Preview
Nittany Invitational Preview
This Saturday, Penn State University’s Nittany Invitational will offer a second look at the Mid-Atlantic’s crowded middle tier as well as showcasing the best interregional play of the season so far.
Editor's Note: Following the publication of this article two of the teams dropped changing the format of the tournament. We have chosen to run this article as originally submitted since we believe the analysis herein is useful to those wanting to learn about the tournament. For revised predictions and information on the changing format, please see the bottom of this post.
This Saturday, Penn State University’s Nittany Invitational will offer a second look at the Mid-Atlantic’s crowded middle tier as well as showcasing the best interregional play of the season so far. Nine teams will meet in an unconventional format, with three pools of three teams each playing in the morning, and three new, reshuffled pools playing in the afternoon. The top four teams overall will move on to the semifinals.
Morning
Pool One: Ohio State University (OSU), Q.C. Pittsburgh, Capital Madness Quidditch Club
Opting for interregional play over the second major Midwest tournament of the year at Ball Brothers Brawl, Ohio State is aiming to show that its surprising snitch-range loss to the Ball State Cardinals at Tournament of the Stars II was a fluke. Ohio is in a good position to do so against Pittsburgh and Capital Madness, who will lack the physicality or bludger dominance necessary to break up Ohio’s fluid passing game.
While Ohio State should walk through both matches, the game between Pittsburgh and Capital Madness will provide valuable information about the health of the region. Pittsburgh has been on a downward trajectory since its Elite Eight finish at World Cup V, barely qualifying last year and limping out of pool play at 1-3. Meanwhile, Capital Madness has just formed to give a home to a number of the region’s perennial wanderers and merc-team veterans. With the traditional dominance of Villanova Community Quidditch and Penn State over the rest of the region (barring the University of Maryland) seemingly slipping, a failure by Pittsburgh to take an easy win here could help solidify the end of the Mid-Atlantic’s old guard.
Pool Two: the Warriors, Villanova Community Quidditch, University of Virginia (UVA)
This looks to be the most even pool of the morning. Villanova and UVA played to a 30-30 draw at Turtle Cup last weekend before Villanova’s Dan Takaki caught the snitch almost immediately upon its release to take the game 60*-30; expect another low scoring, snitch-range matchup from two teams that play conservatively in the bludger game and tend to play better defense than offense.
The Warriors have yet to play an official game but come in with big expectations. Keeping some of the most recognizable names—yet losing some of the biggest contributors—from the imploded NYDC Capitalists has perhaps put an unfair spotlight on their early-season performance. While the addition of former University of Miami star Sean Beloff will free Michael Parada to play off-ball offensively, where he is more likely to create problematic mismatches, there are no signs that the already strong quaffle lineup will be supplemented by improved beating. The matchups in this pool may be kind to the Warriors in this regard, as Villanova and UVA play more team-oriented, finesse quidditch than other non-Maryland teams in the Mid-Atlantic and they struggle to convert bludgerless offensive opportunities. However, with their beating woes compounded by the loss of NYDC’s most consistent seeker in Freddy Varone, the Warriors will be hoping to take both these games out of range on the strength of their quaffle play.
Pool Three: Penn State University (PSU), Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), Lock Haven University
Lock Haven started the season with a disappointing 0-4 Turtle Cup performance and last-place seeding, which is somewhat surprising considering the talent on its roster. Partly responsible for the poor performance is a major shift in beating philosophy from last year’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Championship, where the team played a predominantly two-male-beater, hyper-aggressive set. The strategy often covered up holes in the poorly drilled quaffle defense, but poor decision-making by the beaters just as often created gaps. Rather than a calmed version of this set, Lock Haven debuted an extremely conservative and often all-female beating line last weekend. Players were hesitant to throw even around their own hoops, leading to Lock Haven conceding a huge number of quick mid-range goals. If Lock Haven doesn’t find a compromise in beating strategy, it will be torn apart by the more physical drives of RIT and fast breaks of Penn State.
RIT opened the Snow Belt Conference three weeks ago with a seemingly big win over the University of Rochester Thestrals, but a subsequent shaky performance by (admittedly Devin Sandon-less) Rochester at Turtle Cup IV dampens the excitement a bit. Interregional play is generally rare from RIT, so it will be interesting to see if the team can impose its slow, physical style of play on unfamiliar foes. In any case, the experience will be a valuable addition to its locally available level of competition.
Penn State hasn’t played yet this season and will open without its perennial stars—beater Scott Axel, who is out for the semester, and chaser Jason Rosenberg, who is conspicuously not on Penn State’s public roster but is expected to return to the team after this weekend. PSU’s usual defensive strategy has been to pressure the quaffle carrier starting at midfield with both a point chaser and a beater. It still has the talent to get away with this, but it will be interesting to see the response from an RIT team that generally likes to slow the game on offense. I expect to see RIT’s physicality win out, but Penn State typically has talented depth, which could make a big difference in imposing its style.
Afternoon
Pool Four: Ohio State, Penn State, UVA
Coming off an Elite Eight finish at World Cup VII and with no major offseason departures, Ohio State is the clear favorite in this pool, but the matchups are still interesting. UVA might struggle to match its physically, but OSU will need to be careful to avoid a repeat of the Ball State game, as UVA likes to run a patient offense and lock down on defense for low-scoring games. The key to this game—and to UVA’s other games this weekend—will be whether the team can find the offense that failed to show up at Turtle Cup. Depth will also be an issue for UVA, who will be playing for the weekend with only 12 players. Thinness at beater and seeker in particular could lead to a long day given the difficulty of its pools.
Penn State will give Ohio State the first real defensive pressure of the tournament, looking to turn aggressive beating and point chasing into transition opportunities. Ohio tends to be vulnerable when its beaters are forced to make plays, as the team prefers to play a conservative game. Forcing the breaks in the quaffle game could give Penn State good opportunities to hold bludger control. If Penn State can manage this, especially with the snitch on pitch, this will keep things interesting. Ultimately though, Ohio State will be tough to break down.
Pool Five: Warriors, RIT, Capital Madness
The reunion of the two NYDC offshoots in this pool should unfortunately be pretty one-sided unless things have changed drastically in the week since Turtle Cup. Capital Madness’s only real hope is to use its likely beater advantage to jump-start a previously stagnant offense with more aggressive play.
The Warriors-RIT match is set up to be one of the day’s real treats and could determine the final team to fill in the semifinals as well as giving us a first look at the upper-middle tier of the Northeast before Oktoberfest. Neither team is expected to impress with their beaters, but there will be a definite clash of styles in the quaffle game. RIT will have the advantage if it can play patiently to open up high-percentage looks for last year’s breakout chasing star Shane Hurlbert, but RIT will likely be unable to match the Warriors’ offensive production if it becomes a shootout.
Pool Six: Villanova, Pittsburgh, Lock Haven
Villanova is the easy pick in this pool, but its less than stellar tackling ability may put too much pressure on its beaters to counter the quick wing chasing of Pittsburgh. This should be the real test of whether Pittsburgh can still be considered a contender in the Mid-Atlantic. Lock Haven won’t give much trouble to either team unless it has fixed some serious issues from Turtle Cup, or Pittsburgh has fallen further than expected.
The semifinalists are very difficult to predict given the tournament format, but likely contenders are Ohio State, RIT, Villanova, and the Warriors.
Update: After the writing of this article, Lock Haven and Capital Madness withdrew from the tournament; an unofficial mercenary team consisting of Penn State B team and Capital Madness players was added. The tournament has been restructured to consist of two traditional pools: In Pool A are Ohio State, Pittsburgh, UVA, and Penn State. In Pool B are the Warriors, Villanova, RIT, and the mercenary team.
Most of the above analysis is still highly applicable. Semifinalists can now be more reasonably predicted as the top two teams in each pool will advance. From Pool A I expect to see Ohio State advance easily with Penn State winning a more closely contested second place. From Pool B we could see any of the three official teams advance, but I don't expect Villanova to keep up with RIT and the Warriors in quaffle play.
