[eDebate] Public Plea for Tournament Directors to clarify Eligibility for divisions
Thu Sep 25 16:57:31 CDT 2008
There is a giant loophole in the CEDA Constitution. Before describing what
it means to be a Novice, JV, and Varsity debater - it says "if a school
wishes to receive CEDA points" - se below for constitutional references
"RULES FOR TOURNAMENT SANCTIONING Section 4: CEDA sanctioned tournaments
must abide by any and all division requirements (e.g.,
novice definition) and publish these requirements clearly in the tournament
"ELIGIBILITY TO EARN CEDA POINTS: Section 3: A contestant may not earn CEDA
points for participation in a novice or junior division
of a tournament unless that student meets the following definitions:"
At the University of Northern Iowa tournament, the team that took first
place in the Novice division was composed of one member who did not meet the
definition of novice. However, because the tournament did not specify
exactly what it meant by Novice - a school was able to say - "We will
purposefully place our not-novice eligible points debater in the novice
division and simply not take CEDA points". The school in question has
confirmed this was their intention.
This interpretation does justify a school placing a Varsity team in novice
or JV so that their other teams will have a net easier draw.
I guess that someone could say the entire UNI tournament should not be
sanctioned, but that has some constitutional problems - because the
Constitution has a loophole - and seems to penalize schools that followed
If you are a tournament director and do not think this is OK, then I suggest
including in the invitation a statement that says: "A team may not compete
in a division they may not earn CEDA points in, unless a waiver has been
obtained by officials from CEDA or the tournament director has identified a
ADA sanctioned tournaments do not have to deal with this problem.
I am not hating on that school; they played within the rules. KSU has
played with the rules of JV - although never in novice and never at the
I will propose an amendment to the CEDA similar to the statement above.
Thanks for your time,
ahessler at hotmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman