[eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure

Kuswa, Kevin kkuswa
Thu Oct 23 18:55:46 CDT 2008

sure...no disagreement.  we talked a bit a few years ago about ONLY clearing the teams at the bottom of the bracket (you have to lose at least 5 rounds to clear) because those are really the teams that need the extra debates.
The team that loses would advance in elims....so, if the seeds hold up, the teams in finals will have lost every round.  At that point, someone has to win who is 0-12.  
great stuff--regional matching would help as well.
not sure this is a good solution for wake--maybe for a novice division somewhere.
ps--seriously, hidden out-rounds are not a bad idea.  the time consumed by the first "out-round" is usually less and mutually preferred judging could make sure those rounds had solid judges.  You want three-judges?  Win your hidden out-round.


From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of bandana organizer
Sent: Thu 10/23/2008 7:33 PM
To: edebate
Subject: Re: [eDebate] [CEDA-L] some comments re tournament rounds structure

> From: kkuswa at richmond.edu
> Other possibilities....
> 1) Hidden Out-Rounds.  Have doubles and octos during rounds 7 and 8.  Once 8 prelims are over, you are in Quarters.  Not hard to do--sometimes 1 judge is more preferred than 3.
> 2) TEN PRELIMS--straight to semis or finals.  More debates for everyone.

These two are very similar, and to the "losers pool" as well.

Since some of these rounds are a kind of "bonus" for teams that didn't do well enough to break, and since that bonus is meant to increase education, it might be worthwhile for these rounds to try and match teams from different regions, or at least teams who haven't seen other teams from each other's schools in a prior prelim.
You live life beyond your PC. So now Windows goes beyond your PC.
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

More information about the Mailman mailing list