[eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

[Andy Ellis]

3' the most rigged game is open and you have no hesitation pushing
othr peoples  debaters there . why? because your students competitive
needs are more authentic than theirs?

On 12/4/07, Zompetti, Joseph Perry <jpzompe at ilstu.edu> wrote:

> I will answer Andy and Neil together - for what it's worth.  It seems that

> the community is so hell-bent on competitive success that our arguments for

> a more equitable debate world are falling on deaf ears.  Andy, without

> naming names, even called me a "hater."

>

> Would I like our teams to be more competitive, absolutely.  Do all debate

> coaches want their teams to win, of course.

>

> But what I want more than those things is for my debaters to not quit.

>

> Again, as I said in an earlier post, I don't think competitive success and

> fair JV divisions are mutually exclusive - but apparently the coaches who

> want to win at all costs think so.

>

> I am sure there are occasions when debaters don't want to be pushed into

> Open.  I'm even more convinced - especially now having read the deluge of

> emails from coaches who want to protect their right to win at all costs -

> that coaches want to place their advanced debaters into JV for the CEDA

> points, for the victories, for the success and trophies they can bring home

> to their administrations.  All of which are valiant goals.  I just don't

> understand why those goals need to come at the expense of debaters'

> education and other programs who are trying to stay alive.

>

> Perhaps we have been arguing in circles.  It seems that some believe their

> choice in sending Open-qualified debaters in JV are justified because the

> eligibility rules permit it.  What I have been arguing is that such

> eligibility shouldn't allow such actions.  Maybe we need to redefine those

> eligibility requirements.  But if the recent posts on eDebate are any

> indication, my proposal for revising such requirements will suffer a bloody

> death.

>

> Someone argued that debate is about winning and losing, so debaters should

> be prepared to lose, regardless of what division they are in.  Of course

> that is true - it's almost a truism.  However, why should debaters be

> prepared to compete in a rigged game, weekend after weekend?

>

> Again, I come back to the troubled paradox:  How can the community want

> programs to thrive and to not drop like flies, yet also promote the

> mentality that "competition-at-all-costs" is more important than having fair

> and equitable JV divisions?

>

> Don't think that Justin and I are giving up, or that we won't continue to

> try to make our teams competitive.  The problem is - and again, I seriously

> doubt we're the only ones who feel this way - that mis-matched, unbalanced

> and competitively rigged JV divisions severely hamstring our ability to make

> our teams competitive, give them the self-confidence they need to continue,

> and the assurance they deserve that debate is a fun, important activity that

> justifies the time, energy, and money they commit each week to.

>

> zomp

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of NEIL BERCH

> Sent: Mon 12/3/2007 7:48 PM

> To: Jim Hanson; Andy Ellis

> Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com

> Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

>

>

> I think Andy is right on several things below (third time this year!!).  I'm

> going to propose some (hopefully) out-of-the-box ideas for dealing with

> these issues, but first my now-standard reminder:  three divisions=large

> imbalances inevitable.  It's just a matter of choosing which imbalances are

> most salient.

>

> Andy touched on something that I'd been thinking about all day long.  Maybe

> collapsing divisions isn't such a bad thing (especially for those with less

> experience among the debaters in the collapsed division).  We've had a very

> positive experience with Towson's combined open divisions (with breakouts

> and speaker awards for JV, and, in one case, novice).  Moreover, my earlier

> conversation with Jim Hanson reminded me that in his other (parli) world,

> single division tournaments are not unusual (with awards for best novices,

> etc.), and two division tournaments are not unusual.  Another parli idea

> that we could consider is Jim's NPTE system, whereby teams earn points

> toward qualification for a season-ending elite tournament.  We could do that

> for each of the two lower divisions, and a system that awarded more points

> toward that for performances in higher divisions could encourage moveups.

>

> But Andy (and Sarah, and Jackie, etc.) have an equally good point.  If we go

> to the trouble of setting eligibility standards, we shouldn't get on people

> for not voluntarily giving up opportunities within those standards.  If we

> want to applaud people for doing so, that's cool (like Nick Landsman-Roos,

> deciding not to defend his JV Nats title, even though he was eligible).  But

> the converse is not the case.  An example:  just this morning I heard a

> debate by the noted philosophers, "Mike and Mike in the Morning," on ESPN

> radio.  It concerned the tribute paid to the late football player, Sean

> Taylor, by his coach and teammates.  They played the first play of the game

> against the Buffalo Bills with only 10 players.  Apparently, people were

> upset with Buffalo for taking advantage of this gesture and running for 22

> yards.  It turned out that Buffalo didn't even know that Washington was

> short-handed, but the philosopher kings of sports radio agreed that there

> was no reason why Buffalo shouldn't try to score within the rules.

>

> In the past, I've sometimes been critical of people for not moving folks up.

>  My concerns have largely focused on scaring off novices by having people

> with significant experience in Novice.  The more I think about it, though,

> the less sense this makes to me.  If you've got a handful of teams in a

> novice division with significant experience, other teams may suffer a rout

> or two over six rounds.  However, power-pairing will kick in, and they'll

> inevitably get some rounds that are quite competitive.  We should be able to

> convince students that they can't win all the time.

>

> One other thing:  if someone leaves a debater in a lower division "too

> long", that's good for the rest of us.  The fact of the matter is that I

> have yet to meet a debate coach who is not competitive.  So, if you let your

> novices stay in novice most of the year beating up on rookies, your novices

> (no matter how talented will not progress as quickly as other novices

> debating in JV or Open.  They're wasting a good number of their rounds.  The

> person who first pointed this out to me was Tuna Snider.  I would add that

> when Andy coached the famed Bard/Vassar, he took two novices (very smart

> seniors named Ruth Zisman and--I can't remember the other one!!), put them

> in JV and Open most of the year, and then a first-year "program" won Novice

> Nationals (and I remember hearing a complaint that it was "unfair, because

> they're a varsity team!").

>

> So, I'm just going to do what I think is best for my students and their

> development, with a focus on winning end-of-season championships.  Five

> further notes:

> 1.  For those who think the two lines (novice/JV and JV/Open) are drawn in

> the wrong place, they/we should pursue amendments to the by-laws (this is

> perhaps a change from some of my earlier posts).

> 2.  Chief has done that.  After considerable analysis, I decided that his

> line makes more sense than the one in the status quo, so I'll be voting for

> his amendment.

> 3.  I'm not going to have time to repeat my analysis for Novice Nationals,

> but I will let folks in on what I found a few years ago when I looked at

> this in somewhat less detail.  Success in the Novice division at the Eastern

> version of JV/Novice Nats appears to depend greatly on two factors:  number

> of rounds that year and number of rounds in JV and Open.  I didn't run

> previous experience as a variable.  Eyeballing the data for the last couple

> of years suggests that previous LD experience would be statistically

> significant (and would mitigate but probably not eliminate the impact of the

> "number of JV and Open rounds" variable).  Success in the JV division of

> that tournament (and at CEDA Nationals) was largely a function of number of

> rounds debated that year.

> 4.  An off-the-wall idea:  maybe ADA has it right in a different way.  They

> award 50% extra sweepstakes points for ADA Nationals.  CEDA could develop a

> rule that awarded 50% greater points to all tournaments held after February

> 20 (or so).  That would include regionals, the various JV/Novice Nats, CEDA

> Nats, and some other tournaments.  It would then encourage people to point

> toward end-of-year success (which might encourage them to "debate up" more

> often).

> 5.  Binghamton (which probably has about the 50th or 60th highest travel

> budget in the country) is successful for many reasons, but like other

> successful programs, the biggest reason is that Joe, Scu, and their debaters

> work their butts off.  If I were going to investigate Schatz for something,

> it would be whether he uses supernatural means to get novice debaters to go

> to 6-7 tournaments a semester and do 15+ hours of work per week (plus

> research!).

>

> --Neil Berch

> West Virginia University

>

> 	----- Original Message -----

> 	From: Andy Ellis <mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com>

> 	To: Jim Hanson <mailto:hansonjb at whitman.edu>

> 	Cc: edebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 	Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 7:32 PM

> 	Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

>

> 	This weekend with some success and some unfortunate pairings we ran an

> open/jv division with a total of 23 teams 10 jv teams and 13 open teams. We

> broke to a partial octas, and then a jv semi as a set of breakout rounds. I

> prepaired rd 1-2 within division rd 3-4 where paired off of 1-2 in an open

> division. Round 5 to the best of my ability was powered within division and

> rd 6 was again in the open pool. Basically i ran three tournements within 1

> a varsity division a jv division and a combined open division. There where

> no doubt some jv teams that went 2-0 and debated some ndt quality teams in

> rds 3-4 or some 1-1 jv teams that some varsity teams got to debate in rd

> 3-4.

> 	

> 	Our field was composed of varsity debaters with NDT experience, several

> teams who compete frequently at national circuit tournaments, jv debaters

> (many of whom ave debated novice the rest of the semester), experienced but

> younger debaters with high school experience and a whole plethora of other

> people. While Binghamton's teams did in fact close out in sems. And mary

> washington closed out finals in JV, i believe that the model that balanced

> divisions competition and education worked out well. JV debaters could get

> to varsity out rounds by winning their jv debates and debating well in their

> open debates(an option that doesnt really exist for many tournaments) but

> the youger debaters in the jv division still had the opportunity to qualify

> for break out rounds.

> 	

> 	All of this protected what was largely a rookie division in novice.

> 	

> 	I encourage people to reflect on how the model works and i dont suggest

> that it can work in every situations, but i do think that there can be a lot

> of benefit in combined divisions with abundant breakout rounds.

> 	

> 	Finally let me say this. People who talk shit about binghamton are guilty

> of at least a decent amount of jealous haterism. What other program (much

> less at a state funded school) has built from a student run student

> government club to a potential national points champion with a depth of good

> teams. Oh, and over a ten year period? Good job Joe, Good Job Binghamton. If

> you like ceda points and think they are valuable or even if you can see

> their value you cant convince yourself that there is a way in which they

> would be geared toward anything other than a competitive goal. And as long

> as there are rules that determine who wins and who doesnt jackie's question

> is correct. Are they eligible.

> 	

> 	Also here is a suggestion.

> 	

> 	If you are in the business of winning tournaments and want your teams to

> constantly be in final rounds, then you gotta be able to beat people. If

> binghamton and oklahoma and k state wanted to come to every one of our

> tournaments i would be excited because our debaters could get good rounds

> against good debaters (move em up for the experience right) but i wouldnt

> bemoan losing because someone was good. Like when i take teams to big

> national tournaments we never argue(anymore) that TOC champison should not

> be there because they decerease our chance of winning. Its different/ Yes

> and No. Whatever division you are in at a competitive tournament if you

> place an emphasis on winning there will be people better than you, and if

> not, then people will talk jealous hater shit about you almost all the

> time....

> 	

> 	

> 	

> 	

> 	

> 	

> 	On Dec 3, 2007 12:59 AM, Jim Hanson < hansonjb at whitman.edu> wrote:

> 	

>

> 		neil--let me respond to your hypothetical by saying: each of our choices

> has consequences.

> 		

> 		when a coach puts in an overly good team into a lower division--that makes

> it real hard for the other debaters in that division. people have made that

> point quite sufficiently on this listserv (and it is a good point--I agree

> with it).

> 		

> 		the other side of that coin hasn't been made. when a coach puts a weaker

> team into an upper division--several things happen: 1) good upper teams get

> at least one round that is less competitive/educational for them--the

> challenge that you put a lower division team into open for is not there for

> the open team; 2) the lower division does indeed lose one team, typically a

> decent team for that division, thereby making that division less competitive

> and less educational; 3) the team moved up typically loses rounds quickly

> and winds up moving into lower brackets and so may wind up getting rounds

> that are only marginally better than being in the upper brackets of the

> lower division anyway (depending on the tournament).

> 		

> 		directly answering your hypothetical neil: is it your fault? no, you are

> not responsible for the state of debate. but remember that when you and

> other coaches make choices--it affects the choices of other coaches.

> 		

> 		most of the tournaments we attend have no jv division and typically, an

> open division that is pretty cut-throat. when there is a jv division--it is

> that or throw these kids in to hit first rounds and top 40 and 50 teams that

> they will be crushed against or go against jv teams that they likely will

> crush. it is a lousy choice to have to make. and that is what I am saying.

> 		

> 		jim :)

> 		hansonjb at whitman.edu

>

> 		From: NEIL BERCH <mailto:berchnorto at msn.com>

> 		Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 1:01 PM

> 		To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com ; Jim Hanson <mailto:hansonjb at whitman.edu>

> 		Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

>

> 		Jim--You usually make a lot of sense to me, but this one puzzles me.

> Let's say that I have sophomores who only started debating in college.

> They're in their third semester of debate, working hard, and perfectly

> capable of going 3-3 or 4-2 in JV.  They decide and/or agree to focus on the

> long-term, enter the Open division, take their 1-5 lumps, and learn a lot.

> According to you, it's my/our fault (for having deserted the JV division)

> that the JV division is small and dominated by your equally hypothetical

> first-years who had 3 years of high school policy debate?  Wow!

> 		

> 		--Neil

>

> 			----- Original Message -----

> 			From: Jim Hanson <mailto:hansonjb at whitman.edu>

> 			To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 			Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 2:59 PM

> 			Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

>

> 			I'm going to add in another angle on this discussion:

> 			

> 			the problem of too many people pushing jv eligible teams into open

> division at tournaments where there is a jv division, at least the ones we

> attend.

> 			

> 			the result: the jv divisions tend to have very few teams participating

> and they are teams that are, on the whole, substantially less competitive

> than the open division.

> 			

> 			so, then, I have debaters who are set to go 2-4 in open division (and

> maybe worse) or who go in jv division and go 6-0 and might very well be one

> of the teams you all would be complaining about (although they would be

> completely and totally within the definitions provided by the

> tournaments--almost always frosh in their first semester of debate).

> 			

> 			jim :)

> 			hansonjb at whitman.edu

> 			

> 			

> 			From: NEIL BERCH <mailto:berchnorto at msn.com>

> 			Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 8:16 AM

> 			To: Sarah Snider <mailto:sjsnider at ksu.edu>  ; edebate at www.ndtceda.com ; J

> Stan <mailto:jstan1979 at gmail.com>

> 			Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

>

> 			Leaving aside the obvious current dispute between Mr. Stanley and Kansas

> State over this weekend's JV division at John Carroll, I want to reiterate a

> more general point.  When we take a group of debaters with a range of

> experience that goes (literally) from never having seen a debate round to

> Copeland Award winners and try to divide it into three categories, there are

> inevitably going to be some very large disparities in ability and skill

> within categories.  Again, think of it as having MPJ with just three

> categories.  No matter how many judges you have to put in each of the

> categories, inevitably at least one category (and perhaps all three) is

> going to contain judges you like MUCH better than other judges in the same

> category.

> 			

> 			As we move the eligibility boundaries around, we may reduce one set of

> inequities but replace it with another.  In doing so, I tend to think that

> we should protect the least experienced set of debaters the most (by having

> the narrowest definition of novice).  The effect of that, however, is to

> widen the range of experience in JV, and there are costs associated with

> that.  If we then narrow JV eligibility some more, then that produces

> inequities in Open.  The bottom line is that, with three categories, someone

> is always going to be disadvantaged.  My preference is that it NOT be the

> people with the least experience (who are probably the most likely to leave

> the activity).  Others may disagree.

> 			

> 			What it comes down to (as Jackie said at the start of this discussion) is

> ethics.  More specifically, it is about doing what is best for the students,

> both yours and other people's students.  I tend to err (very strongly) on

> the "move them up for the experience" side.  Part of my job as an educator

> and coach is then to convince my students that going 1-5 in a division above

> their experience is a good experience.  My students tend to react well (and

> with pride when they score the occasional upset).  Maybe it's because

> Mountaineers are resilient (even after last night!).  Or maybe it's because

> I have tenure.

> 			

> 			One thing that would make it easier would be if there were a critical

> mass of "moved up" debaters, who might very well end up meeting each other

> in later rounds.  Thus, you'd get several challenging rounds followed by a

> couple of winnable rounds.

> 			

> 			Just some thoughts.  Not sure what the grand solution is in terms of

> rules, unless we want to go to nine-category eligibility requirements!!

> 			

> 			--Neil Berch

> 			West Virginia University

>

> 				----- Original Message -----

> 				From: J Stan <mailto:jstan1979 at gmail.com>

> 				To: Sarah Snider <mailto:sjsnider at ksu.edu>  ; edebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 				Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 9:57 AM

> 				Subject: Re: [eDebate] Novice - JV eligibility

>

>

> 				I don't really see why this needs to be legislated, But I do have some

> general ideas of norms that might be thought about....

> 				

> 				If you have a debater who broke at an Open tournament then they probably

> don't need to be debating in JV.

> 				If your JV team won their first JV tournament of their college career

> and then debated in open the rest of the year, you probably don't need to

> take them in JV at a regional tournament at the end of the first semester of

> their second year after they have debated in Open all of the first semester.

> 				If you think you have a chance to qualify to the NDT through districts

> then maybe you shouldn't be going in JV

> 				If you look at the entries and realize that your teams may be

> significantly better than all of the other entries in JV then maybe you

> should not put them in JV

> 				If you have a team that won a speaker award at  CEDA then they should

> not be in JV

> 				If a team won the NDT the previous year then they should not be in JV

> 				If an individual was a top ten speaker at Wake Forest they should not be

> in JV

> 				

> 				

> 				Obvisously, the last two are true but sarcastic.  I say people should

> have some common sense and try and do what is best for the activity and

> everyone involved in the activity, not just what may be best for your CEDA

> points.   I  understand CEDA points and doing what you have to do to get

> funding for your team.  However, this is true for everyone.  By one school

> making these decisions for purposes of winning sweepstakes you practically

> guarantee that "legitimate" JV debaters don't earn any points and thus

> schools who put those students in what I believe to be the appropriate

> division don't get points, don't get awards, and thus have to go back to

> their administration with the argument.....We would of won, but our kids

> have 30 rounds of experience and some schools put students in JV with 150

> rounds of experience so we lost, Sorry.  And, oh by the way, half our squad

> wants to quit because they just had one of the least enjoyable experiences

> of their life.

> 				

> 				Finally, how about the argument that it hurts the development of your

> debaters who have high aspirations and hurts the development of relatively

> new debaters who just enjoy debating in competitive, enjoyable rounds for

> educational purposes.

> 				

> 				Justin

> 				

> 				On 12/2/07, Sarah Snider <sjsnider at ksu.edu> wrote:

>

> 					Justin-

> 					

> 					We have entered 3 jv teams composed of

> 					3 Frosh

> 					2 Sophomores

> 					1 senior who joined the debate team last year and competed primarily in

> JV and barely cleared at one small regional tournament in open this fall.

> 					

> 					our debaters only debate in the fall in Kansas- this means they come in

> with HALF as much experience as debaters from at least 45 other states.

> 					

> 					none of the teams we have entered here have cleared at a national

> tournament- our top team went 2-6 at Harvard- and half of this team is

> competing here.

> 					

> 					UNI and KCK are not national tournaments. One of our debaters did clear

> at UNLV.

> 					

> 					Restricting our JV debaters from participating by changing the rules

> would force tons of debaters who are not ready to move to Varsity. The kind

> of rule change you suggest requires debaters with 2 years HS debate

> experience, less than 3 final rounds, and less than 2 years college

> experience to move to varsity. There are some debaters for whom, this would

> be devastating.

> 					

> 					John Bretthauer JUDGED our JV team during the 2005-2006 season and then

> DEBATED the SAME TEAM in JV the next season. Obviously this is an issue we

> have with the Chief and not with you and pointing out another wrong doesn't

> make it right- but, our actions this weekend are FAR more legitimate than

> the majority of eligibility indiscretions one would normally encounter in

> the average season.

> 					

> 					Binghamton received over 35 CEDA points for placing the 14th speaker at

> CEDA Nats in JV at the opening tournament of the season against real JV

> debaters........How are we supposed to come even close to them in the

> sweepstakes race?

> 					

> 					I understand your frustration, I totally do. But our debaters are far

> from ineligible in JV.

> 					

> 					Sarah

> 					

> 					

> 					

> 					

> 					

> 					On Dec 2, 2007 12:16 AM, J Stan < jstan1979 at gmail.com

> <mailto:jstan1979 at gmail.com> > wrote:

> 					

>

> 					My post sought an answer to why, "Most of have had a team for one

> reason or another dominate a division and could debate up"  The reason they

> dominate a division is because they should be debating up.  If they should

> be debating up then why are they dominating a division that they should not

> be in. I am not referring to any team who simply goes 6 - 0 at a tournament.

>  That is going to happen.  I am referring to a team who has broken at

> multiple national tournaments in open and makes a choice to debate down in

> JV division at a regional tournament.  Bid teams being excluded from

> regional tournaments is both unnecessary and irrelevant.  Bid teams don't

> usually debate at regional tournaments and if I had a team who had three

> years of experience in college and thus out of JV eligibility I would hope

> they could feel comfortable in a majority of rounds in open because they

> would not hit a bid team in a majority of rounds. I think if given three

> years I could coach a team to feel comfortable in the open division at

> regional tournaments.  They may not win those tournaments but they will feel

> comfortable in most of the rounds they compete.   However, my team with a

> little over one year of experience in their life hitting a team in JV who

> has open outround appearences at National tournaments makes little sense to

> me.

> 					

> 					Second, I don't think fairness can be imposed through legislation,

> although I think legislation it is probably needed, but won't really solve

> all of the problem, just some of it.

> 					

> 					What is needed is people to just stop putting people in these divisions

> or give me a reason that I haven't thought of why it is being done so I can

> learn what it is that I am missing. I am sure there is a reason that I

> haven't thought of yet.

> 					

> 					Justin

>

> 					

> 					On 12/1/07, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com > wrote:

>

> 					I think the problem with all of these discussions is that they assume

> fairness can be improved through such legislation, but there are always

> people who dont fall into a catagory convieniently, we have all had novices

> or varsity debaters who are out of lower divison eligibility but would

> seriously benefit, and most have us have had a team who for one reason or

> another dominates a division and could debate up, but i guess part of me

> asks why the same standard doesnt apply to open? Is the purpose always to

> win the ndt? Should bid teams be excluded from regional tournaments?

> 					

> 					

> 					On Dec 2, 2007 12:23 AM, J Stan <jstan1979 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 					

>

> 					

> 					I have followed the discussion on the Novice eligibility.  I think one

> issue that has not been discussed is whether a similar problem is occurring

> in JV.  Not specifically LD debaters, but individuals with significant

> experience who are being put into JV for reasons that I cannot possibly

> understand. I always felt that the reason individuals should be put in JV

> was because those individuals needed some more experience before they could

> be successful competing in Open.  I determine success as being able to

> compete for a win and feeling comfortable in a majority of the rounds they

> will be debating.

> 					

> 					I am sure there are other reasons people have for putting individuals

> in JV that I feel are less compelling.  The obvious reason is CEDA points.

> If a team needs CEDA points to justify their programs to their

> administration then a decision to put an individual in JV makes some sense.

> Building an individual's self-confident might make some sense in certain

> limited situation.  Other than that, I really don't know why you would opt

> for putting an individual in JV who clearly would feel comfortable in Open.

> 					

> 					Recently I noticed that this is be a problem.  At John Carroll Teams

> are in JV who have competed in Open at tournaments for one and a half years.

>  These teams have advanced to a final round at regional open tournaments.

> They have gone to National tournaments and broken in open.  I noticed one

> team who had students who had over 100 rounds in college debate (and

> countless rounds in high school) still competing in JV.  Individuals who

> have over 100 rounds in Open all of sudden feel compelled to enter a JV

> tournament simply because the rules still provide them eligibility.

> 					

> 					I have several problems with this.  First, it probably limits the

> development of the individuals if they are in rounds where they are simply

> beating teams with significantly less experience. Only Directors and

> debaters know what is best for their development, but it makes sense to me

> that you wouldn't want to do this if you have long term aspirations for

> competing at a high level.  Second, it practically guarantees that students

> who are competing in JV who do not have this level of experience do not feel

> comfortable or get discouraged by what is happening to them in rounds.

> These students might be able to move down to novice, but then they would be

> the ones dominating a bracket that they probably shouldn't be in and then

> novice debate would be damaged.  When I have students with 40 rounds of

> experience in their life who are competing against individuals with 150

> rounds of college debate and 3 years of high school experience and I have to

> look at my debaters face after what has happened to them in a JV round I get

> frustrated.  When I have to explain to them that they probably shouldn't be

> in novice because they would win too easily and that wouldn't be fair for

> individuals just starting out then I get frustrated.  Third, it makes all

> this discussion about high school LD irrelevant.  Pass a rule that forces

> them to debate in JV and they will move to that division and get killed

> there first half dozen tournaments and they will leave.  Novice tournaments

> will be smaller causing directors to collapse the divisions and inviduals

> who are truly novices will be debating against JV debaters who should be in

> open because they have over 100 rounds of experience.

> 					

> 					Like I said before, Directors who allow this to happen certainly have

> their own reasons.  I would certainly like to hear those reasons.  I try to

> learn from Directors who have more experience than me.  I watch what they do

> and I follow their example.  I guess, the lesson I learned from watching

> entry choices made at a recent tournament was do whatever you need to do to

> practically guarantee your teams go 6 - 0 in their bracket regardless of the

> impact it has on other people in a similar bracket.

> 					

> 					These teams will get their trophy and I will have to spend the next

> week convincing my debaters that they are doing wonderfully for their

> experience level and they shouldn't quit.

> 					

> 					Justin

> 					

> 					

> 					

> 					

> 					

> 					

>

> 					_______________________________________________

> 					eDebate mailing list

> 					eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 					http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> 					

>

>

>

> 					

>

> 					_______________________________________________

> 					eDebate mailing list

> 					eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 					http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> 					

>

>

>

> 				_______________________________________________

> 				eDebate mailing list

> 				eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 				http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

> 			

>

> ________________________________

>

> 			

>

> 			_______________________________________________

> 			eDebate mailing list

> 			eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 			http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> _______________________________________________

> 			eDebate mailing list

> 			eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 			http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

>

> 		_______________________________________________

> 		eDebate mailing list

> 		eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 		http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

> 		

>

>

> 	_______________________________________________

> 	eDebate mailing list

> 	eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> 	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

>