly sees that your school could build to be stronger than the team in the article, they’re going to be motivated to help the team get stronger. If your pressure sees the endpoint, and the path that got the team in the article there, your team will see its way down that path cleared. Your team, and your potential recruits can be inspired by the path, and see the experience as fun, and they can also see it as a battle to prove themselves victorious. Let’s be honest here, it’s a little of both that gets a team started, and keeps a team going.