Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
pacedebate

The Race for the Baker

Recommended Posts

Why are the rankings on this list so different from the ones on toc.bluetubd.com?

 

It limits it to your top 5 tournaments so teams that travel more often don't have artificially inflated scores.

 

Even then, I think the Baker Award formula is pretty silly...you get fewer points for winning MBA than you do for winning Wake, despite there being clearly different levels of competition at each tournament. These rankings should be based off of depth of elim rounds and quality of elim wins.

 

Not knocking any teams here, I don't particularly disagree with this list as a general "Top 10," just the aforementioned method might more accurately order each team.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
buetub only takes into account the top 5 tournaments per each team

 

Other way around. Bluetub takes into account a cumulative list of all tournaments, whereas the Baker Award is just the top 5. However, Jeffrey said that after MBA, he will just have the top 5 as well.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It limits it to your top 5 tournaments so teams that travel more often don't have artificially inflated scores.

 

Even then, I think the Baker Award formula is pretty silly...you get fewer points for winning MBA than you do for winning Wake, despite there being clearly different levels of competition at each tournament. These rankings should be based off of depth of elim rounds and quality of elim wins.

 

Not knocking any teams here, I don't particularly disagree with this list as a general "Top 10," just the aforementioned method might more accurately order each team.

That's one of the biggest complaints of the system. Additionally, why do prelim win totals count so much? A 7-0 prelim team losing in Octos should not get more points than a 5-2 team losing in Finals-- but hey, it's just like the BCS - it's not perfect, and we're going to have to deal with it. (And by the end, it usually gets things right.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reputation_balance.gifThe Race for the Baker December 23rd, 2009 01:50 PM they are not as rich as most think...and dont bid hunt
I'm not talking about them flying to exotic locales. IIRC there's been several bid tournaments where they've sent their B teams but didn't send Reid and Pablo. (Beach, LCC, Meadows come to mind just off the top of my head).
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is Roho on this list? They have like 5 bids now, plus they have made it to finals at like every bid tourny?

I want to preface this by saying that I respect all of Rowland Hall's debaters -- I think they are very personable people, and Mario/Andrew are pretty talented. But I think what your comment doesn't take into account is the quality of tournaments. I don't follow debate much anymore, but occasionally I look at tournament results; I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that they attended Greenhill, St. Marks, Glenbrooks, or some of the other really tough ones. Though I see they will be at MBA, I think it might be a little early to make this declarative of a statement "khack211."

 

GL to all the contenders for the award though -- it's a big accomplishment!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you have brought fourth very true, but still I think that Roho is the most underrated team on the national circuit. They got third at nfl's last year and is now accumlating a lot of bids and and doing it in trips to finals. I'm exicted to follow them at the TOC this year.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is Roho on this list? They have like 5 bids now, plus they have made it to finals at like every bid tourny?

Rowland Hall would be around #11-#15 on the list. They have accumulated 971 points thus far.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want to preface this by saying that I respect all of Rowland Hall's debaters -- I think they are very personable people' date=' and Mario/Andrew are pretty talented. But I think what your comment doesn't take into account is the quality of tournaments. I don't follow debate much anymore, but occasionally I look at tournament results; I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that they attended Greenhill, St. Marks, Glenbrooks, or some of the other really tough ones. Though I see they will be at MBA, I think it might be a little early to make this declarative of a statement "khack211."

 

GL to all the contenders for the award though -- it's a big accomplishment![/quote']

 

I agree with this to some extent but I still think they're being given the shaft. The only tournament they weren't in finals at was USC (sems), and they've won two quarters bid tournaments (Grapevine, Alta). Regardless of whether they are the toughest tournaments that doesn't meant they have easy elims all the way up. Plus they were in finals at Blake but had to catch a flight, and don't say there wasn't tough competition there. Plus a lot of the teams above them don't have nearly the credentials list as Mario and Andrew, not to mention how arbitrary it is to say whether a tournament has good or bad competition just by looking at the teams list.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this to some extent but I still think they're being given the shaft. The only tournament they weren't in finals at was USC (sems), and they've won two quarters bid tournaments (Grapevine, Alta). Regardless of whether they are the toughest tournaments that doesn't meant they have easy elims all the way up.

 

They had a lot easier elims there than the other teams (minus McDonogh) had. Quarters bid tournaments that teams in the top 10 attended (i.e. Michigan) had far stronger pools than Alta/Grapevine/etc. Also, tournaments like Greenhill/St. Mark's/etc. are much more competitive than most of the tournaments RHSM attended. By the way - part of the way points are calculated is via prelim records at tournament. Going 5-2 at the one octos bid tournament they attended (Blake) isn't a very promising statistic.

 

Plus they were in finals at Blake but had to catch a flight, and don't say there wasn't tough competition there. Plus a lot of the teams above them don't have nearly the credentials list as Mario and Andrew, not to mention how arbitrary it is to say whether a tournament has good or bad competition just by looking at the teams list.

 

That's one stellar performance (Blake) at a competitive tournament. The teams ranked ahead of RHSM have multiple. LOL @ "Credentials List". Many teams in the top 10 broke at the TOC last year bro...

Also - how else do you determine the strength of competition aside from looking at the teams that attend a given tournament?

The one team in the top 10 that RHSM probably has game against is McDonogh, but I'd put my money on any of the others. I'm not saying that RHSM is bad - they're obviously very talented and good - getting 5 bids is no mean feat. But the top ten teams are ranked ahead of them for a reason.

 

Also I think your RHSM-whining is quite silly and pointless in general. The Baker Award is based on an objective, point-based scale. It's not like there's bias against RHSM or anything.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They had a lot easier elims there than the other teams (minus McDonogh) had. Quarters bid tournaments that teams in the top 10 attended (i.e. Michigan) had far stronger pools than Alta/Grapevine/etc. Also, tournaments like Greenhill/St. Mark's/etc. are much more competitive than most of the tournaments RHSM attended. By the way - part of the way points are calculated is via prelim records at tournament. Going 5-2 at the one octos bid tournament they attended (Blake) isn't a very promising statistic.

 

 

 

That's one stellar performance (Blake) at a competitive tournament. The teams ranked ahead of RHSM have multiple. LOL @ "Credentials List". Many teams in the top 10 broke at the TOC last year bro...

Also - how else do you determine the strength of competition aside from looking at the teams that attend a given tournament?

The one team in the top 10 that RHSM probably has game against is McDonogh, but I'd put my money on any of the others. I'm not saying that RHSM is bad - they're obviously very talented and good - getting 5 bids is no mean feat. But the top ten teams are ranked ahead of them for a reason.

 

Also I think your RHSM-whining is quite silly and pointless in general. The Baker Award is based on an objective, point-based scale. It's not like there's bias against RHSM or anything.

 

 

Westlake lost to RHSM in the finals of Grapevine.

 

Just sayin'

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarily think it's appropriate to call the Baker Award an 'objective' standard. It's a fairly unscientific model that disproportionately weights the size of the entry and prelim record versus quality of the entry and elim depth. A more accurate model might be to compare relative win/loss, Will Repko's system for determining first rounds which weights each round based on the opponent, and accurately predicted all 5 of the top 5 first rounds in order last year, but that's obviously much more time consuming.

 

That's all neither here nor there- the very notion of an "objective ranking" elides the fact that our activity is by it's very nature subjective. Being higher on the ranking doesn't mean you're "better" or "worse" than anybody. Every team has the potential to win a debate round, and it's silly that there's even an argument about whether or not RHSM is 'good.' Mario and Arsht are awesome, and I don't think any arbitrary rankings system could somehow determine otherwise. Furthermore, shame on you for using a list to say that they aren't as good as any other team. That they are within the top 15 despite not being as well traveled as some other teams is just a testament to their consistency. The reality is that come NFLs/TOC/etc., I don't think anyone will care about who was in the "top 10" on 9/22/09 or any other date. Judge debaters once their careers are over.

 

West Coast Love

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with this to some extent but I still think they're being given the shaft. The only tournament they weren't in finals at was USC (sems), and they've won two quarters bid tournaments (Grapevine, Alta). Regardless of whether they are the toughest tournaments that doesn't meant they have easy elims all the way up. Plus they were in finals at Blake but had to catch a flight, and don't say there wasn't tough competition there. Plus a lot of the teams above them don't have nearly the credentials list as Mario and Andrew, not to mention how arbitrary it is to say whether a tournament has good or bad competition just by looking at the teams list.

lol no offense, but I don't think Alta should count as a tournament this year given the quality of teams there. I thoroughly enjoyed it last year, but for some reason this year, no one good enlisted -- 2 or so good teams max, one of which was Rowland Hall; but that doesn't qualify as tough competition because prelims is ballgame and outrounds you barely need to break a sweat.

 

But I don't know the macro picture of everything really; I just wanted to make the comment about Alta since I was astonished about the poor competition this year.

 

Quick edit, I'm sure someone has realized how silly this is, but given how well Damien has been doing -- and well does not mean go to 10 tournaments and break at all of them, it means win percents at tough tournaments -- I'm incredibly surprised they aren't top 5. Not to start a controversy, but just something to think about given their performance at Greenhill, Glenbrooks, the round robins, winning USC, etc.

 

Last comment for me though since I don't know that much this year!

Edited by I<3topicality
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of the arguments in this thread are really, really silly. Debate is way less quantitatively evaluatable than, say, a sport, because the only quantitative data (wins/losses) is based on a personally subjective decision, rather than an objective score. Nonetheless, I don't dislike the idea of a ranking system (one could argue it makes for an efficient prep list and check list, as well as the fact that for some reason debaters, myself included, really just like statistics), but many have pointed out the flaws in the Baker Award (overemphasis on prelim weight, the fact that winning Wake gives you twice as many points as winning MBA, etc). I do rather like Will Repko's system of head-to-head matchups, weighted very precisely, to determine rankings, even though that does require a TON of work and seems almost impossible to tabulate for high school (and would be a ton for people like Jeffrey Miller to expect to tabulate for free as a community service). It seems to avoid the several arbitrariness DAs to the Baker Award.

 

The debate on the "credentials" of RHSM seems astoundingly dumb to me. Nitpicking at which tournaments they have been at seems insulting. They're obviously really sweet - anyone who's ever seen them debate can attest to that. The Baker Award is an arbitrary points-based system for ranking teams - still, it's not "giving them the shaft", it's just where the arbitrary points lay. The list itself is obviously not the end-all be-all of debate rankings... Misael and I are obviously by no means undefeated, and we're 0-2 and 0-3 against Westminster and Westlake respectively, who on the bluetub site are ranked below us, as well as down one to a fair amount of others (including RHSM in semis of Blake, incidentally).

 

Quick edit' date=' I'm sure someone has realized how silly this is, but given how well Damien has been doing -- and well does not mean go to 10 tournaments and break at all of them, it means win percents at tough tournaments -- I'm incredibly surprised they aren't top 5. Not to start a controversy, but just something to think about given their performance at Greenhill, Glenbrooks, the round robins, winning USC, etc.

 

Last comment for me though since I don't know that much this year![/quote']

 

They've only been to four tournaments, and the list accepts up to five. Therefore, other teams have a pretty significant quantitative advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate on the "credentials" of RHSM seems astoundingly dumb to me. Nitpicking at which tournaments they have been at seems insulting. They're obviously really sweet - anyone who's ever seen them debate can attest to that.

I just want to make clear that I was not trying to criticize them -- but recognizing the tournaments which one has done well at seems to be an important determinant of the points they should get. For example, winning Long Beach has little meaning in comparison to winning MBA...or even quarters of MBA (at least I think that is a tougher feat.)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just want to make clear that I was not trying to criticize them -- but recognizing the tournaments which one has done well at seems to be an important determinant of the points they should get. For example' date=' winning Long Beach has little meaning in comparison to winning MBA...or even quarters of MBA (at least I think that is a tougher feat.)[/quote']

 

I wasn't trying to criticize you, specifically, either. Criticizing/commenting upon the award system criteria is all good - funnily enough, winning Wake Forest will give you nearly twice as many points as winning MBA, and winning Long Beach will almost certainly give you more than quarters of MBA, maybe as many as winning MBA. This is obviously a flaw in the ranking system. Technically, if the TOC was a ranked tournament, winning THAT would give you less points than winning almost any quarters bid including Wake and Grapevine and certainly any Octas bid. Again not criticizing you, and not sure if this was even done (although a couple posts by others that said "the top 10 is the top 10 for a reason sure came close), but I just don't like the idea of being like "this team is better than that team because that team went to Grapevine instead of Greenhill". It seems really condescending to Andrew and Mario, who obviously are really good and work really hard.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if you're being ignorant or not, but they're ranked first on the bluetub site. 3rd on this one.

 

I was joking. Although I suppose it would have applied to Vinay a lot more :P

 

And I wasn't trying to criticize RHSM either, as I indicated at the bottom of my previous post. I was just trying to make a case for why they weren't getting "shafted" and for why the rankings aren't as flawed as some people think. But I will agree with Kevin that they are arbitrary on a few points.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of thoughts...

 

a) Mario and Arsht are amazingly talented debaters and among the most remarkable kids I have ever coached. Their performance this year is admirable, and should only be congratulated.

 

B) Travel schedules vary because of all sorts of intangibles that people fail to consider (back to back weekends, test schedules, budgets, etc). Judging other teams travel schedules is a rigged game.

 

c) You all should be cutting more cards and posting less smack talk before MBA/the BF.

 

d) These are your peers. Other high school students. They take AP classes, have concurrent enrollment, maybe jobs, and work on debate all the time just like you. Judging them, their travel decisions, their performance, whatever is a bit disturbing. No one on this site is Tiger Woods, and even he didn't deserve the amount of scrutiny he recently received.

 

Now, I have work to do, I hope you do too.

 

Sara B. Sanchez

Director of Debate

Lexington High School

 

Assistant Coach

Rowland Hall-St. Mark's (2003-2007)

Edited by slcathena
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There must be a lot of bitter people about my comment. I love how people give me neg rep for my spelling among other things. People who give neg rep for no reason need to get a life.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...