[eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

Sarah Snider sjsnider
Sun Dec 2 06:49:54 CST 2007


What kind of changes would you suggest to JV eligibility?

I have one that I have thought of this semester after looking at people
entered in JV divisions at tournaments around the country-

If you have a debater who has won a speaker award at CEDA nationals, you
should  not put them in JV to get points the following year.......

But, that's just my opinion, and I understand that some people need  to do
what they need to do to secure the future of their programs.

Sj



On Dec 2, 2007 12:16 AM, J Stan <jstan1979 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> > >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20071202/3523bd0f/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list