[eDebate] novice/JV nationals

Joe Patrice joepatrice
Thu Mar 9 11:16:13 CST 2006

Focusing on Zomp's 6 and 7 --

Regarding 6, I think he's absolutely right, but rather than concluding that
this means we need an equitable rotation, I come to the conclusion that this
is the best reason not to interfere with -- and in fact encourage -- the 3
"super-regional" national tournaments and encourage those who can cross-over
between them to do it.  This maximizes the opportunities for novices to
compete at a national tournament.  More than being a sole championship belt,
the key to novice nationals is giving novices the ability to debate beyond
their regional corner of the world -- for us it's having our novices debate
beyond the NE (while all part of "CEDA East," the "D8" and "D7" novice
circuits rarely overlap) and also see debaters from the entire East Coast as
well as several midwest teams.

Regarding 7, there are two levels of the "don't get involved argument."
Level 1 is that if someone thinks CEDA has the SQ jurisdiction of sorting
this out, it doesn't.  This is just one where our initial reads of Beth's
email were different -- reading it your way, this level of the argument is
moot.  Regarding level 2, which is characterized as "CEDA may not have that
role but it should," I don't think anyone is making the argument that CEDA
should close its eyes on this issue per se.  I have indicated (and I read
Chief's email seeking community input to lean this way too) that CEDA should
not intervene here for a clear educational reason.  It would be bad for
novice/JV debate to turn away from the super-regional national tournaments
because that necessarily leaves some novices out in the years when "the"
tournament is too far away to travel to.  I also think that the problem in
novice debate will not be solved through increasing nationalization but in
promoting healthy regions and -- at the end of the year -- maximizing
regional interaction at a national tournament.  I don't think 1 tournament
does that as well as 3.

Obviously this doesn't answer the question of whether or not, given the
above, CEDA should seek to provide official oversight for the 3 tournaments
in question.  That is a fair point.  But personally I think that this will
be resolved consensually -- the location of the Eastern version of this
tournament has been moved before through cooperation (Towson had it until it
couldn't do it, Georgetown had it until they couldn't, WVU held it this
year...all decisions worked out by the schools involved) -- and I don't
think centralizing this process will be as efficient as the consensus of the
3 "super-regions" themselves.  This decision has nothing to do with
educational opportunities (as we're not disputing the tournament or even the
regional location, just whether it's Baltimore or Morgantown) and thus it's
not part of CEDA's educational mission as much as it's a decision about
which location can logistically support the tournament and maximize draw.  I
think that's for the attendees and hosts to work out.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060309/3a525686/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list