[eDebate] Ranking Teams for Purpose of Presets
Morris, Eric R
Wed Sep 20 11:55:58 CDT 2006
A properly designed system of pre-rankings precludes the outcome you described. It would tend to equalize competition in the first two rounds, top to bottom, instead of having some school get the precise draw that you mentioned. It would also be a bit of work.
I'm not confident that tournament directors at the beginning of the year have adequate information to do such a ranking appropriately for all teams. After the season begins, the Bruschke RPI ratings would do a fairly nice job. I am confident in saying we could make a list of teams and say that hitting teams on that list multiple times during the preset is probably unfair.
That said, 8 round tournaments or power matching in rounds 3-4 are pretty good antidotes. The worst case of this I recall is a team that attended a 6 round tournament with 4 random pre-sets, went 1-3 (losing to 3 of the top 10 teams in the nation), and was thus precluded from clearing based largely on the preset draw. I think those kinds of problems are rare now.
Nowadays, tough draws are more a product of high-low power matching being more common than high-high, since well established teams often get good points even in a loss. There are teams in the middle that claw their way to 4-3 and then lose to people typically in the quarterfinals. Of course, if one has low enough points to be hitting those teams in round 8 of a large national tournament, it might not really be a break round.
Dr. Eric Morris
Asst Prof of Communication
Director of Forensics
Craig Hall 363A
Missouri State University
Springfield, MO 65897
From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of scottelliott at grandecom.net
Sent: Wed 9/20/06 11:43 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Ranking Teams for Purpose of Presets
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.
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman