[eDebate] JV-Novice eligibility.......
Zompetti, Joseph Perry
Mon Dec 3 17:34:42 CST 2007
Then why have divisions at all? If you want to promote "good debate" then the idea of divisions is obsolete.
We have divisions because debaters have different skill levels.
Our argument is that there are debaters with more advanced skill levels that don't belong in JV. That is the ethical dilemma.
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Massey, Jackie B.
Sent: Mon 12/3/2007 5:13 PM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] JV-Novice eligibility.......
I tried to post earlier, and something happened to my email.
Just so KSU and Binghampton and don't look so evil, I thought I would post.
As a coach, I try to win every 1st place at every tournament I attend. (do I - no -do I try - y es) In doing this, decisions have to be made.
Here is what I get from the previous posts.
We don't want a competitive JV division.
We prefer we keep unskilled debaters in novice and JV because........
Different coaches have different methods, procedures, justifications and administrative choices that they choose to make.
Example - I have sr's on the team who will never debate again after this year. Why make them debate open, and lose, when they are only going to be around for another semester.
Example - I have debaters who do not want to commit to debate, do little or no work, but still travel and get the experience. Even though they are good in JV, they wouldn't travel if forced into open.
Example - I have a whole squad of debaters who are JV eligible. Do all of them debate in open? No - because I have other plans for them.
Decisions - Yes, if you leave a person in JV there are opinions about do you stifle their ability to improve. Maybe, and if you do, your team will suffer. Do other coaches know what is best for my debaters? And I don't know what is best for other peoples debaters.
My question seems to be what is wrong with a competitive JV division?
When someone says "they shouldn't be in JV or novice" my first question is are they eligible? If so, then people can only accept to disagree.
KSU JV debaters are good, and they have a large number of them. That is awesome.
Binghampton has some excellent debaters for their divisions. That is awesome.
Lets respect good debate rather than demean it. Instead of people saying, "wow your awesome for JV" -- today we say "you shouldn't be in JV"
Everyone has their justifications for following the rules, and utilizing debaters that are good in their division for National Rankings. Once again, ethics works most of the time.
We should celebrate such.
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman