1) It is truly the year of YA fiction and the YA judges. Round 1 has left a wake of non-fiction and middle grade spines in its wake. (Bomb is the only non-fiction book to prevail when pitted against fiction, YA or middle grade; Starry River is the only middle grade book to prevail against YA.)
2) In Round 1, 6 out of 16 books were YA, 6 out of 16 books were MG, and 4 out 16 books were non-fiction. Going into Round 2, 5 out of 8 books are YA, 2 out of 8 books are MG, and 1 out of 8 books are non-fiction. The percentage of YA has increased from 37.5% in Round 1 to 62.5% in Round 2; the percentage of MG has decreased from 37.5% in Round 1 to 25% in Round 2; the percentage of non-fiction has decreased from 25% in Round 1 to 12.5% in Round 2.
3) With YA dominating the field, the diversity of genres has decreased from the first round to the next. This makes future brackets less exciting, in my opinion.
4) As I understand college sports (which is barely, so feel free to correct me) Division I schools play other Division I schools, and so forth. If it is unfair to pit a Division I team against a Division III team, then why match middle grade against non-fiction against YA in the first round?
5) Instead, do a Liar & Spy vs Splendors and Glooms, and match YA against YA, non-fiction against non-fiction, and middle grade against middle grade in Round 1. It’s not affirmative action, it’s reducing inherent biases.
6) Then judges won’t have to reiterate ad nauseam how choosing one over the other is like picking “apples and oranges,” or resort to egalitarian politesse (until Round 2 or 3.) That should make Roger Sutton happier.
7) Unrelated, but could the judges stop doing in-depths summaries of the books? We’ve either read the books already, or we want to read the books, so it’s a lose-lose situation when the judges give away more than the basic premise.