[eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Tue Dec 4 00:36:35 CST 2007


3' the most rigged game is open and you have no hesitation pushing
othr peoples  debaters there . why? because your students competitive
needs are more authentic than theirs?

On 12/4/07, Zompetti, Joseph Perry <jpzompe at ilstu.edu> wrote:
> I will answer Andy and Neil together - for what it's worth.  It seems that
> the community is so hell-bent on competitive success that our arguments for
> a more equitable debate world are falling on deaf ears.  Andy, without
> naming names, even called me a "hater."
>
> Would I like our teams to be more competitive, absolutely.  Do all debate
> coaches want their teams to win, of course.
>
> But what I want more than those things is for my debaters to not quit.
>
> Again, as I said in an earlier post, I don't think competitive success and
> fair JV divisions are mutually exclusive - but apparently the coaches who
> want to win at all costs think so.
>
> I am sure there are occasions when debaters don't want to be pushed into
> Open.  I'm even more convinced - especially now having read the deluge of
> emails from coaches who want to protect their right to win at all costs -
> that coaches want to place their advanced debaters into JV for the CEDA
> points, for the victories, for the success and trophies they can bring home
> to their administrations.  All of which are valiant goals.  I just don't
> understand why those goals need to come at the expense of debaters'
> education and other programs who are trying to stay alive.
>
> Perhaps we have been arguing in circles.  It seems that some believe their
> choice in sending Open-qualified debaters in JV are justified because the
> eligibility rules permit it.  What I have been arguing is that such
> eligibility shouldn't allow such actions.  Maybe we need to redefine those
> eligibility requirements.  But if the recent posts on eDebate are any
> indication, my proposal for revising such requirements will suffer a bloody
> death.
>
> Someone argued that debate is about winning and losing, so debaters should
> be prepared to lose, regardless of what division they are in.  Of course
> that is true - it's almost a truism.  However, why should debaters be
> prepared to compete in a rigged game, weekend after weekend?
>
> Again, I come back to the troubled paradox:  How can the community want
> programs to thrive and to not drop like flies, yet also promote the
> mentality that "competition-at-all-costs" is more important than having fair
> and equitable JV divisions?
>
> Don't think that Justin and I are giving up, or that we won't continue to
> try to make our teams competitive.  The problem is - and again, I seriously
> doubt we're the only ones who feel this way - that mis-matched, unbalanced
> and competitively rigged JV divisions severely hamstring our ability to make
> our teams competitive, give them the self-confidence they need to continue,
> and the assurance they deserve that debate is a fun, important activity that
> justifies the time, energy, and money they commit each week to.
>
> zomp
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of NEIL BERCH
> Sent: Mon 12/3/2007 7:48 PM
> To: Jim Hanson; Andy Ellis
> Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility
>
>
> I think Andy is right on several things below (third time this year!!).  I'm
> going to propose some (hopefully) out-of-the-box ideas for dealing with
> these issues, but first my now-standard reminder:  three divisions=large
> imbalances inevitable.  It's just a matter of choosing which imbalances are
> most salient.
>
> Andy touched on something that I'd been thinking about all day long.  Maybe
> collapsing divisions isn't such a bad thing (especially for those with less
> experience among the debaters in the collapsed division).  We've had a very
> positive experience with Towson's combined open divisions (with breakouts
> and speaker awards for JV, and, in one case, novice).  Moreover, my earlier
> conversation with Jim Hanson reminded me that in his other (parli) world,
> single division tournaments are not unusual (with awards for best novices,
> etc.), and two division tournaments are not unusual.  Another parli idea
> that we could consider is Jim's NPTE system, whereby teams earn points
> toward qualification for a season-ending elite tournament.  We could do that
> for each of the two lower divisions, and a system that awarded more points
> toward that for performances in higher divisions could encourage moveups.
>
> But Andy (and Sarah, and Jackie, etc.) have an equally good point.  If we go
> to the trouble of setting eligibility standards, we shouldn't get on people
> for not voluntarily giving up opportunities within those standards.  If we
> want to applaud people for doing so, that's cool (like Nick Landsman-Roos,
> deciding not to defend his JV Nats title, even though he was eligible).  But
> the converse is not the case.  An example:  just this morning I heard a
> debate by the noted philosophers, "Mike and Mike in the Morning," on ESPN
> radio.  It concerned the tribute paid to the late football player, Sean
> Taylor, by his coach and teammates.  They played the first play of the game
> against the Buffalo Bills with only 10 players.  Apparently, people were
> upset with Buffalo for taking advantage of this gesture and running for 22
> yards.  It turned out that Buffalo didn't even know that Washington was
> short-handed, but the philosopher kings of sports radio agreed that there
> was no reason why Buffalo shouldn't try to score within the rules.
>
> In the past, I've sometimes been critical of people for not moving folks up.
>  My concerns have largely focused on scaring off novices by having people
> with significant experience in Novice.  The more I think about it, though,
> the less sense this makes to me.  If you've got a handful of teams in a
> novice division with significant experience, other teams may suffer a rout
> or two over six rounds.  However, power-pairing will kick in, and they'll
> inevitably get some rounds that are quite competitive.  We should be able to
> convince students that they can't win all the time.
>
> One other thing:  if someone leaves a debater in a lower division "too
> long", that's good for the rest of us.  The fact of the matter is that I
> have yet to meet a debate coach who is not competitive.  So, if you let your
> novices stay in novice most of the year beating up on rookies, your novices
> (no matter how talented will not progress as quickly as other novices
> debating in JV or Open.  They're wasting a good number of their rounds.  The
> person who first pointed this out to me was Tuna Snider.  I would add that
> when Andy coached the famed Bard/Vassar, he took two novices (very smart
> seniors named Ruth Zisman and--I can't remember the other one!!), put them
> in JV and Open most of the year, and then a first-year "program" won Novice
> Nationals (and I remember hearing a complaint that it was "unfair, because
> they're a varsity team!").
>
> So, I'm just going to do what I think is best for my students and their
> development, with a focus on winning end-of-season championships.  Five
> further notes:
> 1.  For those who think the two lines (novice/JV and JV/Open) are drawn in
> the wrong place, they/we should pursue amendments to the by-laws (this is
> perhaps a change from some of my earlier posts).
> 2.  Chief has done that.  After considerable analysis, I decided that his
> line makes more sense than the one in the status quo, so I'll be voting for
> his amendment.
> 3.  I'm not going to have time to repeat my analysis for Novice Nationals,
> but I will let folks in on what I found a few years ago when I looked at
> this in somewhat less detail.  Success in the Novice division at the Eastern
> version of JV/Novice Nats appears to depend greatly on two factors:  number
> of rounds that year and number of rounds in JV and Open.  I didn't run
> previous experience as a variable.  Eyeballing the data for the last couple
> of years suggests that previous LD experience would be statistically
> significant (and would mitigate but probably not eliminate the impact of the
> "number of JV and Open rounds" variable).  Success in the JV division of
> that tournament (and at CEDA Nationals) was largely a function of number of
> rounds debated that year.
> 4.  An off-the-wall idea:  maybe ADA has it right in a different way.  They
> award 50% extra sweepstakes points for ADA Nationals.  CEDA could develop a
> rule that awarded 50% greater points to all tournaments held after February
> 20 (or so).  That would include regionals, the various JV/Novice Nats, CEDA
> Nats, and some other tournaments.  It would then encourage people to point
> toward end-of-year success (which might encourage them to "debate up" more
> often).
> 5.  Binghamton (which probably has about the 50th or 60th highest travel
> budget in the country) is successful for many reasons, but like other
> successful programs, the biggest reason is that Joe, Scu, and their debaters
> work their butts off.  If I were going to investigate Schatz for something,
> it would be whether he uses supernatural means to get novice debaters to go
> to 6-7 tournaments a semester and do 15+ hours of work per week (plus
> research!).
>
> --Neil Berch
> West Virginia University
>
> 	----- Original Message -----
> 	From: Andy Ellis <mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> 	To: Jim Hanson <mailto:hansonjb at whitman.edu>
> 	Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> 	Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:32 PM
> 	Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility
>
> 	This weekend with some success and some unfortunate pairings we ran an
> open/jv division with a total of 23 teams 10 jv teams and 13 open teams. We
> broke to a partial octas, and then a jv semi as a set of breakout rounds. I
> prepaired rd 1-2 within division rd 3-4 where paired off of 1-2 in an open
> division. Round 5 to the best of my ability was powered within division and
> rd 6 was again in the open pool. Basically i ran three tournements within 1
> a varsity division a jv division and a combined open division. There where
> no doubt some jv teams that went 2-0 and debated some ndt quality teams in
> rds 3-4 or some 1-1 jv teams that some varsity teams got to debate in rd
> 3-4.
> 	
> 	Our field was composed of varsity debaters with NDT experience, several
> teams who compete frequently at national circuit tournaments, jv debaters
> (many of whom ave debated novice the rest of the semester), experienced but
> younger debaters with high school experience and a whole plethora of other
> people. While Binghamton's teams did in fact close out in sems. And mary
> washington closed out finals in JV, i believe that the model that balanced
> divisions competition and education worked out well. JV debaters could get
> to varsity out rounds by winning their jv debates and debating well in their
> open debates(an option that doesnt really exist for many tournaments) but
> the youger debaters in the jv division still had the opportunity to qualify
> for break out rounds.
> 	
> 	All of this protected what was largely a rookie division in novice.
> 	
> 	I encourage people to reflect on how the model works and i dont suggest
> that it can work in every situations, but i do think that there can be a lot
> of benefit in combined divisions with abundant breakout rounds.
> 	
> 	Finally let me say this. People who talk shit about binghamton are guilty
> of at least a decent amount of jealous haterism. What other program (much
> less at a state funded school) has built from a student run student
> government club to a potential national points champion with a depth of good
> teams. Oh, and over a ten year period? Good job Joe, Good Job Binghamton. If
> you like ceda points and think they are valuable or even if you can see
> their value you cant convince yourself that there is a way in which they
> would be geared toward anything other than a competitive goal. And as long
> as there are rules that determine who wins and who doesnt jackie's question
> is correct. Are they eligible.
> 	
> 	Also here is a suggestion.
> 	
> 	If you are in the business of winning tournaments and want your teams to
> constantly be in final rounds, then you gotta be able to beat people. If
> binghamton and oklahoma and k state wanted to come to every one of our
> tournaments i would be excited because our debaters could get good rounds
> against good debaters (move em up for the experience right) but i wouldnt
> bemoan losing because someone was good. Like when i take teams to big
> national tournaments we never argue(anymore) that TOC champison should not
> be there because they decerease our chance of winning. Its different/ Yes
> and No. Whatever division you are in at a competitive tournament if you
> place an emphasis on winning there will be people better than you, and if
> not, then people will talk jealous hater shit about you almost all the
> time....
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	
> 	On Dec 3, 2007 12:59 AM, Jim Hanson < hansonjb at whitman.edu> wrote:
> 	
>
> 		neil--let me respond to your hypothetical by saying: each of our choices
> has consequences.
> 		
> 		when a coach puts in an overly good team into a lower division--that makes
> it real hard for the other debaters in that division. people have made that
> point quite sufficiently on this listserv (and it is a good point--I agree
> with it).
> 		
> 		the other side of that coin hasn't been made. when a coach puts a weaker
> team into an upper division--several things happen: 1) good upper teams get
> at least one round that is less competitive/educational for them--the
> challenge that you put a lower division team into open for is not there for
> the open team; 2) the lower division does indeed lose one team, typically a
> decent team for that division, thereby making that division less competitive
> and less educational; 3) the team moved up typically loses rounds quickly
> and winds up moving into lower brackets and so may wind up getting rounds
> that are only marginally better than being in the upper brackets of the
> lower division anyway (depending on the tournament).
> 		
> 		directly answering your hypothetical neil: is it your fault? no, you are
> not responsible for the state of debate. but remember that when you and
> other coaches make choices--it affects the choices of other coaches.
> 		
> 		most of the tournaments we attend have no jv division and typically, an
> open division that is pretty cut-throat. when there is a jv division--it is
> that or throw these kids in to hit first rounds and top 40 and 50 teams that
> they will be crushed against or go against jv teams that they likely will
> crush. it is a lousy choice to have to make. and that is what I am saying.
> 		
> 		jim :)
> 		hansonjb at whitman.edu
>
> 		From: NEIL BERCH <mailto:berchnorto at msn.com>
> 		Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:01 PM
> 		To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com ; Jim Hanson <mailto:hansonjb at whitman.edu>
> 		Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility
>
> 		Jim--You usually make a lot of sense to me, but this one puzzles me.
> Let's say that I have sophomores who only started debating in college.
> They're in their third semester of debate, working hard, and perfectly
> capable of going 3-3 or 4-2 in JV.  They decide and/or agree to focus on the
> long-term, enter the Open division, take their 1-5 lumps, and learn a lot.
> According to you, it's my/our fault (for having deserted the JV division)
> that the JV division is small and dominated by your equally hypothetical
> first-years who had 3 years of high school policy debate?  Wow!
> 		
> 		--Neil
>
> 			----- Original Message -----
> 			From: Jim Hanson <mailto:hansonjb at whitman.edu>
> 			To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> 			Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:59 PM
> 			Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility
>
> 			I'm going to add in another angle on this discussion:
> 			
> 			the problem of too many people pushing jv eligible teams into open
> division at tournaments where there is a jv division, at least the ones we
> attend.
> 			
> 			the result: the jv divisions tend to have very few teams participating
> and they are teams that are, on the whole, substantially less competitive
> than the open division.
> 			
> 			so, then, I have debaters who are set to go 2-4 in open division (and
> maybe worse) or who go in jv division and go 6-0 and might very well be one
> of the teams you all would be complaining about (although they would be
> completely and totally within the definitions provided by the
> tournaments--almost always frosh in their first semester of debate).
> 			
> 			jim :)
> 			hansonjb at whitman.edu
> 			
> 			
> 			From: NEIL BERCH <mailto:berchnorto at msn.com>
> 			Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:16 AM
> 			To: Sarah Snider <mailto:sjsnider at ksu.edu>  ; edebate at www.ndtceda.com ; J
> Stan <mailto:jstan1979 at gmail.com>
> 			Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility
>
> 			Leaving aside the obvious current dispute between Mr. Stanley and Kansas
> State over this weekend's JV division at John Carroll, I want to reiterate a
> more general point.  When we take a group of debaters with a range of
> experience that goes (literally) from never having seen a debate round to
> Copeland Award winners and try to divide it into three categories, there are
> inevitably going to be some very large disparities in ability and skill
> within categories.  Again, think of it as having MPJ with just three
> categories.  No matter how many judges you have to put in each of the
> categories, inevitably at least one category (and perhaps all three) is
> going to contain judges you like MUCH better than other judges in the same
> category.
> 			
> 			As we move the eligibility boundaries around, we may reduce one set of
> inequities but replace it with another.  In doing so, I tend to think that
> we should protect the least experienced set of debaters the most (by having
> the narrowest definition of novice).  The effect of that, however, is to
> widen the range of experience in JV, and there are costs associated with
> that.  If we then narrow JV eligibility some more, then that produces
> inequities in Open.  The bottom line is that, with three categories, someone
> is always going to be disadvantaged.  My preference is that it NOT be the
> people with the least experience (who are probably the most likely to leave
> the activity).  Others may disagree.
> 			
> 			What it comes down to (as Jackie said at the start of this discussion) is
> ethics.  More specifically, it is about doing what is best for the students,
> both yours and other people's students.  I tend to err (very strongly) on
> the "move them up for the experience" side.  Part of my job as an educator
> and coach is then to convince my students that going 1-5 in a division above
> their experience is a good experience.  My students tend to react well (and
> with pride when they score the occasional upset).  Maybe it's because
> Mountaineers are resilient (even after last night!).  Or maybe it's because
> I have tenure.
> 			
> 			One thing that would make it easier would be if there were a critical
> mass of "moved up" debaters, who might very well end up meeting each other
> in later rounds.  Thus, you'd get several challenging rounds followed by a
> couple of winnable rounds.
> 			
> 			Just some thoughts.  Not sure what the grand solution is in terms of
> rules, unless we want to go to nine-category eligibility requirements!!
> 			
> 			--Neil Berch
> 			West Virginia University
>
> 				----- Original Message -----
> 				From: J Stan <mailto:jstan1979 at gmail.com>
> 				To: Sarah Snider <mailto:sjsnider at ksu.edu>  ; edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> 				Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:57 AM
> 				Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility
>
>
> 				I don't really see why this needs to be legislated, But I do have some
> general ideas of norms that might be thought about....
> 				
> 				If you have a debater who broke at an Open tournament then they probably
> don't need to be debating in JV.
> 				If your JV team won their first JV tournament of their college career
> and then debated in open the rest of the year, you probably don't need to
> take them in JV at a regional tournament at the end of the first semester of
> their second year after they have debated in Open all of the first semester.
> 				If you think you have a chance to qualify to the NDT through districts
> then maybe you shouldn't be going in JV
> 				If you look at the entries and realize that your teams may be
> significantly better than all of the other entries in JV then maybe you
> should not put them in JV
> 				If you have a team that won a speaker award at  CEDA then they should
> not be in JV
> 				If a team won the NDT the previous year then they should not be in JV
> 				If an individual was a top ten speaker at Wake Forest they should not be
> in JV
> 				
> 				
> 				Obvisously, the last two are true but sarcastic.  I say people should
> have some common sense and try and do what is best for the activity and
> everyone involved in the activity, not just what may be best for your CEDA
> points.   I  understand CEDA points and doing what you have to do to get
> funding for your team.  However, this is true for everyone.  By one school
> making these decisions for purposes of winning sweepstakes you practically
> guarantee that "legitimate" JV debaters don't earn any points and thus
> schools who put those students in what I believe to be the appropriate
> division don't get points, don't get awards, and thus have to go back to
> their administration with the argument.....We would of won, but our kids
> have 30 rounds of experience and some schools put students in JV with 150
> rounds of experience so we lost, Sorry.  And, oh by the way, half our squad
> wants to quit because they just had one of the least enjoyable experiences
> of their life.
> 				
> 				Finally, how about the argument that it hurts the development of your
> debaters who have high aspirations and hurts the development of relatively
> new debaters who just enjoy debating in competitive, enjoyable rounds for
> educational purposes.
> 				
> 				Justin
> 				
> 				On 12/2/07, Sarah Snider <sjsnider at ksu.edu> wrote:
>
> 					Justin-
> 					
> 					We have entered 3 jv teams composed of
> 					3 Frosh
> 					2 Sophomores
> 					1 senior who joined the debate team last year and competed primarily in
> JV and barely cleared at one small regional tournament in open this fall.
> 					
> 					our debaters only debate in the fall in Kansas- this means they come in
> with HALF as much experience as debaters from at least 45 other states.
> 					
> 					none of the teams we have entered here have cleared at a national
> tournament- our top team went 2-6 at Harvard- and half of this team is
> competing here.
> 					
> 					UNI and KCK are not national tournaments. One of our debaters did clear
> at UNLV.
> 					
> 					Restricting our JV debaters from participating by changing the rules
> would force tons of debaters who are not ready to move to Varsity. The kind
> of rule change you suggest requires debaters with 2 years HS debate
> experience, less than 3 final rounds, and less than 2 years college
> experience to move to varsity. There are some debaters for whom, this would
> be devastating.
> 					
> 					John Bretthauer JUDGED our JV team during the 2005-2006 season and then
> DEBATED the SAME TEAM in JV the next season. Obviously this is an issue we
> have with the Chief and not with you and pointing out another wrong doesn't
> make it right- but, our actions this weekend are FAR more legitimate than
> the majority of eligibility indiscretions one would normally encounter in
> the average season.
> 					
> 					Binghamton received over 35 CEDA points for placing the 14th speaker at
> CEDA Nats in JV at the opening tournament of the season against real JV
> debaters........How are we supposed to come even close to them in the
> sweepstakes race?
> 					
> 					I understand your frustration, I totally do. But our debaters are far
> from ineligible in JV.
> 					
> 					Sarah
> 					
> 					
> 					
> 					
> 					
> 					On Dec 2, 2007 12:16 AM, J Stan < jstan1979 at gmail.com
> <mailto: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
> 					
>
>
>
> 				_______________________________________________
> 				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
> _______________________________________________
> 			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
> 		
>
>
> 	_______________________________________________
> 	eDebate mailing list
> 	eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> 	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>



More information about the Mailman mailing list