[eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

Morris, Eric R EricMorris
Tue Dec 4 11:26:34 CST 2007

Andy's indictment of moralistic reasoning as "rigging the game" should
be regarded only as an attempt to re-rig the discussion in a way that he
thinks is more favorable to his side (his side meaning the emerge of new
hegemons he likes). The calls to "stop the santimonious language of
ethics and fairness" would not be necessary if Andy were not so
"mediocre" in employing discursive strategies which involve appeals to
ethics and fairness.

Consider that an exercise of viewing Andy's email through its own


I have several disagreements with Andy here:

1.       I disagree that all moralistic pronouncements are merely
manipulative self serving strategies. Instead, I think people act in
accordance with their moral inklings, and are often tied to those
inklings as part of their identity. Treating them as disingenuous
probably misdefines the motive. While they may still self-serve (in the
sense that the self has come to be defined, in part, by the moralistic
reasoning), the manner in which they self-serve is far more complex than
your phone gives you the time to type.

2.       I disagree that the debaters who have success in open will quit
because they aren't allowed to compete in JV occasionally. Thus, I think
the statement "Many of the people you would exclude from JV would be
just as likely to quit" is likely false. 

3.       I do not think Zomp's motives are blatantly "transparent" -
instead, I believe they are a mix of what he thinks the activity should
be, and what is best for his debaters and other peoples debaters. I
wonder if the idea of transparency doesn't itself depend on there being
a more stable version of reality, hiding behind the illusion, than your
posts appear to allow for.

4.       I think the notion of a combined division, perhaps with
separate break out elims based on present eligibility definitions, is
worth considering. Over time, power matching will assure that debaters
of like ability are hitting each other. In that world, JV eligible
debaters that really are good enough to clear in open would be competing
in the open elims, and other JV debaters would be competing in the JV
elims. I have concerns about the judging numbers, etc., but I do like
the frosh break out concept and think the idea could be expanded. 

5.       I disagree that it is productive in this case to say that all
things are arbitrary. Your concern about transparency implies the
division between motive and reality is NOT arbitrary, but instead can be
known and must be exposed. Joe's argument is that divisions should serve
to assure that debaters of similar skill debate each other. If you wish
to refute that argument, the best ways are to explain the benefits of
skill mismatches or the impossibility of assessing skill. I've had
debaters in rounds on both sides of the skill mismatch problem, and I
assure it is not THOSE rounds that make them want to work hard, prep
hard, and travel long hours. It's the ones where the skill match-up is
close enough to make the round competitive. I do think that the way we
define Novice & JV now only gets indirectly at the skill question, and I
think finding ways to address it more directly may be the way to more
common ground.




From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Andy Ellis
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:54 AM
To: Zompetti, Joseph Perry
Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility



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>

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

	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

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

	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

	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. 

	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
	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
	rules will exist . you sorta say you like your arbitrary
	and paparameters beter than the ones you dont like, but also
	sound like the 2ar who says no matter how effective our stance
	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,
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
<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
	>       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
	> 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
	> 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
	>               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 <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
	> They're in their third semester of debate, working hard, and
	> 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
	> first-years who had 3 years of high school policy debate?
	>               --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
	>                       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
	> 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
	>                       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 <mailto:jstan1979 at gmail.com>
	>                       Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV
	>                       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
	> 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
	> 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
	> 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
	>                       --Neil Berch 
	>                       West Virginia University
	>                               ----- Original Message -----
	>                               From: J Stan <mailto:
jstan1979 at gmail.com <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
	> guarantee that "legitimate" JV debaters don't earn any points
and thus
	> schools who put those students in what I believe to be the
	> 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
	> 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
	> experience, less than 3 final rounds, and less than 2 years
	> 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
	>                                       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
	> experience who are being put into JV for reasons that I cannot
	> 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
	> 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
	>                                       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
	> 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
	>                                       eDebate mailing list
	>                                       eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
	>                               eDebate mailing list
	>                               eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
	> ________________________________
	>                       eDebate mailing list
	>                       eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
	> _______________________________________________
	>                       eDebate mailing list
	>                       eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
	>               _______________________________________________ 
	>               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/b602b8b8/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list