[eDebate] Towson Novice/JV Nationals Results and Feedback

[Beth Skinner]

Thanks to all of those who visited us over the weekend.  It was our pleasure to 
have you with us and we look forward to seeing you next year.  Below are three 
different items:  my thoughts on eligibility questions, a request for feedback 
on the tournament and the results.  If all you want is to know who won, feel 
free to skip ahead.

I?ve been reading with interest the recent thread on novice and JV eligibility 
issues.  I, too, have seen a good many debates this year in which the skill 
level of debaters exceeded my expectations of the division in which they had 
been entered.  I?ve also encouraged those I thought ought to be moving up to do 
so.  Ultimately, though, I think that the decision to progress ought to be as 
local as possible.  The debater and coach should reach a decision together on 
what the debater?s objectives are in terms of winning, education, skill 
development, etc.  The more centralized these decisions are, the less able they 
are to take into account the goals, personalities and circumstances of the 
people involved.

Some argue that this flexibility allows for ?abuse? of the system ? that 
coaches more concerned with winning or points than with learning and 
development will hold students back.  I guess that might be happening now, 
though I think the attribution of bad intent is probably exaggerated and is 
sometimes (not always) a case of sour grapes.  I guess there might be coaches 
who see their teams as extensions of their own egos and are willing to 
sacrifice development for points.  But when I think of the people I know in the 
activity, I have trouble seeing them as evil, manipulative and self-serving.  
Maybe things are different where you are but I trust my colleagues? 
motivations ? I think I have to in order to have faith in the community and to 
remain engaged in it.

Given that, I think that a tournament that calls itself a national championship 
ought to reflect the values of the wider community.  So, if a consensus for 
alternate eligibility regulations emerges, we plan to honor it.  We welcome 
your input on any or all of the following questions so if you can backchannel 
me with your responses, I?d appreciate it as assistance in planning for next 
year.

1.	What did you think of the tournament hotel (especially versus the 
Holiday Inn we?ve used in the past)?
2.	Do you like mutual preference judging or would you rather have strikes 
and then random judge assignment?
3.	Would you rather continue to have 7 prelims or move to 6 (2 on Friday, 
4 on Saturday)?
4.	Did you miss the pottery awards?
5.	Do you have suggestions for improving hospitality?
6.	Would you rather see a restrictive (ADA), broad (CEDA) or new (please 
describe) definition of novice eligibility?

Thanks again for coming and congratulations to everyone, especially those who 
were competing in their first national tournament!

Beth Skinner
Towson Debate


Novice Speakers

1. Melander, Lindsey (Vermont) 
2. Klein, Jeff (Binghamton)
3. O'Brien, Meghan (Catholic)
4. Pan, Allison (USMA)
5. Hoban, Lindsey (Liberty)
6. Shoupe, Carly (Catholic)
7. Hurter, Melissa (Liberty)
8. Pope, Jeff (Catholic)
9. Burns, Grace (Liberty)
10. Mates, Eric (Vermont)
11. Kern, Colin (Vermont)
12. Spaulding, Theresa (Rochester)
13. Harris, Jennifer (Louisville)
14. Wyatt, Leslie (Mary Washington)
15. Westlund, Robin (Marist)
16. Floyd, Ebony (Louisville)
17. Azevedo, Kelly (Liberty)
18. Lynn, Cara (Pepperdine)
19. Isham, Jared (Liberty)
20. Hyson, Kim (Pepperdine)

JV Speakers
1. Hill, Teresa (Vermont)
2. Press, Elliot (USMA) 
3. Tiffee, Matt (Southwest Texas)
4. Langsweirdt, Lana (Vermont) 
5 King, Courtney (Louisville) 
6. Hoag, Andrew (Pepperdine) 
7. Day, Jonathan (Liberty)
8. Williams, Lawrence (Eastern New Mexico) 
9. Kraus, Alyse (Liberty)
10. Bernert, Lauren (Louisville) 
11. Liu, Andy (NYU/Columbia) 
12. Gaskell, Liz (Rochester) 
13. Kaplan-Shain, Ilana (Rochester) 
14. Nix, Elisha (Liberty) 
15. Swords, John (Capital) 
16. Murray, Craig (Cornell) 
17. Lind, Stephen (Liberty) 
18. Logan, Cedric (Rochester) 
19. Nuruddin, Nafess (Rochester) 
20. Granillo, Jeff (Cornell) 

Rookie Champions (that's right - rookies in March and they competed in the 
novice division): James Madison Kim and Gordon

Novice Elim Results

Partial Double-Octas

Chico (2-1) over Richmond HG
Mary Washington RW (3-0) over Vanderbilt RP
John Carroll AW (2-1) over Chico CP
Vermont MM (2-1) over Liberty HW
Binghamton KG (3-0) over Vermont RM
Louisville FH (2-1) over Liberty CF
Vermont VK (3-0) over Case Western FZ
Rochester MV (3-0) over Capital MT

Octas
Rochester SD (2-1) over Vermont VK
Liberty HH (2-1) over Rochester MV
Liberty AB (2-1) over Louisville FH
Catholic MP (3-0) over Binghamton KG
Catholic SO (2-1) over Vermont MM
John Carroll AW (2-1) over USMA PP
Chico GR (3-0) over Liberty IL
Pepperdine HL (2-1) Mary Washington RW

Quarters
Rochester SD (2-1) over Chico GR
Liberty HH (3-0) over Pepperdine HL
Liberty AB (3-0) over Catholic SO
Catholic MP (3-0) over John Carroll AW

Semis
Liberty AB (2-1) over Rochester SD
Catholic MP (2-1) over Liberty HH

Finals 
Catholic MP (3-0) over Liberty AB



JV Elim Results
Partial Double-Octas

Vermont MO (3-0) over MTSU CL
Pepperdine HQ (2-1) over CUNY MS
John Carroll FG (3-0) over Rochester KC
Vermont CK (3-0) over John Carroll DT
West Virginia ES (3-0) over Mary Washington ES

Octas
West Virginia ES (2-1) over Cornell GM
John Carroll FG (2-1) over Vermont LH
Pepperdine HQ (3-0) over ENMU WM
Vermont MO (2-1) over USMA PS
Liberty DN (2-1) over Rochester DM
Liberty KL (2-1) over Rochester NO
NYU/Columbia ML (2-1) over Rochester LG
Southwest Texas TK (2-1) over Vermont CK

Quarters

NYU/Columbia ML (3-0) over West Virginia ES
Liberty KL (3-0) over John Carroll FG
Southwest Texas TK (3-0) over Liberty DN
Vermont MO (3-0) over Pepperdine HQ

Semis
Vermont MO (2-1) over NYU/Columbia ML
Liberty KL (3-0) over Southwest Texas TK

Finals
Vermont MO (2-1) over Liberty KL


Top Judge Award (based on debater rankings)
Reid Sawyer (USMA)