[eDebate] topic thoughts - replies to various posts

Mikedavis13 at aol.com Mikedavis13
Tue Jun 13 18:11:14 CDT 2006


 

I think the concern instead would be for ADA schools that would like to go  
to the NDT. This section of the NDT bylaws indicate that it must be the CEDA or 
 NDT topic and only those rounds count: 
 
 b. Eligible teams: To submit for the bid  allocation process, a team must 
have paid their NDT subscription fee and have  either (1) a minimum of 18 
intercollegiate preliminary rounds on the fall CEDA  topic or its NDT topic parallel 
either both as individuals or as a team of  varsity or open debate in at 
least three tournaments, each consisting of a  minimum of 6 preliminary rounds 
with at least 6 teams from at least four  different schools in varsity or open 
division, or (2) one member of the team  with a minimum of 32 intercollegiate 
preliminary rounds on the fall CEDA topic  or its NDT topic parallel in at least 
four tournaments, each consisting of a  minimum of six preliminary rounds, 
with at least six teams from at least four  different schools in varsity or open 
division (i.e., if one member of the team  has at least 32 rounds satisfying 
the above requirements, no minimum number of  rounds is required of the 
partner in order for the team to be eligible for the  bid allocation process). 
 
My worry is that teams would avoid tournaments if those rounds would not  
count towards NDT requirements for bid allocation and second round bids.
 
Mike
 
In a message dated 6/13/2006 6:58:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
jrlyle at gmail.com writes:

If the  ADA were to add-to the CEDA resolution, this would not create a 
permanent  divide between the two.  The CEDA topic would essentially be  "ADA+" so 
any ADA team could travel to CEDA tournaments and  survive.  Furthermore, CEDA 
teams would need, at most, to  tweak their AFFs to survive at an ADA 
tournament.  


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060613/e396561a/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list