[eDebate] Worker Rule

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Apr 20 15:18:05 CDT 2006


Hello,

I was originally for a proposal based around the same concept as the salary
cap in professional sports.  While I, like Hester, have taken much joy over
the years in taking teams with less resources and beating teams with more
resources the disparity between the "have's" and the "have nots" seems to
make the game challenging, occasionally rewarding, beatable, but unfair at
its core. And before you say "I like it unfair" remember that while its true
that the Yankees dont win every year, despite the highest payroll,  they are
ALWAYS one of the four teams in at the end.  Oakland can get to the playoffs
but four Oaklands cant get to the playoffs.  We have 100s of schools
and count the number of coaches that  have gotten to Quarterfinals or better
at the NDT in the last ten years (thank you "history of the NDT"):

Harvard (5), Baylor (1), Emory (7), Redlands (3), Iowa (2), Michigan (2),
Northwestern (10), Wake (4), Texas (3), Louisville (2), Georgia (2)
KU (1), Gonzaga (1), UNT (1), MSU (8), Pace (1), Dartmouth (5), West Ga (2),
Cal (4), Kentucky (1), Whitman (2), Fort Hays (1), Fullerton (1), Wayne
State (1)

24 schools in 10 years (pardon me if my count is off).....The only schools
that did not have massive COMPARATIVE resources in that list are Pace, Fort
Hays, West Ga, UNT, and Fullerton, Gonzaga, and Louisville (I think).  All
of those school aside from Pace at least have pretty decent school support
and coaches (which certainly is a feather in Mahoney and Peterson and
Klosters collective caps).

Much like the salary cap cant entirely "fix" competitive sports...the
proposals offered dont "fix" competitive equity.  They are an attempt to
create a MORE level playing field.  While Aaron, Matt, and some other folks
are saying misses the point a little....While Michigan, KU, et al have 3
coaches or more than three coaches that cut cards they will always have
substantially less card cutters than say USC (Cormacks post said 8 - I am
just picking a school randomly).  The reason for that is that there is no
attempt to create a template for what is fair in debate like there is in
competitive sports.

Personally, like Dallas, I like proposals that are market based....I also
like to start with a basic set of rules.  In college
football/baseball/basketball/hockey/wrestling/softball etc the NCAA tells a
school how many coaches that they can have.  Yes, schools that have massive
revenue could afford more but they have to settle for hiring the best
coaches for the money that they can.  In other words, Steve's proposal would
make debate just like any other college sport (at the NDT).

However, I personally prefer solutions that allow people who have more
resources to pay a disproportionate cost for skewing the market.  The
Oakland A's for instance - use the distortions in the market caused by the
big spending teams to create value in the things that the big spending teams
dont value.

My point is this, yes I agree with Aaron, this year, and most years, the
rule - as written would hurt Michigan because we dont have undergraduates in
droves to bring to the tournament.  The rule as written creates a huge
benefit for teams with lots and lots of students.  Those teams generally
have lots and lots of money to spend.  This is a problem of the current
rule.  In my mind, this is a problem of the compromise that changed the rule
from total party limitations and made it into just coach limitations.

I was for a limit on parties in general....I dont mind putting my best
coaches up against your best coaches or my best students against your best
students.  If we lose its because we were not as good....thats the way its
supposed to be.  I would also have been for a rule that did not include a
limit but did create a luxury tax so that the people who had the largest
budgets paid a larger proportion of the costs of competition as they
increased the sizes of their entourages.

I actually liked the idea of limiting coaches to the number required to meet
the judging committment with the assumption that every coach had to judge
(Lupo rule). This at least gets rid of the real evil of professional war
rooms made famous in the last ten years.

I am pretty sure we should not consider the sq a free market...its is
massively skewed toward a set of teams with dramatically larger resources
than the norm and there is not an equal ability for every school to
create/recieve the same resources.  In the NCAA Iona can make it to the NCAA
tournament and GW can make the final four partially because they get the
same amount of scholarships, amount of coaches, etc etc.  The spirit behind
any of these rules should be motivated by attempts to equalize the playing
field in every way we can....so that its NUs best two coaches against West
Ga best two coaches etc.  Why is this - in general - such a bad idea.

Josh

On 4/20/06, Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> i don't speak for josh, but i disagree with steve's post and don't think
> the
> rule would benefit Michigan, even though we are on his list.  we had 6
> non-undergraduate researchers at the NDT this year and an additional one
> that cut cards from home.  our team is relatively small and it we would
> definetly not be able to bring that many undergraduates to research at
> next
> year's ndt- we don't even have that number of undergraduates on the team
> who
> are not competing.
>
> aaron
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060420/3bfc4991/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list