[eDebate] Ranking Teams for Purpose of Presets

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Wed Sep 20 11:43:43 CDT 2006

We need philsopher-kings to divine who the top teams are for pre-sets. Only, who
is watching the Guardians of the elite teams? Why is it that only elite teams
deserve "friendly" pre-set draws. For a bunch of leftist academics, your
elitisim  and sense of entitlement is sickening.  It seems to me that this
strategy of ranking temas for pre-sets gives an unfair advantage to teams that
did well the previous year, or have some type of "rep," and it also functions
to keep bottom feeder/new teams on the bottom.

It seems to me that it would suck for a small/new program to send its teams to a
big tournamnet, to have them be ranked low and have to hit Harvard A, Dartmouth
A and Emory A in the first three rounds, just so that we can
prevent--horrors--Dartmouth A from hitting Emory A in the first two rounds. I
mean, if there are eight rounds, there is plenty of rounds left after rounds
one and two to work your way up the "back of the bracket."

Why you all are at it, why not just have a committee of
coaches/debaters--obviously the ones that are considered to be the "best"
--establish who the best teams are before the tournamnet, and just break
striaght to octofinals. We could then email or call the other teams and tell
not to bother showing up because the tournament committee has already decided
who the best teams are.


More information about the Mailman mailing list