[eDebate] JV/Novice Nationals

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Thu Mar 9 00:04:54 CST 2006


I think the reason they dont is because it would undercut one of the two
long time standing tournaments that have been around for decades.

Josh


On 3/9/06, Zompetti at aol.com <Zompetti at aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Of course CEDA does not have the "jurisdiction" (to use Josh's term) or
> the constitutional mandate to dictate the location of a novice/JV national
> tournament.  That isn't how I read Beth's post.
>
> Instead, it would be nice -- and probably in the authoritative realm of
> the CEDA exec -- to have someone propose a by-law/constitutional change *sanctioning
> one*, official novice/JV national tournament.  Just like the NDT or CEDA
> nationals, the location can change from year-to-year depending on who wants
> to host.  But a coordinated tournament that has encouragement and support
> from the administration would accrue the following benefits:
>
> 1.  higher likelihood of a quality tournament -- if CEDA sanctions it,
> folks will go.
> 2.  less tournament infringement -- if there's one "national" tournament,
> it will be less likely that multiple novice/JV, etc. national tournaments
> will occur at the same time -- or at least in close proximity.  This is not
> to dismiss the ADA nationals or NDT/CEDA, but rather to say that it does
> seem crazy to have 2 or more tournaments that call themselves the "novice/JV
> national tournament" in the same season
> 3.  more cooperation -- if tournament hosts alternate venues, then those
> hosts can help each other in the planning and perhaps even in the hosting --
> much like the NDT hosts help during the planning of the subsequent year's
> NDT
> 4.  creates less stress on potential hosts -- of course, hosting a huge
> national tournament is enormous stress, so why should we create more?  If a
> host knows for sure that their tournament will be the sanctioned one for a
> particular year, then folks like WVU don't have to worry that they're
> short-changing their teams by hosting a tournament and fear that others
> won't attend.
>
> CEDA probably should, at the very least, look into this matter.  Not to
> dictate, but to guide and help and foster a community -- isn't that its
> mission???
>
> zomp
>
>
> In a message dated 3/8/2006 11:02:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> joepatrice at gmail.com writes:
>
> I'm just going to focus on the concept of the CEDA leadership intervening
> in this matter.  I cannot speak for the rest of the ole executive branch,
> but I don't think this fits within the powers of the CEDA executive.
>
> First of all, two of the "National" tournaments on the schedule are ADA
> and the NDT...while a blatant CEDA power grab would fulfill a certain
> megalomaniacal vision of CEDA's future (come on...one of us self-identifies
> as "Chief"...you have to see world domination coming), I don't think anyone
> thinks CEDA can tell ADA and the NDT to stop having their tournaments.
>
> So, beyond CEDA Nats, can CEDA dictate what tournaments call themselves
> "Nationals?"  I think that also goes beyond the Constitution.  Perhaps an
> amendment is necessary to provide the executive the role of accrediting a
> JV/Novice National tournament, but I don't see that power there now.
>
> And I would argue that I'm leaning toward this being a power that CEDA
> should not have.  If your proposal is that one location should be designated
> as the sole JV/Novice national tournament, that would best realize the word
> "national" but I think it could be counterproductive to what we're hoping to
> accomplish with JV/Novice Nats.  For a variety of reasons, most JV/Novice
> squads are not in a position to fly their debaters all over the country for
> one tournament.  Many JV/Novice programs have small budgets, many JV/Novice
> programs have 4 or 5 teams they want to travel to these tournaments, many
> have open teams too and need to balance their budget to travel to these
> tournaments AND CEDA Nats (and some to the NDT) and certainly that would be
> difficult for us to afford if CEDA dictated that THE novice national
> tournament was the Sac State JV/Novice nats.  While it is not perhaps
> "National" the current structure of 3 "Super-Regional" championships (West,
> Middle, East) that allow cross-over maximizes the national feel without
> sacrificing one geographical set of teams to the altar of defining a single
> national tournament (and I say 3 because, despite its title, I think we can
> all agree that this thread is not focusing on Northwestern tournament, whose
> eligibility rules make it more accurately "Frosh Nationals" or "TOC Part 2:
> The Quickening").
>
> To conclude, I do not think this is an area for CEDA leadership
> intervention and I would argue strongly against dictating one tournament as
> the sole JV/Novice Nationals because that necessarily leads to some novice
> teams having nowhere to go.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060309/56dd3448/attachment.html 



More information about the Mailman mailing list