Expanding Novice/JV Eligibility

Frank P. Irizarry FPIRIZAR
Thu Sep 25 14:41:06 CDT 1997


How about 4 divisions, like Gary Larson uses at the Wheaton Fall
Tournament.

1)Rookie - NO EXPERIENCE AT ALL!  Like Gary does, we can even have the
Rookie division a "non switych sides" division so you only need to
prepare your debaters initially on half the topic.  Not a bad idea for a
relatively balanced topic like this one.
2)Novice - limited experience
3&4)J.V. And Varsity stay the same.

frank
syracuse


Date:          Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:44:43 -0400
Reply-to:      MWBRYANT at AOL.COM
From:          Michael Bear Bryant <MWBRYANT at AOL.COM>
Subject:       Expanding Novice/JV Eligibility
To:            EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU

Here's a thought that I'm sure will be dismissed because of the source:

Why not allow debaters the option of two years of both Novice and JV
eligibility, subject to the three-first-place-and-up condition?
Tournament
directors have the option of holding a special fourth "1st Year"
division
open to anyone with less than five tournaments of experience and no
competive
high school debate background, team or LD.

Yeah, someone could debate four full years and debate JV the last two
years,
if they exercised their full first two years doing novice. Frankly, if
they
haven't been forced up in either division across four years, they're
folks
that would likely not be debating by year four under the status quo,
right?

Advantages:
1. More student retention
2. Even JV level prep is incredibly educational
3. Larger novice and JV divisions = more access opportunities

Merging this concept with the perms of narrower topics and requiring
these
divisions for CEDA sanctioning seems as least as preferable for CEDA
expansion as expressed conceptualizations of Public Debate and doesn't
require finding an entirely new judge pool and also gets the net benefit
of
allowing new students exposure to feedback from experienced judges.

Do we really need to re-invent the wheel?

Bear
Yes, Tuna, Weber has fielded novice and JV teams...

************************************************************************
Frank P. Irizarry                    Office # (315) 443-5143
Director of Debate                   Home #   (607) 749-8715
Syracuse University                  Fax #    (315) 443-5143

fpirizar at vpa.syr.edu

"All those who see me, and all who believe in me, share in the freedom I
feel when I fly!" - John Denver, "The Eagle and the Hawk"

>From  Thu Sep 25 14:50:47 1997
Message-Id: <THU.25.SEP.1997.145047.0400.>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:50:47 -0400
Reply-To: pittelli at ehsct7.envmed.rochester.edu
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Randal Pittelli <pittelli at EHSCT7.ENVMED.ROCHESTER.EDU>
Organization: University of Rochester
Subject: Re: Proposal:  3 divisions=CEDA Sanction
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

hear! hear!

Kenneth Broda-bahm wrote:

> I am considering a proposal to change the constitution.  The gist of
> the
> change would be to require a tournament to offer all three divisions
> in
> order to receive CEDA sanctions.  Collapsing divisions could happen
> only
> if there are not enough teams in a division to permit round-robin
> prelims.
> The advantage of this is that it would address the 'absent novice' and
>
> 'disappearing JV' problems and solve the generally insurmountable gap
> between Nov. and Open.  It would promote regional debate.
>
> I'm open to feedback.
>
> -Ken Broda-Bahm



--
<----------------------------------------->
| Randal Pittelli                         |
| Dept of Environmental Medicine          |
| Univ of Rochester Medical Center        |
| Rochester, NY 14642                     |
|                                         |
| TEL: (716) 275-0797                     |
| FAX: (716) 256-2591                     |
| http://www.envmed.rochester.edu/wwwrlp/ |
<----------------------------------------->

>From  Thu Sep 25 14:56:56 1997
Message-Id: <THU.25.SEP.1997.145656.0500.>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:56:56 -0500
Reply-To: KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU
To: Team Topic Debating in America <EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU>
From: Kelly Young <KYOUNG at JCVAXA.JCU.EDU>
Subject: Despite the responsed, I am ignored again.
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

Thanks Tuna for responding to the closing line of my letter, but by doing
that, you prove my point.  Look, from what I can tell so far, the need for
change IS NOT a national issue.  Instead, it appears as though certain regions
would like more alternatives.

If that is the case, why can't individual tournaments continue to experiment
with formats.  Gary Larson's tournaments always have interesting and creative
experimental divisions (I especially like the novice restrictions).  People who
like this format seem to return to the tourney. Those who dont like it, dont
come back.

Certainly these restrictions can be introduced at various tournaments
throughout regions where it is wanted.  The bulk of the problems metioned so
far can be hammered out at these smaller tournament.

Let's see how each region and area responds to this beast in an actual
tournament first, then adjust the CEDA constitution (dear God, I just advocated
a study CPlan....I feel so unclean...)

Just my .02,

Kelly Young




More information about the Mailman mailing list