[eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

Andy Ellis andy.edebate
Tue Dec 4 10:54:22 CST 2007


Joe,

The temptation to begin this post with an ad hom is amazing, you are almost
seemingly begging it....but no, i'll just answer your business


On Dec 4, 2007 1:53 AM, Zompetti, Joseph Perry <jpzompe at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> Your post, like usual, is riddled with fallacies, not to mention spelling
> errors - which makes it sort of difficult to understand what you're saying.


I apologize, I cant spell. I could explain it with any thing from laziness
to a variety of marginalized learning styles.  So sometimes when i type
messages on my phone with no spell check i spell poorly. Hopefully you can
accommodate that and then move on to engage the arguments.

>
>
> First, Open may be a rigged game, but my "pushing" other squads debaters
> there is not an argument for why I support rigged games.  That's a fallacy
> of equivocation.  Instead, what I have been saying is that debaters should
> be placed in the division congruent with their aptitude and skill-set.  If
> that is Open, so be it.  If it is novice, go there.


You don't think the current rigging of the game (the rules which make the
teams you are incapable of beating eligible to debate JV)   is to your
liking. So you would like to re-rig the game so it is in more favor of your
students. You are proposing using the rules to make advantages for you and
disadvantages for others. That is called rigging the game. My problem is not
with your specific proposal so much as the language you try to dress it in.
You cloak your dialog in terms of education and holier than thou stances in
regard to competition and it makes me not care about your specific reforms
because it is blatantly transparent that you want the game to be more rigged
for your competitive interests. You don't answer the arguments about open
debate, but they are damming. Many of the people you would exclude from JV
would be just as likely to quit when you force them into open and they lose
in a rigged game. You don't care about them as much as your students but
lose the moralistic rhetoric when trying to create rules that favor you and
your team.

>
> Second, I have no idea what you mean by I "have zero slvency mechanism for
> undermining the competitive desires what ever the rules."  If you mean there
> is no solution to competition, you're probably correct.  But that doesn't
> mean we can't make it a little more fair.


hmm, i doubt you have no idea what i mean, but i'll explain. You can not
make it so people will not take advantage of the rule (whatever its
construction) in ways you would find unethical. Much of your critique is
totally unsolveable by your reform. All you want is rules that help you win
jv tournaments instead of other people. Say that. Don't cloak it in
fairness.



> Third, you suggest that I advocate "arbitrary definitions and paparameters
> better than the ones you dont like, but also sorta sound like the 2ar who
> says no matter how effective our stance against genoicde is (because you
> have lost te specfics of the case debate) what maters is that you take on."
>  Again, I have no idea what these herioglyphics mean, but I've been
> suggesting that definitions of eligibility should NOT be arbitrary.  Your
> position defends those moving goal posts.


No. You are suggesting an arbitrary definition you like better. This
nonsense that you are seeking less arbitrary definitions is exactly the
problem. There is no way to not make arbitrary distinctions. Period. The
debate is about who they benefit and who they hurt. My argument is that new
hegemons will emerge under your new definition, and if you dont have the
stomach to play the game it wont be you, when that arbitrary definition
doesn't work for you you will again use a language of fairness and inclusion
to exclude more people.

I'm not sure at all why i support moving the goal posts...argument
please?...but i do see you being like well damn, we cant kick very well
because we have less good kickers and less competent kicking coaches so it
would be nice if those goal posts where closer AND wider. (BTW i don't think
your students are less good or capable, but you clearly do so don't tell me
how i am diminishing your team or their work, because it is you who makes
them seem incapebale of beating more experienced people)

>
> Write back when you can articulate an argument.


Write back when you can stop accusing other people of being unethical
because you are mediocre (at best) as a coach. Also stop the santimonious
language of ethics and fairness and recognize that you are doing what is in
the best interest of your studnets and others you like, but not some how
moralistically right.

This by the way is probably the reason none of these conversations are ever
productive because everybody engages them as if those who operate within the
rules are unethical hegemons and those making the accusation are moral
educators...there is really not much room for moral educators in the
discussion of ceda points, there is room for figuring out who benefits and
who is excluded by certain thinsg and there is a benefit to offering
meaningful alternatives that eschew moral and ethcial judgments to justify
competitive failure...like my combined division alt...that you didnt
answer...at all...solves this...because the one or two" cheaters" that exist
in your world clear in open.


>
> zomp
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Andy Ellis [mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tue 12/4/2007 12:28 AM
> To: Zompetti, Joseph Perry
> Cc: NEIL BERCH; Jim Hanson; edebate at www.ndtceda.com
> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility
>
>
>
> 1. zompetti should not cnvince you he is against rigged games (if he
> does i have a fmr mayor from nyc who you migh be interested in seeing
> as your president), really what he wants is a game more rigged in his
> favor...you have zero slvency mechanism for undermining the
> competitive desires what ever the rules.
>
> 2. new exclusions and new spaces where ethics are supposd to supplant
> rules will exist . you sorta say you like your arbitrary definitions
> and paparameters beter than the ones you dont like, but also sorta
> sound like the 2ar who says no matter how effective our stance against
> genoicde is (bcause you have lost te specfics of the case debate) what
> maters is that you take on.
>
> more im sure 2moro
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071204/699b0fa4/attachment-0001.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list