Jump to content
abc

NDT 2008

Recommended Posts

Advance without a debate: Emory HW, Harv AM, Mich FK, WGa LS

 

--Winners Bolded--

 

491 Dar KO MSU AW/Stables, Ramachandrappa, Blank, Arnette, Lacy

 

408 Cal BP v. GSt GL/Antonucci, Koehle, Harrigan, Klinger, Green

 

457 Harv RW v. USC LS/Holbrook, Hall, Smith, Reed, Morales

 

468 KS BJ V. Ok FW/McBride, mUrillo, foy, Greenstein, Hester

 

442 Mo St MM v. Whit CS/Powers, kall, dehrke, hoe, Gonzales

 

465 A: Mo St OW v. Towson CL/Gordon, Jordan, Buntin, Russell, Varda

 

438 NW FW v. KY GT/Frappier, Stahl, Strauss, Smith, Yates

 

406 Tx TW v. MSU EL/Achison, Richendorfer, Crowe, Lee, Jarman

 

464 USC JJ v. Emory MS/Matheson, Repko, C Burke, Achten, Harris

 

463 Gonz BS v. Wake CC/Stevenson, Feldman, Clark, CHesnut, V Guevara

 

487 Wake GL v. UCO CE/Morris, Hill, Heidt, Lain, Pointer

 

404 Wyo CJ v. KS JS/Phillips, Galloway, Strange, Maurer, Taylor

 

All spellings approximate

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Osborn takes top speaker at both CEDA Nats and the NDT.

 

That is the most baller shit ever.

 

Congrats Oz, you deserve it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know speakers other than Oz, sorry.

 

But Octafinal pairings for Mo State:

 

MM debates Kansas BJ

OW debates Kansas JS.

 

And this:

 

(1) Emory HW v (16) Cal BP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(1) Emory HW v (16) Cal BP

That should be intense. Emory is locked aff, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the bracket as far as I know. Until they start sending stuff to eDebate, this is all I've got. I know the top 16 seeds probably didn't all make it to octafinals, but this is where the seeds should be. If you know anything, just add it.

 

(1) Emory HW v (16) Cal BP

(8) Mo State OW v (9) Kansas JS

(4) W. Ga LS (i think) v (13) TBA

(5) TBA v (12) TBA

(2) Harvard AW v (15) TBA (Gonzaga?)

(7) Mo State MM v (10) Kansas BJ

(3) Mch FK (?) v (14) TBA

(6) TBA v (11) TBA

 

Teams left to place:

Dartmouth KO

USC LS

Northwestern FW

Michigan St EL

USC JJ

Gonzaga BS

Wake GL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not meant in a critical way, but why is it that a much larger tournament like CEDA nationals can get pairings/results/etc posted ASAP to the web, and a smaller tournament like the NDT doesn't do it as rapidly, or as evenly? Is it a staffing issue? A resouce issue? Do NDT rules prohibit the posting of results? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know speakers other than Oz, sorry.

 

But Octafinal pairings for Mo State:

 

MM debates Kansas BJ

OW debates Kansas JS.

 

 

Man, arguably the districts 4 best teams debating each other in the octas. that sucks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not meant in a critical way, but why is it that a much larger tournament like CEDA nationals can get pairings/results/etc posted ASAP to the web, and a smaller tournament like the NDT doesn't do it as rapidly, or as evenly? Is it a staffing issue? A resouce issue? Do NDT rules prohibit the posting of results? Just curious.

 

actually from wat i have heard NDT is a bigger tournamnet (not in numbers). NDT is kinda like TOC of high school. I dont know much about the rules and policies so I cant say about that. But the reason why it takes so long to get them online is because they announce each round verbally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Actually in raw numbers, CEDA had 150+ teams, while the NDT only has 72-78 teams. CEDA is nearly twice as big as the NDT..so from a tourney admin stand point if the bigger tourney can pump out the info quickly, the smaller tourney should too.

 

Your analogy between the NDT and the TOC is only partially correct. NDT is a very selective tourney, but it's actually harder to get into than the TOC - and, in some respects, easier. To get into the TOC, as you know, you must attend designated qualifying tournaments and place high enough to earn bids. Get two bids and you're in. The first round bid process of the NDT is like that - you go to enough big tourneys and place high enough, often enough, you can earn a first round bid - 16 teams get these. IF you don't earn a first round bid, you go to your district tourney - each section of the country is divided into districts - you then compete there and get a bid out of your district (each district has between 3 and 7 slots) Then, if your school already has one, or two, teams in the field through the first two processes, but there is a good second or third team from that school, those teams can apply for the second round bid - meaning that they submit an application and a committee weighs that application against the others for the second round. I forget how many secodn round bids there are.

 

The NDT is harder than the TOC because there are only three ways in, and only a handful of teams gets in throug the first round process. BUT..it's easier in that you can qualify through your district which does allow teams to really focus on the district tourney, rather than having to win a lot of other tourneys during hte year - like the TOC.

 

And, CEDA allows all members to come..it's open...which to me is a really nice approach. I like that CEDA is open, and that they break al ot of teams. I'd love to see a high school version of the CEDA tourney, where anyone can come, and there's no qualifying...it would be nice.

 

Duane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can someone post the complete speaker list

or is that not available?

 

2. Julie Hoehn

7. Stephen Weil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love to see a high school version of the CEDA tourney, where anyone can come, and there's no qualifying...it would be nice.

 

Duane

 

I remember talking to a HS coach about this (I can't quite remember who it was, but I believe Sara from RHSM), and she pointed out correctly that the sheer numbers of people involved in policy debate at the HS level makes it almost impossible to make something exactly like the CEDA of HS happen (where everyone can come, and everyone with a winning record gets to break). I think my comments were in context of hoping to see the NDCA tournament become more like a CEDA tournament. But a 150 teams can "easily" (ie with a lot of hard work it is possible) be accommodated, but a tournament twice that number gets a bit harder. And I find it hard to believe that a national tournament that is open at the HS level won't be significantly larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember talking to a HS coach about this (I can't quite remember who it was, but I believe Sara from RHSM), and she pointed out correctly that the sheer numbers of people involved in policy debate at the HS level makes it almost impossible to make something exactly like the CEDA of HS happen (where everyone can come, and everyone with a winning record gets to break). I think my comments were in context of hoping to see the NDCA tournament become more like a CEDA tournament. But a 150 teams can "easily" (ie with a lot of hard work it is possible) be accommodated, but a tournament twice that number gets a bit harder. And I find it hard to believe that a national tournament that is open at the HS level won't be significantly larger.

 

You're right, it probably was me, although I should caveat and say that the NDCA is an attempt towards a more inclusive process, which I believe has been likened to as a sort of CEDA for high school, and I applaud it for that.

 

I think a thought exercise on this is instructive. You say CEDA has 150+ plus teams in a "everyone come play" tournament. They also have 8 prelims and break to partial quads so everyone with a winning record can clear. That's massive.

 

The biggest debate weekend of the year on the highschool circuit as far as I can tell in raw numbers is the Harvard/Berkeley weekend. This year Harvard pulled 205 teams and Berkeley pulled 222 (quick counts using the packets, it could be +/- a few). Those are open numbers. That does not account for all teams in the country (pretty sure some travel restrictions in the midwest keep them from both tournaments.) An open national tournament of 400+ teams? I don't even want to know what that would have to break to with 8 prelims (and let's all be honest, 8 prelims breaking to trips at Berk is brutal...more prelims/a larger elim bracket would be very hard), and don't get me started on venues that could actually accomodate it.

 

/tangent off.

 

I echo the calls for more updates, though. Anyone have the Octos pairing with judges/results/a full bracket?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kansas BJ d. Mo St MM - 5-0

 

MoSt MM went for a pic to exclude bottled baby milk v. Kansas new Food Aid aff. Kanasas went for perm and theory...won on the perm meaning the CP is not competitive.

 

This is just what i heard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(1) Emory HW v (16) Cal BP - 4-1

(8) Mo State OW v (9) Kansas JS

(4) W. Ga LS v (13) USC JJ

(5) Wake Forest GL v MSU EL

(2) Harvard AM v (15) Dartmouth KO

(7) Mo State MM v (10) Kansas BJ - 5-0

(3) Mch FK v (14) USC LS

(6) NW FW v Gonzaga BS

 

Not sure about the seedings for the two debates above...but after this one will be the 5 and one will be the 6

 

Setting up these quarters debates

 

(1) Emory HW v. (8) Mo State OW

(4) UWG LS v. (5) Wake GL

(15) Dartmouth KO v. (10) Kansas BJ

(3) Mich FK v. (6) Northwestern FW

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...

×
×
  • Create New...