[eDebate] scheduling: two counterplans

David Cram Helwich cramhelwich
Thu Oct 23 10:09:37 CDT 2008


I would prefer that Wake have 8 rounds this year, but it is not my
tournament. Ross might well be right, it is his tournament, and he certainly
has the right to see how this experiment goes. The Deacons could schedule a
debate/bowling tournament, and we would probably still go.

I can think of two potential options that folks have not yet discussed:

1. Double elim bracket: Top 16 clear to a 'championship bracket' to
determine the tournament winner, seeds 17-32 clear to a 'consolation
bracket' to determine the consolation winner. This could be combined with a
number of permuations of 6, 7, or 8 round prelim structures
* advs: cuts an elim, preserves the same number of paneled debates, does not
add to the room burden for the tourney host, and allows the same # of teams
to get 'elim experience'
* da's: 'consolation' isn't

2. Nestled Elims: Clear the top 32 to an elim bracket after either 6 or 7
rounds, but still schedule a 'bonus' round for the rest of the field during
the first elim
* advs: solves the time crunch issue, allows non-clearing teams to still get
valuable debate rounds
* da's: judge shortage, no audiences for doubles, people may not take the
'bonus round' seriously
Gary knows better than I whether we can add 36 judges the elim/bonus round.
If not, this is a non-starter. However, I suspect that there are a large
number of highly preferred judges to have small commitments that might be
amenable to judging the first elim. Loosening 'preference' in favor of
'mutuality' during the 'bonus round' would probably help a bit, too.

Dallas, as usual, makes good arguments.

dch
umn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081023/97226180/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list