Jump to content
magicmasterk

NCFL Grand Nationals Entries

Recommended Posts

Which teams broke to Octos and so on?

 

Seeing as most of the participants are probably only on their way back today, I doubt we'll see a full compilation of results incredibly quickly. Hopefully Bill Batterman (who did them last year and whom I name because he is constantly posting helpful result sheets for large tournaments) or someone else who was keeping track throughout the tournament will post full or partial elim results.

 

If last year is any indication, however, an oddly-formatted packet comes out June 1. This has both elims and prelims, and with a bit of nosing around can tell you any information you need.

 

It should hopefully show up here: http://www.ncfl.org/gnt/gntpast/gntpast.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yea it was a 3-2 decision in the semis and a really fun round

Congrats to Chris and Katryna!

Hey, I was one of the judges in the round. The one who wrote the ballot that probably made no sense. So you guys know it took me a while to make my decision, I thought the negative was way ahead after the 1AR but the 2AR made me think a whole lot. I really wish I could have read both you and bg's solvency evidence. I also hadn't judged a round anywhere close to that fast since last years' national tournaments, so I was a bit off my game (didn't see any good rounds in prelims) and missed a few things on the flow.

 

I'm sorry I couldn't have given a better justification on the ballot; it was a fantastic round, and I truly had no idea who to vote for. If either of you have questions, let me know. I think I may be able to come up with a better explanation now than I could at the time, when I was sleep-deprived, hot, and falling asleep in the world's most uncomfortable chair.

 

Congrats to BG, and Kansas' own SMW who seems to keep showing up big at the national tournaments!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I do not have the full elim results (I have the codes, but not the teams associated with most of them).

 

Couple things:

 

1. I'll post my RFD from finals soon. It was a fast, circuit-style debate... much different than the final round debate that occurred last year. Both teams performed very well despite the circumstances: tough acoustics, their tenth debate in two days, and five minutes of prep in an impact turn debate... y'all should be proud of how well you debated.

 

2. This year's tournament was quite a bit more brutal than last year's in terms of the schedule (on the shuttle at 5:30AM - why?!?). And once again, the tab room did a fantastic job. Instead of starting so early, why can't the tournament begin a little later and have shorter breaks between rounds 3 and 4 and 4 and 5? I am quite confident that it didn't take two hours for the tab room to pair round 4, for example. I know that no one wants to see a repeat of the old NCFL tournaments when round five didn't end until very late on Saturday night, but I think the tab staff has proven that they don't need the ridiculously early start to do their jobs. The schedule is built for an incompetent tab staff; maybe that used to be the case, but it isn't now. (And while I'm mentioning this, special shout-out to the California teams that showed up and did well... they were waking up at 1:30AM their time on Saturday. Seriously: who thinks that's humane or fair?)

 

3. Why in the world does the NCFL have so much trouble posting the results of their tournament online? It isn't rocket science. I'm quite confident that the policy tab staff is capable of accomplishing this and my impression is that the problem is not with them. There really isn't an excuse for not doing this: it takes literally a few minutes *AT MOST* and it is an essential part of the administration of a tournament. There is nothing more frustrating than leaving a tournament without knowing how you did. The NCFL needs to stop making excuses about how hard it is to host their tournament and post results on Sunday night. If the NFL (and all the big invitationals) can do it, so can NCFL. Period.

 

$.02,

~Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year was the first time we posted results to the web the night of postings. It was a fair amount of work pulling results from several hosting locations and then reformatting and verifying the postings before release. Debate doesn't need the extra time now that it is computerized. Their schedule was designed for hand tabbing and the risk of having to resort to hand tabbing. It does take a bit of time to prep results (aka make them look consistent) for posting (be it the PPT slideshow or to the web). Most of the rest of the time is at the individual tabs verifying results were tabbed correctly.

 

I think it all could go much faster if people were willing to accept the unfiltered outputs from tab programs and eliminate the "live" posting.

 

Last year we were 30 minutes early, btw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, I do not have the full elim results (I have the codes, but not the teams associated with most of them).

I will post results tonight. Unfortunately after herding my kids into the cars, driving them home for 4 hours, and then 3 more hours to get myself home, I passed out last night. Everyone should remember (and Bill you clearly understand the situation) that tab staff gets up even earlier than you do!

 

 

 

1. I'll post my RFD from finals soon. It was a fast, circuit-style debate... much different than the final round debate that occurred last year. Both teams performed very well despite the circumstances: tough acoustics, their tenth debate in two days, and five minutes of prep in an impact turn debate... y'all should be proud of how well you debated.

We were able to put together a very good panel this year and I'm glad to hear that the teams rose to the occassion. Unfortunately the chapel was the only room bigger than the rooms for semis, so we had to deal with the accoustics in order to have any amount of audience.

 

2. This year's tournament was quite a bit more brutal than last year's in terms of the schedule (on the shuttle at 5:30AM - why?!?). And once again, the tab room did a fantastic job. Instead of starting so early, why can't the tournament begin a little later and have shorter breaks between rounds 3 and 4 and 4 and 5? I am quite confident that it didn't take two hours for the tab room to pair round 4, for example. I know that no one wants to see a repeat of the old NCFL tournaments when round five didn't end until very late on Saturday night, but I think the tab staff has proven that they don't need the ridiculously early start to do their jobs. The schedule is built for an incompetent tab staff; maybe that used to be the case, but it isn't now. (And while I'm mentioning this, special shout-out to the California teams that showed up and did well... they were waking up at 1:30AM their time on Saturday. Seriously: who thinks that's humane or fair?)

There is some degree of uncertainty that we build into the schedule because we never know the condition of the building until we arrive on site. However, we were quite early for rounds 4 and 5 and held pairings to stick to the published schedule. Lag pairing presents a major problem in scheduling because the natural lunch break would be at the end of the three preset rounds, but that's 6 hours into the tournament with lag pairing. I will attempt to end lag pairing, but seeing as how I have very little sway outside of policy tab, I doubt that will be successful. Another issue that has been raised is the need for bus rotations - something has to start earlier than the others because there are only so many buses. I say let someone else suffer for a year, but again, I don't have a lot of influence.

 

But I promise the schedule will change in Omaha. I'm also going to try to get more time on Sunday so the teams can prepare for semis and finals, but no promises on that.

 

 

3. Why in the world does the NCFL have so much trouble posting the results of their tournament online? It isn't rocket science. I'm quite confident that the policy tab staff is capable of accomplishing this and my impression is that the problem is not with them. There really isn't an excuse for not doing this: it takes literally a few minutes *AT MOST* and it is an essential part of the administration of a tournament. There is nothing more frustrating than leaving a tournament without knowing how you did. The NCFL needs to stop making excuses about how hard it is to host their tournament and post results on Sunday night. If the NFL (and all the big invitationals) can do it, so can NCFL. Period.

No good answer to this as it is not my department. It may just be a case of not having the web access at tournament sites or being able to spare a person at the end of the day to get things up. Sunday night involves closing down all the sites, putting together results packets and the awards ceremony, and assembling all the ballot packets for all the leagues. When you have lots of people coming from different buildings, that is complicated. Then on Monday, everyone has to travel, and the tournament director has been away from home for at least a week at that point.

 

I don't know what the hold up is specifically, but I do know that I came home last night, ate dinner, and fell asleep, and I imagine most people associated with the tournament did the same. Now I have to go to work, so I'll post policy results tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always make me laugh when I come home from NCFL's and find people attacking NCFL - I will issue the same defense of NCFL I issue every year - if you don't like it, and refuse to take the time to formally suggest changes to the system through your Diocesian Moderator and the By-Laws Process, dont' come to the tourney - it magically change on its own. If you don't want to whine about the tourney, but want to make an actual change to it - make a change in your life and get involved in your Dicoese's admin structure, so you can advocate for change - every year, people whine "It's too long, it's too early, it's too non-circuit friendly.." And every year no by-law changes are brought forth to propose changes to the way the tourney is run. All it takes is a few minutes, a computer and you can propose any changes you like, give them to your Diocesian Mod, and they'll propose the changes at the Fall meeting - there hasn't been a policy by-law proposal, other than the lift on the computer ban, in quite some times.

 

On the lag issue - from my memory, NCFL did used to pair Rnd 3 off of 1 and 2, up until a few years ago - and we had late tournaments because of that (when the tab was on cards) so they went back to lag pairing - it is my understanding that the lag issue will be up for dicussion at the Fall meeting, now that the tab is computerized - so maybe non-lag pairing will come back to the tourney.

 

And, as for the professionalism of the tab - the core of the policy tab has been there since the 80's - I can't think of a more professional group than Tom Durkin, Doug Hoverson, and Christy Taylor - and all the other mods who get assigned to help are normally highly experienced policy coaches, who admin tabs in their own Leagues. The NCFL will never be the circuit - and that's good in some ways, I think..but the core group is quite professional (as were people like Eleanor Wright, Stan Day, and Dan Masterson before them - the tab isn't run by idiots, or non-knowledgable people - they have all been professionals, and those who showed themselves not be 100 percent professional, are no longer there.)

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who are you responding to, Duane? I don't think anyone has complained about the policy tab staff: they are fantastic and do a great job. Last year's CFL Nationals (and I'm speaking only about policy debate, obviously) was the most well-run that I've ever attended and this year was equally excellent (and while I haven't been attending as long as many people, I've only missed a few CFLs since 1997). The tab staff does a wonderful job.

 

The problem is not with the tab staff. The problem is that the buses left this year at 5:30AM on Saturday... that means students/coaches/judges had to be up at 4:30AM or so in order to get ready and get tubs loaded in the shuttles. That's absurd. We don't *need* this kind of schedule... if the tab room was incompetent, maybe we would. But they aren't: they are in fact a whole lot better than merely competent, and so they could run the tournament with a humane starting time. The people that run this tournament have it down to a science: the meetings for elims, for example, started *exactly* at the time they were supposed to (down to the minute). There's no reason to plan for them to catastrophically fail at their job. If that happened, I'd be very surprised.

 

Regarding the online posting of results, I appreciate the explanation, Jeff. Internet access was indeed very difficult to come by this weekend: neither location for policy debate had wi-fi, the Egg where awards were held did not have wi-fi, and the Crowne Plaza's wi-fi was set-up for 85 users and therefore was an unmitigated disaster. I can appreciate that this made posting results difficult if not impossible... totally fair. I hope in future years this isn't an issue and the results can be posted on Sunday night. And I'm in full agreement with Cory -- it doesn't have to be pretty (you can always go back and add the nicer versions later).

 

I guess I just don't understand why the people that run the CFL tournament don't think this is a bigger deal than it is. If you're a diocesan director, I guess you don't care because you have the printed version. But for every other squad, not finding out results for weeks after the tournament is enormously frustrating. The tournament director should appoint someone from the local area (so someone without a long drive) to just scan the printed packet and post it online. They obviously have to compile the printed copies in order to distribute them to diocesan directors anyway, so this seems like it would be a pretty easy solution.

 

But again -- zero complaints about the actual policy debate tournament. The tab staff is amazing. The building on Sunday sucked, but that wasn't their fault. The schedule sucked, but that wasn't their fault. And any complaints about the usual things -- codes, prep time, judges, style of debates, etc. -- are obviously not their fault.

 

I'm one of the biggest supporters of this tournament. I like the challenge of adapting to diverse judges, and I think it's the best preparation possible for NFL Nationals. I love judging CFL-style debates between strong teams and I love coaching students to debate in a CFL-friendly style. But there are a couple things that obviously suck about CFLs that seem completely unnecessary. I don't really know how to pursue a "bylaw change" or write a proposal for the diocesan director meeting. Is there really a rule that says policy debate has to start at an inhumane hour and that results should not be posted until weeks after the tournament?

 

And Jeff, kudos again for doing one of the best jobs of tabulation of any tournament I've attended (and that's a lot of tournaments). Anyone that complains about how the CFL policy debate tournament itself is run is an idiot. And thanks very much for posting the results tonight... I just wish that the responsibility for doing so could have been outsourced to someone else so it wasn't yet another thing on your plate.

 

Best,

~Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For starters: I have never made a suggestion to my "Diocesian Moderator" to suggest changes for the tournament... I suppose that may disqualify me from discussing some suggestions to other people in other regions about ways to make the tournament run better.

 

That said, can someone smarter than me explain why this schedule doesn't work:

 

8:30 am Rd 1

 

10:00 am Rd 2

 

12:45 pm - Rd 3

 

3:00 pm - Rd 4

 

5:30 pm - Rd 5

 

 

90 minutes between rounds with 5 minutes prep and no evidence reading or oral decisions by judges works... a break between rounds 2 and 3 for people to get lunch... the time is increased to 2 hours and 15 minutes of time between rds 3-4 and 2 and 1/2 hours between rds 4 and 5 for the computer to do its thing in pairing the rounds.

 

Tournament should end around 7:00, I think that mass starts at 8... that should be plenty of time. 8 am is a reasonable time to hold the first meeting, people can leave their hotels around 7:45 to get to the tournament on time.

 

Speaking of modifications to this tournament. How about also removing the judge can't call for evidence rule. At a tournament that is very cramped for time, I get the importance of not allowing oral disclosure because that prolongs the tournament. However, judge reading cards is often imperative to evaluating tough rounds.

 

Here are the pros of the current rule:

1. Encourages judges to pay more attention to the round and flow more warrants

2. Encourages competitors to focus on warrant extensions not just tag lining

 

Here are the cons:

1. Encourages Warrant Fabrication: if the judge is never going to confirm what a card says, whats to stop competitors from seriously altering the intention of their evidence. Some will answer this by saying that a good team should be able to check that, but what does the judge do when the warrants are questioned in the evidence? Aff: the ev doesn't say what the neg says it does....Neg: yes it does....the resolution?

 

2. Encourages Card Clipping: Whats to stop competitors from reading only fragments of the cards, the judge can never tell that warratns they extend later are from parts they never read.

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of modifications to this tournament. How about also removing the judge can't call for evidence rule. At a tournament that is very cramped for time, I get the importance of not allowing oral disclosure because that prolongs the tournament. However, judge reading cards is often imperative to evaluating tough rounds.

 

Here are the pros of the current rule:

1. Encourages judges to pay more attention to the round and flow more warrants

2. Encourages competitors to focus on warrant extensions not just tag lining

 

Here are the cons:

1. Encourages Warrant Fabrication: if the judge is never going to confirm what a card says, whats to stop competitors from seriously altering the intention of their evidence. Some will answer this by saying that a good team should be able to check that, but what does the judge do when the warrants are questioned in the evidence? Aff: the ev doesn't say what the neg says it does....Neg: yes it does....the resolution?

 

2. Encourages Card Clipping: Whats to stop competitors from reading only fragments of the cards, the judge can never tell that warratns they extend later are from parts they never read.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Your cons are really more the responsibility of the other team, not the judges. On that note, however, I do think judges ought to be allowed to read evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just popped in here to see the results and came across this discussion.

 

Reading Batterman's response brought back memories of Batterman making it to the final round (I forgot if he won) in LD at NCFLs as a policy debater! Little trivia for the day . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your cons are really more the responsibility of the other team, not the judges. On that note, however, I do think judges ought to be allowed to read evidence.

 

How is that the responsibility of the team. Even if you point out card clipping or warrant fabrication in the round, it becomes a question of belief, whether your critics believe you or your opponents.

 

In ANY other tournament and ANY other round, the judge is the ultimate decider of who is right by being able to verify the integrity of the evidence and NCFLs disrupts that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI, Billy - I was responding to the "field" of complainers in general but this statement in yoru post really bothered me - The schedule is built for an incompetent tab staff; maybe that used to be the case>>

 

I know you were saying that the tab staff isn't bad, but your quote implies that in the past, perhaps, it was run by incompetents...that's all..I was simply defending the memories of many people, now dead, who gave their time and energy to run nationals. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my intent.

 

I wasnt' questioning your love for the CFL - you are a consistent supporter. But I am sick to death of the complaints CFL brings up every year - if people don't like how the thing is run, they should write up proposals, submit them to their Diocesian moderator and that's that. Actually, I was thinking a schedule issue like that might not even be a bylaw issue - why not contact Roland Burdett, the Tourney Director, with your concerns - he's reasonable, he'll listen. I think the schedule plans for worst-case scenario planning.

 

As for wi-fi issues, we are stuck with the venues we are given - I can recall several circuit tourneys without wifi access, etc...so it may be a common thing, don't know.

 

Duane

Edited by hylanddd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Results have been posted to this thread in order to keep that clear from this discussion.

 

The problem is not with the tab staff.

I've been in the room since Chicago (2006) and I can confirm that this is true.

 

The people that run this tournament have it down to a science: the meetings for elims, for example, started *exactly* at the time they were supposed to (down to the minute). There's no reason to plan for them to catastrophically fail at their job. If that happened, I'd be very surprised.

 

--snip--

 

But again -- zero complaints about the actual policy debate tournament. The tab staff is amazing. The building on Sunday sucked, but that wasn't their fault. The schedule sucked, but that wasn't their fault. And any complaints about the usual things -- codes, prep time, judges, style of debates, etc. -- are obviously not their fault.

 

--snip--

 

And Jeff, kudos again for doing one of the best jobs of tabulation of any tournament I've attended (and that's a lot of tournaments). Anyone that complains about how the CFL policy debate tournament itself is run is an idiot. And thanks very much for posting the results tonight... I just wish that the responsibility for doing so could have been outsourced to someone else so it wasn't yet another thing on your plate.

 

Best,

~Bill

All much appreciated and I'll forward those sentiments to the majority of the tab staff who does not check this forum. We work really hard and I'm glad our precision is noticed! (Shameless plug: you think that's impressive, you should come to Pennsbury and see what I can really do!)

 

But in all seriousness, I competed at and judged at six CFL nationals before entering the tab, and I carry those memories of long waits and late nights with me each year. Not that the people before my time weren't trying, but implementing the computers and some other changes has revolutionized the tournament and we keep trying to make it better each time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That said, can someone smarter than me explain why this schedule doesn't work:

 

8:30 am Rd 1

 

10:00 am Rd 2

 

12:45 pm - Rd 3

 

3:00 pm - Rd 4

 

5:30 pm - Rd 5

 

 

90 minutes between rounds with 5 minutes prep and no evidence reading or oral decisions by judges works... a break between rounds 2 and 3 for people to get lunch... the time is increased to 2 hours and 15 minutes of time between rds 3-4 and 2 and 1/2 hours between rds 4 and 5 for the computer to do its thing in pairing the rounds.

 

Tournament should end around 7:00, I think that mass starts at 8... that should be plenty of time. 8 am is a reasonable time to hold the first meeting, people can leave their hotels around 7:45 to get to the tournament on time.

Without claims to be smarter than you, here's my thoughts. 90 minutes is not enough time between rounds. There are three judge paradigms to hear which balances some of the disclosure time. There are also the inevitable problems when 90% of the people have never been to the city before, let alone know their way around the school. And we have to distribute 180+ ballots before each debate, then check and collect them all afterwards, so we do need the 2 hours between debates. At worst, this allows for some pre-round prep.

 

I would also suggest that your lunch break is short given the number of people involved. If there is a line to purchase/pick up food, the late-ending rounds will not have time to eat.

 

I think 2 hours between preset rounds and 2:45 between paired rounds (talking about start time to start time) allows enough time for ballot distribution, data entry, pairing rounds, and movement of tubs and people. It also builds in some flexibility for the gigantic size of the tournament. So that means we could run

 

Round 1 - 8am

Round 2 - 10am

Round 3 - 12pm

Lunch

Round 4 - 3:15pm (extra time for lunch)

Round 5 - 6:00pm

 

That starts an hour later than this year but ends at the same time. But that makes a fairly late time for lunch...anyone think that's a problem? You are the ones affected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you were saying that the tab staff isn't bad, but your quote implies that in the past, perhaps, it was run by incompetents...that's all..I was simply defending the memories of many people, now dead, who gave their time and energy to run nationals. Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my intent.

 

Fair enough. I didn't mean to question the dedication of those who served on the tabulation staff in the past, only to emphasize the excellence of the current staff. I would imagine that the biggest reason that the CFL tournament used to run so late was because of the card-based tabulation, not because the staff was incompetent. But the current schedule is based on the assumption that the efficiency of the tab room is the way it was circa 2002, not 2009.

 

BTW, I think Tom Durkin and the guy who spoke at the Awards Ceremony (I think he's the NCFL President) should be required to attend NFL Nationals and compete in a "best announcer voice ever" contest with Tim Scheaf. This needs to happen, and to be put on YouTube.

 

:),

~Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I think Tom Durkin and the guy who spoke at the Awards Ceremony (I think he's the NCFL President) should be required to attend NFL Nationals and compete in a "best announcer voice ever" contest with Tim Scheaf. This needs to happen, and to be put on YouTube.

 

:),

~Bill

 

or maybe just loudest man alive

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL....When I worked in policy tab, I would go to bed with Tom's voice ringing in my ears and would have very weird dreams involving repetitive numerical cycles - He's not the Pres of NCFL..that's Kieran Larkin from Brooklyn (one of the funniest people I've ever met - don't get him started on his students confusing Ahura Mazda as the namesake for Mazdas..lol.)..but I think he could take down Scheaf if not for tone, definitely in sheer volume!!:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The loudest man in the world is Richard B. Sodikow. There is no contest. Surely this is beyond dispute. With due respect to my friend Tom Durkin, who would quickly agree, I think.

 

Les

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The loudest man in the world is Richard B. Sodikow. There is no contest. Surely this is beyond dispute.
A worthy candidate, 'tis true, but I would have to insist on A.C. Eley...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was he the coach at Shawnee Mission West?
Close. Shawnee Mission North...

 

Of course, part of why I might think of him as the loudest is because during my brief coaching stint in Kansas it seemed like every time he was talking to me he was yelling at me about something! (Come to think of it, on that score Albert Higgins at Emporia could get pretty loud, too...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right..North..one of my former bosses at Yorktown was one his kids, or as Kevin put it - one of Ed's boys..lol....From what Kevin told me about him, he seems like a cross between a living God and a surreal experience that had to be experienced - Kevin always said he was lucky to have him as a coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A worthy candidate, 'tis true, but I would have to insist on A.C. Eley...

 

 

MR. SHUMAN! COME HERE, MR. SHUMAN! I MUST *SPEAK* TO YOU!

 

YOU ARE *UNACCEPTABLE*, MR. SHUMAN!

 

-- RBS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Close. Shawnee Mission North...

 

Of course, part of why I might think of him as the loudest is because during my brief coaching stint in Kansas it seemed like every time he was talking to me he was yelling at me about something! (Come to think of it, on that score Albert Higgins at Emporia could get pretty loud, too...)

The echos of Eley yelling at people to get out of the tab room still referberate in many of the Shawnee Mission schools....

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...