[eDebate] [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009

Douglas Roubidoux droubidoux
Tue Oct 28 15:18:18 CDT 2008

We were one of the programs that requested a novice division.  It is the
only way I can justify us going to CEDA most years, our program is almost
always made up of all novices.  Participation at the recognized national
tournament is good for our program.  Its also good for our novice students
to see top level debates.  We don't go to most national level tournaments
unless there is a novice division, so this is a rare chance for our debaters
to model top level open debaters.

That being said, we will always go the JV/Novice tournament hosted at JCCC.
The option of novice division or breakout at CEDA is a reason for us to go
to CEDA, not a reason to not go to JCCC.

If the goal is to get more programs involved in CEDA I think it is important
to have a national tournament that values all levels of debate.


2008/10/28 Justin Green <jmgreen at ksu.edu>

> I agree it would be beneficial if this would have come up for a vote.  Yes,
> the Pres probably does have the power to simply administrate a decision
> about the national tournament - but he also has the decision to decide to
> put it up for a vote - I ask him and others to simply do that.
> As a school who has novice teams - I and much of our coaching staff stand
> in opposition to a Novice Break-out
> 1 - We crown a National Champion for a reason - The focus of CEDA nats is
> to represent the best of our activity.  We don't offer a JV division and in
> the past there has not been a novice - this is because we want to feature
> the best in debate.  KSU novi and JV debaters are instructed to watch,
> watch, watch, and learn from the others who have done well.  All of them
> develop a little GDS and then we talk about what to steal from speech
> patterns on the way home.  This might be one tournament where watching good
> rounds is more valuable to novices at the end of the year than debating in
> them.
> 2 - JV/Novice Championships already exist - The West Coast, Midwest, and
> East Coast all host at least one.  There are a substantial number of schools
> who attend the East and West coast tournaments.  I think these tournaments
> are uniquely valuable because they make JV and Novice the singular focal
> points for the weekend.  If there is any risk that CEDA Nats trades off with
> attendance at these, then the CEDA Nats division is not desirable.
> 3 - Previous Experimental divisions have done harm - When in 2001 KSU won
> the "Non Policy National Championship" (8 teams competed), we had a choice:
> not tell our administration OR tell our administration that we just won a
> pseudo-national championship that shouldn't count as much as the CEDA Nats
> we got in 1991 or 1993.  It was confusing and after an initial set of
> conversations, we just kept it quiet.
> 4 - The schools this is targetted to help already are recognized -
> New-comer awards are given to those attending for the first time.
> 5 - It is a poor way to determine a Novice National Champion - the prelim
> road at CEDA is not the same for everyone.  Some novices will debate other
> novice teams, others will have a much harder draw.  This is why other
> schools host a NOVICE ONLY championship division.  We are probably looking
> at clearing teams that will go 2-6 and ties broken on points.  It's just a
> sloppy way to have it happen.
> At least as a caveat - Only judges with teams registered as novice should
> be forced to judge elimination rounds in the Novice division.  One can make
> a choice whether or not to attend the Kentucky (open only) or the KCKCC
> tournament (3 divisions).  When coaches decide to bring their teams to a
> tournament with multiple divisions, they should understand their obligations
> to potentially judge all three.  Because this decision was not made by the
> public and teams do not have an alternate CEDA nats to attend this should
> not be placed as a requirement for coaches without novices.  I know just as
> many coaches that watch elim debates at CEDA because it represents some of
> the finest examples of what debaters should aspire to do.  We also want to
> be there to potentially watch "so-and-so's" last speech.
> As far as I can tell, others say
> - "Novices would get more experience" - there are other better places to
> have that happen.  We don't bring everyone on our team to CEDA Nats, just
> those who are ready to go and compete.  They might be better off watching
> out rounds.
> - "Some schools might attend who otherwise would not" - Would those schools
> be better off going to multiple JV/Novice Nationals or better off at CEDA
> Nats?
> Please don't take this as any personal affronts - it is simply a
> disagreement about policy.
> Justin Green
> 2008/10/28 Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com>
>  I havent been as active in CEDA as I used to be (hahahaha - cue
>> Jackie)...But my memory is that things like this used to start as an
>> amendment at a Business Meeting and then were sent out as a vote to the
>> community (if they passed at the business meeting).
>> Certainly have no horse in thise race (cue Tuna)....but usually we at
>> least tried Democracy first in matters such as this...CEDA is an
>> organization grouped around a tournament..its procedures and practices
>> regarding that tournament should probably be vetted democratically.
>> Again, not meaning to step on any toes or accidentally agree with the
>> Whaler,
>> Josh
>> 2008/10/28 Shawn T Whalen <swhalen at sfsu.edu>
>>> I'm not against the idea at all.  I am against these decisions being made
>>> without the input of the full membership.  I don't believe that the
>>> president has such authority, but even if he did it should not be used
>>> without sharing a complete proposal with the membership first and allowing
>>> time for feedback.
>>> As I said, I support this idea generally, but this edict poses
>>> significant changes that might be unpalatable to many.  For example, will
>>> judge commitments be altered to ensure a pool of judges for the break outs?
>>>  When will rounds be run (simultaneously with other elims etc)?  How might
>>> that impact pre-round coaching for teams in the elims? What is the capacity
>>> of the facility hosting the elim rounds?  How much will we spend on
>>> additional awards etc.?  Are there competing alternatives that might
>>> recognize novice competitors but minimize the cost?
>>> These are all discussions that the membership has been a part of in the
>>> past.
>>> Shawn
>>>   *"Sandoz, M L" <ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu>*
>>> 10/28/2008 09:28 AM
>>>    To
>>> "Shawn Whalen" <swhalen at sfsu.edu>  cc
>>> "Darren Elliott" <delliott at kckcc.edu>, edebate at ndtceda.com,
>>> ceda-l at ndtceda.com  Subject
>>> Re: [CEDA-L] Novice at CEDA Nationals 2009
>>> My memory is that the previous vote to which you are probably referring
>>> was to establish the support of a different category of debate -
>>> Non-policy.  This required amending the resultion process and perhaps
>>> points calculations.  I don't think this is the same.
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> Sandoz, M L
>>> Director of Debate
>>> Vanderbilt University
>>> Email: mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu
>>> On Sun, October 26, 2008 7:03 pm, Shawn Whalen wrote:
>>> > I remember a day when the addition of an event at the national
>>> > tournament required a vote of the membership. My how things change.
>>> >
>>> > Shawn
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Oct 25, 2008, at 8:39 PM, "Darren Elliott" <delliott at kckcc.edu>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Greetings friends!
>>> >>
>>> >> I am pleased to announce a new addition to CEDA Nationals beginning
>>> >> 2009, and something I hope will continue beyond my year as President.
>>> >>
>>> >> It strikes me as odd that part of our mission and purpose is to
>>> >> cultivate new debate programs, new debaters, and encourage and
>>> >> support Novice debate, yet as an organization we do not officially
>>> >> recognize Novice competition in its own right at the National
>>> >> Tournament.  Many programs bring Novices to CEDA Nationals.  For
>>> >> some programs, year to year, Novices may be the majority of their
>>> >> program.  It seems like CEDA should make it a point to celebrate and
>>> >> reward Novice Debate by crowning a Champion among Novices at the
>>> >> CEDA National Tournament.
>>> >>
>>> >> It is with that in mind that CEDA Nationals 2009 will, for the first
>>> >> time, offer a Novice breakout bracket, culminating in the crowning
>>> >> of a CEDA recognized Champion among Novice Debate Teams.  Once
>>> >> preliminary rounds are concluded, a separate bracket will be created
>>> >> among Novice eligible teams.  Both debaters must be eligible based
>>> >> on CEDA's definition of Novice.  I will work with Tab Room Director
>>> >> Gary Larson to determine the appropriate number of teams (hopefully
>>> >> at least Quarters) and when the best time to begin these rounds
>>> >> based on room availability and judges.
>>> >>
>>> >> I have engaged this conversation during tournaments throughout the
>>> >> country.  Some Directors wanted a separate Novice division.  Others
>>> >> liked the idea of a breakout bracket.  No one I have talked to was
>>> >> in opposition of having some sort of Novice elim rounds.  For a few
>>> >> programs they indicated it would be the only way they could justify
>>> >> coming to CEDA in years when they only had Novices.  It seems
>>> >> important to me to recognize and reward those Novices who come to
>>> >> the National Tournament.  This, in my opinion, is long overdue.
>>> >>
>>> >> Looking forward to Pocatello!
>>> >>
>>> >> Sincerely,
>>> >> chief
>>> >> Darren Elliott
>>> >> Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC
>>> >> CEDA President
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> CEDA-L mailing list
>>> >> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>>> >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > CEDA-L mailing list
>>> > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>>> > <http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l>
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>>> >
>>> <http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> CEDA-L mailing list
>>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
>> _______________________________________________
>> CEDA-L mailing list
>> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
>> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
> _______________________________________________
> CEDA-L mailing list
> CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20081028/7025f8ec/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list