[eDebate] And the Elephant In the Corner Is...

matt stannard stannardmatt
Tue Apr 18 02:39:41 CDT 2006


To clarify regarding Ermo's clarification:

I am not suggesting that hosts run "free tournaments" by internalizing the 
costs.  At our policy tournament, we charge no fees and incur no costs.  If 
we wanted to serve meals, we would charge fees that covered the meals, etc.  
I realize some schools incur costs merely by using their facilities.  Those 
costs should be shared among participants.  I also realize that eight-round 
tournaments work best when people eat on campus.

To everything else Ermo said, yep.

stannard


>From: "Morris, Eric R" <EricMorris at MissouriState.edu>
>To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] And the Elephant In the Corner Is...
>Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 01:49:06 -0500
>
>To clarify:
>
>1. Tournament meals provided at reasonable cost are a good idea. Keeping
>things running quickly makes the days more humane. Even a couple more
>bucks per person for nicer food is probably reasonable. Many banquets
>are not.
>
>2. Moving in the direction of free entries, etc., makes sense to a
>point. However, someone is always paying if expenses are incurred. Thus,
>reasonable expenses which benefit everyone seem like a good idea. I
>appreciate a tournament willing to internalize the costs to offer free
>competition, but I don't feel entitled to such a generous offer. And,
>depending on its location, travel costs can easily overwhelm entry fees.
>
>3. Of course, the real elephant may be that the travel schedule adopted
>by the top teams functions to constrain market forces to a great degree.
>Anyone who opts out of various national tournaments - including said top
>teams - penalizes their own teams with little empirical success in
>creating a movement to a reasonable alternative. Considering the
>resistance to the Bruschke Amendment a year ago (a reasonable, though
>small, 1st step toward a more balanced schedule), it seems that even
>non-market solutions may fail. If that's the case then my target
>audience is probably limited to those fortunate enough to host the major
>national tournaments. Thus,
>
>4. I hope the directors fortunate enough to host major tournaments
>closely monitor expenses and consider alternatives that would diminish
>the cost (total cost including hotel fees, not just entry fees), even if
>the "prestige" goes down a bit as well. When I see debaters dress and
>act, I do not view us as the type likely to be offended because we're
>staying at a "lesser" chain instead of the Starwood system. I mean that
>in a very positive way. I stay at hotels during tournaments that I would
>never select as a private individual spending my own money.
>Given Harvard's legendary size constraints, I don't assume there are
>easy alternatives on campus. Each tournament's situation is obviously
>different, and I'm speaking more to a gestalt experience than singling
>out any tournament. In fact, I rarely have more than anecdotal
>information about particular tournament budgets and expenses. I would
>not expect someone to kill their tournament if there was no other option
>but the expensive hotel with the elim rooms. But, if a minor downgrade
>in the star rating of a hotel enables people to attend the tournament,
>then, as a tournament attendee, it is a sacrifice I would like to make.
>Perhaps other attendees feel the same way?
>
>Eric Morris
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate






More information about the Mailman mailing list