[eDebate] Novice at CEDA Nats and Josh

Jim Hanson hansonjb
Tue Oct 28 21:51:32 CDT 2008


I agree.

having the novice elims start in doubles or octas = they watch 
triples/doubles.

also, set judges for the novice elims AFTER setting the judges for the open 
elims. you can still use pref'ing, just give the judges to long term 
committed students and to the debates where more long term expertise helps 
differentiate out the debaters.

jim :)
hansonjb at whitman.edu


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Eric Wendell Marlow" <emarlow at ucok.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2008 7:48 PM
To: "Jason Russell" <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>
Cc: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice at CEDA Nats and Josh

Jason is right.  And, for the record, I don't think his argument is
elitist.  Teams competing in the "open" division of CEDA nats work hard
all year and the idea that they could potentially have worse critic
preferences in the first elim round seems to be a recipe for tragedy.
We have almost moved past the days when the triples was just a crap
shoot and it would be a shame to move back in that direction.

I love novice debate, too.  I have spent a good deal of my 18 year
college coaching career working with exclusively novice programs.  I do
not think we should privilege our mission of novice inclusion to the
point of sacrificing the quality of our varsity national competition.

Peace,
Marlow

Jason Russell wrote:


>I would like to add a prior disclaimer to all of Josh's emails that he
>definitely does not intend to offend anyone, ever, under any
circumstances,
>about anything. This should help speed up his ability to send emails,
as if
>that is at all possible.
>When the novice elims are held matters. If they're held during the
triples
>or doubles (maybe even octas), Im opposed to them because the judging
for
>all of the rounds, including the new division, will suffer. While this
>atrocity of a tournament is not as poorly judged as it was when Chief
used
>to debate at it, it is, still, a crap shoot given that the bottom of the
>pool is so large that the range of individuals you may get in the 2 or 3
>range is less preferable than it would be at other tournaments. This
factor
>is, frankly, already driving many teams from participating in the
>tournament. Adding "just" 4 more rounds is adding "just" 12 more judges
to
>the pool of elims, which is some serious stress on overall elim
preference
>where we should be striving for A-A match ups. Im not saying nix the
>division; Im saying careful placement is crucial.
>
>If there is a forced trade-off with open elims, I am, in fact, opposed
to
>the division. I guess it's because Im an elitist sorta, but also because
>there are like 15 other novice national championships you can
participate in
>beyond CEDA.
>
>J
>


------------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
>http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


**ADDRESS CHANGE NOTICE**-The University of Central Oklahoma is
moving to a new Internet address.  This e-Mail address and web
sites are now available at uco.edu.  All e-mail addresses and web
sites will use uco.edu effective January 2, 2009.

**CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may
contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information.  Any
unauthorized disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.
_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate 




More information about the Mailman mailing list