[eDebate] 2009 GSU College Tournament Invitation

V I Keenan vikeenan
Fri Jul 17 11:32:21 CDT 2009

on a related note to Kevin's post ...

If 7 rounds becomes the norm, doesn't that functionally increase the minimum
number of tournaments that an individual debater would need to attend in
order to be eligible to participate in the District Qualifier?  Previously,
a debater could attend 4 8-round tournaments and be eligible, but if there
are not four such tournaments, that results in a 5th tournament. (This is
not a hypothetical - Wake and NW's changes last year AFTER we had budgeted
our schedule resulted in such a calculation problem).

Not all students debate every weekend.  Many work or have other commitments
or simply have balance in their lives.  Not all programs are focused on
"open" debate (In the hybrid discussion I keep hearing that those "lone"
debaters at emerging programs should just pull up an unsuspecting novice for
Districts ... because clearly emerging programs have the money to now attend
an extra tournament at minimum).  Sometimes there is an odd number of open
debaters, or rotating partnerships, or someone studying abroad, and the 32
round rule exists for those circumstances.   Just because students make
these choices they should not be precluded from the last regional tournament
they have access to in the year (the District Qualifier). Functionally
requiring an increase in the number of tournaments individual students need
to attend at a minimum will be the "hidden" expense on top of a world of
rising travel costs.

If folks are on board with the 7 round norm then it might be worth
reevaluating the round commitment requirements in the NDT standing rules to
reflect current tournament structures, assuming the same logic of tournament
attendance still applies.  Just a thought.


Vik Keenan
Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY
Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges
212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090717/b5ce7d78/attachment.htm 

More information about the Mailman mailing list