[eDebate] Ranking Teams for Purpose of Presets

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Wed Sep 20 12:34:33 CDT 2006


Pre-sets help all teams if the rankings are done right because EVERYONE gets
an A and a B draw.....Are we to the point that we dont even realize when
someone is trying to help everyone?

Josh


On 9/20/06, Morris, Eric R <EricMorris at missouristate.edu> wrote:
>
>   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
> (O) 417-836-7636
> (H) 417-865-6866
> (C) 417-496-7141
>
> ------------------------------
> *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.
>
> Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060920/440decb7/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list