First-Rounds at Districts

[Ross Smith]

1) This issue might be better raised at the district meeting or as a post to
a list of district subscribers than as an e-debate post.

2) Our district has had an open tournament for some years now.

3) From a fairness of pairings perspective, the addition of more teams, at
any level, makes the tournament easier to pair fairly. A larger tournament
will have less extreme skews in presets and in power matched debates. Your
argument about this favoring the second West Georgia team is outweighed by
the overall effect on tournament fairness. Additionally, your argument
depends on the assumption that the second SUWG team is one of the top teams
in the tournament. If it is not, then they wouldn't hit SUWG in power paired
rounds anyway. If it is and HS is not at the tournament, then someone gets
the shaft by debating SUWG "B" in a mismatch. Additionally, the presence of
another "top" team gives teams like Kentucky JR (a first-round near miss)
someone else to debate. Otherwise, that's one more round that JR will meet a
team that is pulled up to hit them. Plus, once you see the Emory entries,
you may decide you are glad SUWG HS is at the tournament.

4) You make a good point about the CEDA regional tournament. Perhaps we
should work toward the day when there is just one varsity tournament, with
the NDT qualifiers determined by order of finish in that tournament. The
hold up on that is that district subscribers rightly feel that they should
have significant input into the tournament procedures of any tournament that
determines who goes to the NDT.


At 01:35 PM 2/15/00 EST, The Coop wrote:
>I have just learned that there is a good chance that Sarah Holbrook and
>Rachel Saloom, West Georgia's first-round team,  will be debating at the
>District 6 qualifying tournament.  I have a couple problems with this:
>
>First, and most obviously, allowing first-rounds to debate at the District
>tournament unfairly skews the field to favor the other teams from the schools
>with first-rounds if only because of their inability to face those teams in
>competition.  For everyone else, the field is that much more difficult.
>
>Second, even if there is a separate procedure in place to "protect" teams
>competing for the actual spots, the only possible justification for allowing
>first-rounds to compete (the extra practice) is a particularly weak
>justification in this instance.  With the CEDA regional tournament taking
>place at the SAME time and in the SAME place, it seems that first-rounds have
>ample opportunity to get the practive in.
>
>Third, t seems a real slight to the CEDA community to argue that first-rounds
>need to face "better" competition (for practice purposes) at the district
>qualifer rather than competiting at the regional tournament.  Ultimately,
>there seems little justification for having essentially THREE different
>tournaments occuring at the same time (the teams competing for slots out of
>districts, the teams NOT competiting for slots, AND the CEDA regional
>tournament).  Why not kill two birds with one stone by getting some practice
>rounds for your team AND supporting the CEDA regional tournament by sending
>the first-rounds there?
>
>I want Hester (or anyone else thinking of sending first-rounds to District 6)
>to either make a decision to support CEDA regionals OR provide a valid
>justification for allowing first-rounds to compete at the District 6
>qualifying tournament.
>
>COOP
>Univ. of Miami
>
>