Calgary and Lisgar

13 Nats appearances in past 3 years in this post


After some wait, I finally have results tables again.

First up is the Calgary-Foothills SchoolReach regional tournament. This region has produced four National appearances in the past two years from Renert School, Rundle College, and Webber Academy. The tournament is still in progress with the two Renert teams still undefeated; results are found here. I don’t have a schedule of matchups that have occurred so far, so I can’t give R-values yet. The set PPG of 181 (probably closer to 200 when factoring out some forfeits) feels low for a regional tournament – they have been in the 230-250 PPG range in recent years. Considering that there are Nationals-bound teams in the field, this doesn’t look good for high points scores in other upcoming regions.

This is in contrast to the scoring blitz that was the 2018 Lisgar Reach tournament. UTS and Kennebecasis Valley once again joined the Ottawa-area teams in a tournament that has become a preview of Nationals. Results of the senior division are found here. UTS “A” won the tournament with a tidy points haul, losing only to UTS “C”, who finished second. Lisgar and KVHS rounded out the top 4 bracket. In the junior division, Glebe went undefeated and gave second-place Ashbury their only losses, while two KVHS teams tied for third.

The senior field at Lisgar was stacked. UTS “A” picked up almost 60% of the points available and only had an R-value of 144%. In the past, the junior division used essentially the same set as the seniors, so their results could be included too. For this year, there was enough difference to require separating them. This means there were no “weak” teams in the field to make UTS look relatively stronger. The bottom two finishers, Glebe and Almonte, are expected to end up in the top 20 at Ontario Provincials, while 4th through 9th were covered by a 55 PPG difference. In fact, the whole field can be circled as:

  • Almonte won against Glebe
  • Glebe won against Colonel By
  • Colonel By won against UTS B
  • UTS B won against Lisgar B
  • Lisgar B won against Lisgar C
  • Lisgar C won against KVHS
  • KVHS won against Lisgar A
  • Lisgar A won against UTS C
  • UTS C won against UTS A
  • while UTS A won against Almonte

Also, I made recordings of matches at the tournament, though I think I should withhold releasing them until a decision is made about using the questions at another site (TBD).

History Bowl also began their Canadian leg yesterday, but I don’t have results from Hamilton yet.

Other regions are starting up soon, so there are busy times ahead!

The 1970s paradigm shift

Let’s do this: LOOOORNE JENKEN

Last summer during my ranking of CBC champions, I referred to a paradigm shift that changed the game. In 1972, O’Leary HS of Alberta won a title by practicing earlier in the year; Lorne Jenken followed up in 1973 with probably the greatest single-season jump in innovation.

In the earliest years of Reach for the Top, the TV show brought in hastily-assembled teams. Sometimes a teacher ran a test to select the team, while there are a few cases of fielding the student council or making a team elected by students. Schools wanted their institution represented well on television, and there was attention to good manners and dress, but not necessarily hard knowledge. Other than Oak Bay from BC, there weren’t any “dynasties” where a school would readily bring a trained team year after year.

By the 1970s, the attitudes of teams on TV had changed. Students weren’t necessarily in their nice suits and dresses, and the players were starting to treat it as something to win rather than a means of making the school look good. The prize system may have helped: in the 1960s, only the school won bursaries; by the 1970s, the students themselves started receiving trips, books, and scholarships. Students now had another incentive to win the tournament.

O’Leary appears to be the first school to use a year-long practice method and win a title. I don’t know very much about their method other than that Lorne Jenken built upon it. Selecting a team at the beginning of the year – and having them study from encyclopedias, newspapers, and literature – was a new concept for the time. It allowed a team to split their topic strengths and build some chemistry before being thrust into the TV studio. I haven’t seen any footage of their 1972 title run, but in their 1974 final, they were very knowledgeable, not very TV-friendly, and only lost to Gonzaga by getting flustered from the Newfoundland home audience. They were much stronger than the teams in audio I’ve heard from 1960s games.

Lorne Jenken would have competed with O’Leary in the Edmonton area, and was no doubt inspired by O’Leary’s title. In the fall of 1972, new coach Ken Kowalski made a start-of-year intercom announcement asking for interested students – the meeting room filled up. I don’t know the logistics after that meeting, but somehow that large group of students became a credit course for Reach for the Top. Scheduled school time for a team would have been unheard of for the time, and is rare today. During the course, Kowalski and the students built a mock set of the studio with buzzers, studied books and old tournament questions, and perhaps most significantly, wrote tens of thousands of questions. Question writing is the preferred practice method of top teams today, but nobody was doing that in 1972. That class at Lorne Jenken was getting work done.

Side note: Lorne Jenken HS has since become Barrhead Composite. It is sometimes difficult to find information on the team because some people refer to it as “Lorne Jenkins”. Sources with “Jenkins” tends to be people recalling from the past, though it also appears on Reach’s list of champions. Meanwhile, Barrhead’s website mentions their old name of “Jenken”, as does some old news stories. I am sticking with “Lorne Jenken” for their name.

Lorne Jenken bested O’Leary at their own game in 1973. Lorne Jenken took the Alberta crown and went to Ottawa for their first nationals trip. I don’t know the identities of their opponents, but they beat teams from Nova Scotia, Ontario, Manitoba, and Quebec to win the title. Two consecutive titles (and almost a third in 1974) coming out of this Edmonton rivalry probably gave teams notice that change was afoot.

There was a shift in how teams played after the O’Leary/Jenken run. Players were aggressive on the buzzer, well-studied, and much more bonded as a team. Rather than assembling a group of seniors, teams would start bringing in younger players to acclimatize them for a later year. Reach of the later 1970s was in many ways similar to the modern era, and with a few adjustments, I wouldn’t be surprised if some of those teams could have competed against today’s clubs. Dynasties formed: Lorne Jenken (7), Gonzaga (6), and Dryden (3) all had multiple national appearances, and the first two-time champion (Vincent Massey CI) re-emerged in this time. The CBC era was in a golden age.

The golden age faded around 1980. The previously-mentioned dynasties no longer appeared, prizes and viewership were reduced, and teams of the mid-1980s didn’t look as strong. The first threat of cancellation occurred in 1983, and Reach ended up being dropped from CBC in 1985.

O’Leary HS did not make nationals again after 1974. They were outclassed by Lorne Jenken in Alberta competition for the rest of the CBC era, and no longer participate in SchoolReach.

Lorne Jenken missed a 1974 appearance, but took the Alberta title for a further six consecutive years (1975-1980). They never reached the final again, but made it to the semis at least twice. The 1985 edition of the Canadian Encyclopedia referred to Lorne Jenken as the best Reach for the Top team ever. By the end of the decade, though, most strong schools had adopted practice and writing methods developed by the Alberta team. The school dropped in performance after the departure of their coach, Ken Kowalski, and their modern incarnation, Barrhead Composite, also no longer participates in SchoolReach.

Ken Kowalski was a local hero after the 1973 title and subsequent national appearances. In 1979, he left teaching and ran for a seat in the Alberta legislature. He credited his win to the positive reputation from his teams’ Reach successes. In 1997, he was elected Speaker of the assembly in Alberta and retained that position until his retirement in 2012, becoming the second-longest tenured politician to preside over the legislature.

The 1972/73 shift is the biggest single-season upheaval in Reach. If you write questions, use a practice buzzer set, or even just schedule time for intramural SchoolReach, thank Ken Kowalski and that little hotbed of activity around Edmonton.

2017 UTS fall tournament results

Let the season begin!

The University of Toronto Schools held a fall Reach-style tournament on October 28. UTS has held several independent tournaments in the past, but this is their first under new management (and the first where I have full results).

Traditionally, the UTS tournament attracts many southern Ontario teams, and occasionally has visitors from other parts of the province and the well-traveled KVHS team. Because of the wide variety of Ontario teams (and its original April date), the UTS tournament had been a good measuring stick for Ontario SchoolReach provincials.

This year’s tournament attracted 32 teams from 20 schools. The top four teams from 2017 Nationals and top six teams from 2017 Ontario provincials were in attendance. Teams were split into four pools of 8, but only completed five of the round-robin games for the morning preliminaries. This left an uneven schedule for some teams, as will be seen later. For the afternoon, the top 8, next 8, next 8, and bottom 8 teams were separated into “elimination” brackets, though all teams continued playing to resolve every rank from 1 to 32. Martingrove CI won the tournament, with a 410-280 victory over London Central SS “A” in the final.

The stats, including the R-value, are found at this link. The initial pools were divided as follows:

Pool A (313 PPG) Pool B (282 PPG) Pool C (253 PPG) Pool D (293 PPG)
  • Agincourt
  • Assumption A
  • Chaminade B
  • Central B
  • Richview
  • UCC A
  • UTS A
  • Westmount
  • Assumption B
  • Centennial CVI
  • Bethune A
  • Lisgar
  • Central A
  • Michael Power
  • TMS B
  • UFA A
  • Assumption C
  • Chaminade A
  • Bethune B
  • Martingrove
  • Oakville Trafalgar B
  • TMS A
  • UFA B
  • “Hat team”
  • KVHS
  • Oakville Trafalgar A
  • Oakwood
  • St. Michael’s
  • UCC B
  • UFA A
  • UTS B
  • White Oaks

I’ll look at the champions, Martingrove, first. Despite having the second-highest points haul, they only ended up with a raw R-value of 123% (7th overall for that stat). Their R-value was hurt by their extremely easy schedule, in which they faced the lowest-recorded strength of schedule for a complete tournament. Not only did the strength of schedule lower their R-value, but I suspect their points haul was lower than expected for at least one of these reasons:

  • With easy opponents, games were settled fairly early, allowing Martingrove to ease off.
  • Martingrove could play more loose and risk mistakes and wrong answers

Once the playoffs rolled around, they reverted back to their usual strong persona. If their playoff games were incorporated into their total R-value (which I don’t do, because of the significant play difference between prelims and playoffs), their R-value becomes 172%, which is closer to expected.

Central and UTS’ secondary players put up their usual strong performances. UTS A was part of a lions’ den in Pool A, which gave a large boost to those teams’ strength of schedule and R-value. Considering UTS’ result, this bodes well for when they bring in their true “A” team.

Hands up if you said Westmount would have the highest R-value. I knew they would be a decent team this year, but the curse of Hamilton’s strength of schedule struck again: Westmount’s SOS was at least 10% higher than any other top-flight team, including almost 60% tougher than Martingrove’s. They had to play full-throttle to keep up with all their opponents, and the combination of lots of points and a tough schedule created a perfect storm for a high R-value. Westmount deserves notice this year, but I don’t think they are yet at the echelon of UTS or Martingrove.

KVHS is probably disappointed with their final placement. They went undefeated in the morning, and as a reward, had to face UTS A in the first playoff game. They only lost to the UTS teams that day.

Lisgar had a completely new lineup from their previous national championship squad. The deep Lisgar program still produced a team that can put up the points, but three consecutive losses to Central, Martingrove, and KVHS settled their fate and gave them a good gauge for how they stack up in the national picture this year.

Chaminade is a school I know little about. They went to a few UTS events, but my only record of them is 15th at the 1999 Ontario provincials. They ended up in the top flight thanks to being the “best of the rest” in the Martingrove-dominated Pool C. I suspect the “Hat team” in that pool was an exhibition group to replace a strong team that had to drop out suddenly, but it ended up leaving the pool weak overall. Chaminade, like many other GTA teams, will have a tough go to get out of regionals with all the strong established Toronto teams.

The biggest outlier is Upper Canada College. They had an R-value of 144% and crushed the third flight, but statistically, they should have been vying for a top 8 finish. Being stuck in Pool A didn’t help, and even if they hypothetically beat Agincourt, they still would have only ended up in the second flight. I know it can be hard to judge team strength at the beginning of the year, but placing four 2017 ON playoff teams (and the B team of a fifth) together gave the unsurprising outcome of a stacked pool. Hopefully, UCC will get another tournament before provincials to see if they can do better.

I noticed an interesting comparison with the two Oakville rivals White Oaks and Oakville-Trafalgar. They were placed in the same pool with almost the same SOS and identical point tallies. Their round-robin match was decided by 10 points. They met again in the playoffs, with a 350-300 victory for White Oaks to determine 13th place. For several years, these two have faced each other regionally and provincially; it looks like it will be a paper-thin margin between them again this year.

Overall, I got the impression that this was a good tournament by UTS. The schedule issues are mostly nitpicking at this stage; for an early-year tournament, the most important thing is to see how the other teams are doing, rather than worry about final rank. There will be other Reach-style opportunities at Lisgar and possibly Westmount.

Finally, McMaster held a tournament yesterday, but I will recap that after Lisgar runs their event with those questions next week.

On distribution

A topic about topics

As teams get started for the year, a common question is “What should I be studying?” Good teams usually have a system for splitting categories among players, so what actually is important?

Ideally, there is a topic distribution. A thorough distribution usually has fixed numbers of questions for each broad subject per pack, and fixed number of questions for each subcategory over the course of a set. For example, a set might have 15 science questions per pack, with 10 geology questions spread over the twelve packs in the set. Topic distributions are well-established in the quizbowl circuits south of the border; not only does it offer guidelines on what to study, but it also organizes the submission of questions editors receive from writers.

There is no official distribution in Reach. I found this out while setting up a writing effort in 2014, and I don’t think that has changed since. I will return to that later, but I will start with my brief foray into coaching in 2012. For that year, I tried to reverse-engineer a distribution from the limited number of complete sets I had on hand at the school (the 2010-11 and 2012-13 intramural sets). The chart:

Screen Shot 2017-11-05 at 4.52.04 AM
Broad subject distribution of 2010 & 2012 intramural sets. Error bars are standard deviation based on amounts from each individual pack.

A brief explanation of the broad subjects:

  • Pop Culture: TV, movies, music, games, and sports. I generously lumped all books (even Twilight) with literature. The largest subcategory was sports, with about 7.1% of total question content.
  • History: Anything under the domain of history up to 2000, unless it fit more specifically into a smaller category like science or arts. I subdivided history into Canadian, US, post-Roman Europe, Ancient, and World. Europe had 6.7% of total content.
  • Science: For this case, science includes solving math problems, though I tallied them as a subcategory separate from math concepts. Some topics, like Newton discovering gravity, fell under history if I deemed it more suitable. Perhaps surprisingly to some, neither computational math nor chemistry (via elemental symbol questions) was largest; it was biology with 5.4% of total content.
  • Geography: The catch-all for identifying things on a map. Theory of geography was non-existent. There was a fairly even balance between Canadian, European, and “rest of World”, with “rest of North America” being the subcategory that lost out. I can’t recollect fully, but I think “rest of world” was largely dominated by identifying capitals, while Canadian geography got its point haul from several who-am-I questions.
  • Literature: With less than 10% of total content, even after throwing in “pop lit” and children’s books, this is the most lacking subject in the distribution. Most quizbowl distributions place literature around 20% as one of the “big three” with history and science. In the sets I reviewed, Canadian, US, and European literature combined (the rest of the world was non-existent) came to 7.1% – the same as sports.
  • “Words”: This is another catch-all for questions in which the word itself is more important than having background knowledge in a subject. The three subcategories I used were “definitions (incl. translation)”, “spelling”, and “wordplay”. “Wordplay” includes anagramming and those quirky questions where you add a letter to make a different word. For “definitions”, I was willing to place science/history/etc ones in that corresponding subject, but a lot were just things like “what does genuflect mean?” In my opinion, none of this “words” category belongs in quizzing, but it’s there.
  • Miscellaneous: The last catch-all for questions that don’t fit another subject. Provincial flowers, mixing colors, slogans, and so on. It is possible for legitimate topics to appear as “miscellaneous” (even quizbowl accounts for this), but I’m not holding my breath for questions on administration, shop class, nursing, and other studied material that fall between the subject cracks.
  • R/M/P: This is a quizbowl clumping. It stands for “religion, mythology, and philosophy”, which are topics that can often overlap. “Religion” in this case refers to practices and beliefs; events (such as the life of Buddha or the 95 Theses) usually fall under history. Dominated by identifying Greco-Roman gods, the mythology subcategory leads the way with 2.6% of total content.
  • Fine Arts: This category has your visual (painting, sculpture, etc) and auditory (music, opera, etc) arts. Smaller topics like dance, architecture, and certain films find their way in as well. Music is slightly favored over visual art in the sets I reviewed, but the subject as a whole is fairly small.
  • Current Events: Topics after 2000 that wouldn’t be considered “pop culture” or sports are found here. It ended up being fairly evenly split between politics and other newsworthy events. This is a subject that can be difficult to “study” for; it tends to require a habit of being world-aware.
  • Social Science: Got an interest in economics, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, or dozens of other social sciences? Too bad.

Take all this with a grain of salt. It is only a sample size of 2 sets, and sets do evolve as the difficulty and years change – a modern Nationals set is not likely to have much wordplay, for example. However, it is still reasonable to expect that the “big 3” of Reach will be pop culture, history, and science this year.

When I wrote in 2014, I used the following distribution:

  • 19.3% History. I tried a roughly even split between Canada/US/Europe (all eras)/World, but shifting some US to Europe.
  • 19.3% Science. No computational math. I restricted questions on elements to not make any reference to their symbol, except possibly as a gimme at the end of a what-am-I or long question.
  • 17.9% Literature. This was my weakest subject, but it needed a big boost from what existed.
  • 12.9% Pop culture. Sports was toned down to balance out with movies, TV, music, and games.
  • 8.6% Geography
  • 5.7% Fine arts
  • 5% R/M/P
  • 4.3% Current events. So much for that category when my questions started showing up three years after the fact.
  • 2.1% Social sciences
  • 5% miscellaneous. No “words”. Usually, “miscellaneous” became a multi-clue question that spanned several different subjects (like how “blue” appears in science, literature, or music, for example).

It should be noted that the list above is what I submitted. Editorial control determined what topics appeared in question sets, and it needed to accommodate questions from other authors.

I don’t know the future of a distribution in Reach. Ever since quizbowl showed up, there have been rumours of players trying to adapt the topics, but rarely do they get to the point of writing and submitting. Quizbowl writing is a more lucrative venture, which discourages any new talent from coming in at Reach. There is also the problem that the majority of customers would resist change, even a change to better reflect a school curriculum (when was the last time you used anagrams or Drake in class?).

For now, if you’re looking for something to study, find the biggest topic no one else on your team is covering. That’s the best bet. How to study is another matter…

2018 Previews

Still waiting on Newfoundland.

I’ve been away for the start of the school year, but with tournaments underway, I’d better get back in the saddle.

The 2018 season is going to be very talented. A lot of teams have been able to keep strong players who will now be entering their senior year, including the four national semifinalists from last year. Some highlights (from an Ottawa-centric view):

Locally (Ottawa), the starting point is the 2017 champs. Lisgar CI is losing almost everyone to graduation, except their Nationals MVP. However, that player will have less support and interest this coming year. I don’t think Lisgar is going to be in National contention this year, though they will still be good enough to continue their provincial qualification streak. Their main local threat will be Glebe CI, who see most players return. Interestingly, Glebe has reached Ontario playoffs each time they have qualified for provincials, so they should be kept on the radar. Beyond Lisgar and Glebe, I think there’s a drop-off with respect to Reach; Colonel By SS, however, will be a contender in other quiz events.

Provincially (Ontario), we seemed destined for a very deep playoff field. UTS is the early favourite – they have several players returning and have a full complement of supporting players in the younger grades to bolster the strength of the team. They will hope to do one better than their finals loss last season. The other National qualifier from last season, Martingrove CI, is another deep squad that always excels in the provincial tournament; they will probably take one of Ontario’s qualification spots again. The third Ontario spot (presuming the system remains the same) will be hotly contested. Lisgar and UCC will probably be weaker this year, but could survive the playoffs. London Central SS has been a mainstay since their 2007 run, and usually finds a way to at least the third round of playoffs. Royal St. George’s College has been on my radar for four years; they have proven themselves through UTS’ independent tournaments and History Bowls, but somehow always struggle at Provincials. If they can get that monkey off their back, they should be a team that breezes through the Nationals style of play. Westmount has been slowly getting better each year ever since their coach came to the program, and they should make playoffs, but I think they still have one more year to go before their big season. I don’t know enough about Assumption’s, PACE’s, Centennial’s or the Oakville teams’ composition to judge how they’ll do yet, but they round out the “usual suspects”.

Nationally, KVHS is the other team to watch out for. They are another deep team like UTS or Martingrove, and should win New Brunswick, if not sweep it altogether. Their advantage over any of the remaining national teams is their constant tournament participation. Ontario is miles ahead of the other provinces, not necessarily because of population, but because of the very active scene of independent tournaments held throughout the year. Development is much better against other teams on fresh material than sitting in a lunchroom with old questions you’ve heard before, and there appear to be gradual changes afoot at Reach that will favour teams that broaden their knowledge base. I know that there have been attempts at tournaments over the years in BC and Alberta, but the staying power in Ontario (and to a lesser extent, New Brunswick) is the factor that will keep certain provinces on top.

A major tournament has already been held, UTS’ fall tournament. It’s too early for me to have any details, but the four National semifinalist from last year were in attendance, and other contenders like Central, Westmount, UCC, and Assumption will make their early mark on the measuring stick. I’m not convinced that the format will do a good job of ranking teams, but I hope to eventually get the raw numbers for a deeper look.

Finally, do not be demoralized if I haven’t mentioned you. Lots of things get overlooked in the early season, and the picture doesn’t become clearer until as late as the provincial tournaments. If you’re an Ontario team, there are plenty of opportunities to gauge yourselves; if you are elsewhere, try to get an event going (2017 National attendees were offered the 2017 Lisgar tournament set for holding a local competition; though if you’re reading this, you’ve probably been spoiled on content from the earlier recordings…).

Best of luck for 2018!

Reach champion rankings, 2017 part 4

Where Nationals is a regular thing.

Here ends the ranking of Reach championship-winning clubs. The rankings from the CBC era are here, while the first two parts of the modern era are here and here.

The top six teams are no strangers to national championships. Between them, they account for 15 titles and 26 final appearances, and you have to go back to the 2000 Merivale-Ridley final to find a title match that didn’t feature at least one of these teams. These are the teams that have dominated the new millennium.

Here are the top six, with not much change from 2015:

  1. University of Toronto Schools (ON)
  2. Kennebecasis Valley HS (NB)
  3. St. George’s School (BC)
  4. Lisgar CI (ON) [up 3]
  5. London Central SS (ON) [down 1]
  6. Martingrove CI (ON)

I don’t think UTS at #1 is a surprise to anyone. UTS participated in Reach as far back as the CBC era, but they really broke out at the 2000 Ontario Provincials with a sudden run to the semifinals after some absence. Their first peak from 2001-04 saw four consecutive provincial titles and two national titles, all while putting up dominant playing statistics that would be tops until very recently. After that, they continued picking up provincial titles and a few final appearances in a relative “lull”, then nabbed two more titles this decade to cement themselves as the winningest club. A new coach hasn’t slowed down the team; they cruised through most of Nationals this year and are expected to do well in the years to come.

KV is firmly at #2, thanks to another title they picked up last year. Three titles and a further three runners-up should be enough to rest on, but they also are incredibly consistent. KV ended Fredericton’s long domination of New Brunswick in 2004, missed 2005 for job action, then qualified for Nationals every year since. In their 13 National appearances, they have finished at least in the top half of the field every time. Not even UTS can claim this consistency, though they still have quite a bit to go to reach another team…

St. George’s remaining at #3 might be more surprising. They have mostly faded from national contention after the retirement of their coach who guided them in the ’90s and ’00s, though they still pick up some appearances as a BC representative. What keeps them ranked high is 20 National appearances (I can’t verify ’89 & ’90, which would add to that total). St. George’s was the team to beat in Reach until UTS took on that mantle. Their coach often lamented that the only thing that held them back from even more titles was Ontario’s grade 13 and all those old students dominating the ’90s (to be fair, Fredericton was often a better non-Ontario team than St. George’s during that period). I will still place St. George’s ahead of the remaining teams, but the next set are in a good position to rise further.

Lisgar, Central, and Martingrove are close to a coin flip. Lisgar has the most titles but is the least consistent, Central has been steady for a decade, while Martingrove has both history and an impressive consecutive appearance streak going (for an Ontario team). Here are National stats for the three:

Team Titles Finals Appearances
Lisgar CI 3 (’08, ’15, ’17) 3 (same) 5 (& ’11, ’16)
London Central SS 2 (’07, ’09) 4 (& ’12, ’14) 5 (& ’16)
Martingrove CI 1 (’14) 1 (same) 6 (& ’93, ’13, ’15-17)

All three each lead a different category. Martingrove, at first glance, appears a step below, but their strength in ’90s Ontario alongside Saunders shouldn’t be discounted (it is possible they also qualified in ’89 or ’90). Lisgar has the biggest jump forward; last time the rankings were done, they were lower in all categories compared to Central. For now, I think the order is fair, but even just next year’s results could alter the positions of all three.

And that concludes my Reach for the Top champion rankings. I try to find old results to help boost the reputations of clubs, but if you have further information, I’ll be glad to use it for later updating (like I did to elevate Saunders). I hope you enjoyed them!

Reach champion rankings, 2017 part 3

Turn of the millennium

I’m continuing the ranking of Reach championship-winning clubs. The rankings from the CBC era are found here, while the first part of the modern era is found here.

This next set of clubs mostly had their highlights during the turn of the millennium, 1995-2005. Sandy Stewart, the founder of the SchoolReach program, retired by this point, but the Reach program was in good shape: subscriptions were at their peak, provincial and national championships return to television, and new question styles (like shootouts and relays) were introduced. Reach alumni from the 1990s started establishing university clubs at Queen’s, Western and Waterloo, though Reach failed in their early-2000s attempt to get a university subscription program. The Reach circuit, as a whole, may not have had as much top-end strength as today, but it had a healthier population.

Part 2 of the modern era rankings:

  • 7. Saunders (ON) [up 5]
  • 8. Gloucester (ON) [down 3]
  • 9. Fredericton (NB) [up 1]
  • 10. Cobequid (NS) [down 2]
  • 11. Merivale (ON) [down 2]
  • 12. Woburn (ON) [down 1]

The biggest change of the whole list is Saunders’ rise. While Saunders’ four Nationals appearances in the five Thorsley years is impressive, I toned down their ranking before by attributing it all to the strength of one player. I was mistaken. Like the 1990 Oilers, Saunders could find success again without their star, and finished the 1999 final with one of the highest losing scores ever. There was clearly a good foundation to that club, and they deserved to be higher than originally placed. Unfortunately, they have been pretty much dormant this century, so that stops them from getting higher.

Gloucester drops because of the rise of other teams. Gloucester was probably the best program in Canada for the span of years I mentioned earlier, using different player compositions in all their National appearances. However, with the club inactive, they will continue to drop as other teams achieve success.

Fredericton gets a slight boost from my awareness of three straight finals, 1994-1996. I knew about their long dominance of New Brunswick, but taking it to the Ontario teams in an era of Ontario’s 5-year high schools is impressive (the St. George’s coach of the time claimed his school would have had many more titles had Ontario stopped at grade 12). Fredericton is still around, and may rise again.

Cobequid, Merivale, and Woburn all drop from other teams rising. Cobequid has come down from their 00s peak, while Merivale and Woburn can’t crack Nationals despite some playoff success provincially. None of these teams should be at risk of falling below the inactive clubs of last week, though.

The final installment comes next week. You can deduce who is in the top six, but I’ll reveal my ranks and reasoning then. The remaining top teams are all active, all have Nationals success, mostly all got their break in the top-heavy part of new millennium. Stay tuned!