[eDebate] Ranking Teams for Purpose of Presets

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Wed Sep 20 10:38:16 CDT 2006

how would matchups happen? It doesnt do anybody any extra favors if
northwestern dd is debating appalchin state and piedmont in their presets,
im just interested in the specific system for ensuring equity.

On 9/19/06, Aaron Kall <mardigras23 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Last year several of FK's random preset round 1 and 2 draws were not very
> friendly.  At GSU, we debated George Washington and Fullerton, who ended
> up
> meeting in the Octafinals of the tournament.  At Harvard, we debated
> Berkeley, who had just won the Kentucky Tournament and Kansas, who had
> lost
> in the doubles at UK on a 2-1.  At West Georgia, we debated Wayne State
> Farmer/Murillio and Dartmouth Clark/Smith (Quarter/Semifinalists at
> WGA).  I
> realize the odds don't favor draws like this happening, but as long as
> tournaments continue not ranking teams for the presets, unfriendly draws
> like this will continue to happen.  I don't think we were the only team
> that
> experienced such bad luck- I remember Northwestern DD debating Dartmouth
> BM
> and Emory CL in their two presets at WGA.
> My intention is not to point fingers at certain tournaments- I realize how
> much time and effort it takes to run a debate tournament, as I run several
> myself each year.  Each tournament obviously has the right to run things
> how
> they seek fit.  We will obviously continue to attend these tournaments no
> matter what.  But, if the community is in favor of ranking for the
> purposes
> of presets and it's feasible to do for all tournaments, I think it would
> be
> good for the activity.
> While they did have 4 presets as opposed to 2, I believe Kentucky, Wake
> Forest, and Northwestern/Texas rank teams for the purposes of presets.  I
> am
> probably leaving some tournaments out.  While those tournaments have 4
> prelims instead of 2, the NDT also ranks for the purposes of its two
> preset
> rounds.  I also realize that ranking at early tournaments is difficult
> because it's unclear how teams will do and which teams will emerge.  But,
> the results of last year can be used for the returning debaters and
> educated
> guesses or the results of one or two tournaments are probably better than
> complete randomness.
> It was not that long ago when judge preferences didn't take effect until
> round 2 or even 5.  I remember the days of being judged by Shannahan at
> Wake
> because preferences didn't go effect until round 3.  It seems like most,
> if
> not all tournaments now honor judge preferences beginning at round 1.  It
> seems odd that we always honor judge preferences for presets, but don't
> always rank the teams for such debates.
> I don't think the amount of time it would take to come up with and enter
> rankings is that substantial.  I think any time spentwould be well worth
> if
> for the fairness/equity of the preset debates.  For tournaments with two
> prelim rounds, half the tournament could be ranked an A (denoted by a 1 in
> the Edwards System) and half the tournament could be ranked a B (denoted
> by
> a 2 in the Edwards System).  While there could still be some problems at
> the
> margins, this would ensure that most, if not all teams would debate one A
> and one B, as opposed to the SQ where a team could hypothetically debate
> the
> best two teams at the tournament in rounds one and two.
> I realize it's not impossible to come back from an 0-2 start (we did
> manage
> to win 5 debates at Harvard and West Georgia).  While things may
> eventually
> even out, 0-2 or 1-2 debates aren't always assigned the best mutually
> preferred judges and debating two of the best teams at the
> tournament/coming
> back from an 0-2 deficit really puts a lot of pressure on teams,
> especially
> young teams.
> If the community is in favor of such rankings for the purposes of presets
> and it's feasible, I think it would be a good thing for the activity.
> Thanks for Reading,
> 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/20060920/ac16af5e/attachment.html 

More information about the Mailman mailing list