[eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

J Stan jstan1979
Sun Dec 2 00:16:32 CST 2007


My post sought an answer to why, "Most of have had a team for one reason or
another dominate a division and could debate up"  The reason they dominate a
division is because they should be debating up.  If they should be debating
up then why are they dominating a division that they should not be in. I am
not referring to any team who simply goes 6 - 0 at a tournament.  That is
going to happen.  I am referring to a team who has broken at multiple
national tournaments in open and makes a choice to debate down in JV
division at a regional tournament.  Bid teams being excluded from regional
tournaments is both unnecessary and irrelevant.  Bid teams don't usually
debate at regional tournaments and if I had a team who had three years of
experience in college and thus out of JV eligibility I would hope they could
feel comfortable in a majority of rounds in open because they would not hit
a bid team in a majority of rounds. I think if given three years I could
coach a team to feel comfortable in the open division at regional
tournaments.  They may not win those tournaments but they will feel
comfortable in most of the rounds they compete.   However, my team with a
little over one year of experience in their life hitting a team in JV who
has open outround appearences at National tournaments makes little sense to
me.

Second, I don't think fairness can be imposed through legislation, although
I think legislation it is probably needed, but won't really solve all of the
problem, just some of it.

What is needed is people to just stop putting people in these divisions or
give me a reason that I haven't thought of why it is being done so I can
learn what it is that I am missing. I am sure there is a reason that I
haven't thought of yet.

Justin


On 12/1/07, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think the problem with all of these discussions is that they assume
> fairness can be improved through such legislation, but there are always
> people who dont fall into a catagory convieniently, we have all had novices
> or varsity debaters who are out of lower divison eligibility but would
> seriously benefit, and most have us have had a team who for one reason or
> another dominates a division and could debate up, but i guess part of me
> asks why the same standard doesnt apply to open? Is the purpose always to
> win the ndt? Should bid teams be excluded from regional tournaments?
>
>  On Dec 2, 2007 12:23 AM, J Stan <jstan1979 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >  I have followed the discussion on the Novice eligibility.  I think one
> > issue that has not been discussed is whether a similar problem is occurring
> > in JV.  Not specifically LD debaters, but individuals with significant
> > experience who are being put into JV for reasons that I cannot possibly
> > understand. I always felt that the reason individuals should be put in JV
> > was because those individuals needed some more experience before they could
> > be successful competing in Open.  I determine success as being able to
> > compete for a win and feeling comfortable in a majority of the rounds they
> > will be debating.
> >
> > I am sure there are other reasons people have for putting individuals in
> > JV that I feel are less compelling.  The obvious reason is CEDA points.  If
> > a team needs CEDA points to justify their programs to their administration
> > then a decision to put an individual in JV makes some sense. Building an
> > individual's self-confident might make some sense in certain limited
> > situation.  Other than that, I really don't know why you would opt for
> > putting an individual in JV who clearly would feel comfortable in Open.
> >
> > Recently I noticed that this is be a problem.  At John Carroll Teams are
> > in JV who have competed in Open at tournaments for one and a half years.
> > These teams have advanced to a final round at regional open tournaments.
> > They have gone to National tournaments and broken in open.  I noticed one
> > team who had students who had over 100 rounds in college debate (and
> > countless rounds in high school) still competing in JV.  Individuals who
> > have over 100 rounds in Open all of sudden feel compelled to enter a JV
> > tournament simply because the rules still provide them eligibility.
> >
> > I have several problems with this.  First, it probably limits the
> > development of the individuals if they are in rounds where they are simply
> > beating teams with significantly less experience. Only Directors and
> > debaters know what is best for their development, but it makes sense to me
> > that you wouldn't want to do this if you have long term aspirations for
> > competing at a high level.  Second, it practically guarantees that students
> > who are competing in JV who do not have this level of experience do not feel
> > comfortable or get discouraged by what is happening to them in rounds.
> > These students might be able to move down to novice, but then they would be
> > the ones dominating a bracket that they probably shouldn't be in and then
> > novice debate would be damaged.  When I have students with 40 rounds of
> > experience in their life who are competing against individuals with 150
> > rounds of college debate and 3 years of high school experience and I have to
> > look at my debaters face after what has happened to them in a JV round I get
> > frustrated.  When I have to explain to them that they probably shouldn't be
> > in novice because they would win too easily and that wouldn't be fair for
> > individuals just starting out then I get frustrated.  Third, it makes all
> > this discussion about high school LD irrelevant.  Pass a rule that forces
> > them to debate in JV and they will move to that division and get killed
> > there first half dozen tournaments and they will leave.  Novice tournaments
> > will be smaller causing directors to collapse the divisions and inviduals
> > who are truly novices will be debating against JV debaters who should be in
> > open because they have over 100 rounds of experience.
> >
> > Like I said before, Directors who allow this to happen certainly have
> > their own reasons.  I would certainly like to hear those reasons.  I try to
> > learn from Directors who have more experience than me.  I watch what they do
> > and I follow their example.  I guess, the lesson I learned from watching
> > entry choices made at a recent tournament was do whatever you need to do to
> > practically guarantee your teams go 6 - 0 in their bracket regardless of the
> > impact it has on other people in a similar bracket.
> >
> > These teams will get their trophy and I will have to spend the next week
> > convincing my debaters that they are doing wonderfully for their experience
> > level and they shouldn't quit.
> >
> > Justin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071201/20481123/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list