Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
basu

Toc At Large

Recommended Posts

Bill- could you enlighten us as to who is the advisory comittee, or what the process is for choosing who recieves the at large bids? While I do believe that many teams who recieved it are very deserving it seems as though bids are often granted towards national circuit policy teams, not ones who suceed on the local level. Thanks

 

i'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here. if it's that the TOC prioritizes national over local success in determining the recipients of at-large bids. the TOC is the champion tournament of the national circuit, so national tournaments are the ones that are taken into account (i.e. you need to do very well at 1-2 national tournaments to qualify). if one accepts the value of national circuit competition, it's logical to accept that the tournament would be a national circuit championship. to use an analogy, the national urban debate league only accepts qualification based off a regional competition. regardless of how well i do in rigorous national circuit competition, if i can not adapt to attorneys and insurance agents judging in a round robin to qualify for the tournament, i do not attend. specific championship tournaments have specific qualifying procedures..

 

if you are arguing that it's mainly established policy teams that get bids, i'd point you to teams like beacon (first TOC bid from that team ever) and homewood-flossmoor (first in three years, and by no means from an established national circuit policy powerhouse) who got at-large bids this year.

 

however, if you're arguing that the criteria for determining at-large bids is overly secret and 'behind closed doors', i would concur. while it's important to respect the privacy and autonomy of a tournament to accept it's field, for something as important as the TOC it would be nice if the exact criteria for determining at-large recipients was established. however, like college admissions, it's not like there ARE set-in-stone rankings the committee uses, so that's probably much easier said than done.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm not sure what argument you're trying to make here. if it's that the TOC prioritizes national over local success in determining the recipients of at-large bids. the TOC is the champion tournament of the national circuit, so national tournaments are the ones that are taken into account (i.e. you need to do very well at 1-2 national tournaments to qualify). if one accepts the value of national circuit competition, it's logical to accept that the tournament would be a national circuit championship. to use an analogy, the national urban debate league only accepts qualification based off a regional competition. regardless of how well i do in rigorous national circuit competition, if i can not adapt to attorneys and insurance agents judging in a round robin to qualify for the tournament, i do not attend. specific championship tournaments have specific qualifying procedures..

 

if you are arguing that it's mainly established policy teams that get bids, i'd point you to teams like beacon (first TOC bid from that team ever) and homewood-flossmoor (first in three years, and by no means from an established national circuit policy powerhouse) who got at-large bids this year.

 

however, if you're arguing that the criteria for determining at-large bids is overly secret and 'behind closed doors', i would concur. while it's important to respect the privacy and autonomy of a tournament to accept it's field, for something as important as the TOC it would be nice if the exact criteria for determining at-large recipients was established. however, like college admissions, it's not like there ARE set-in-stone rankings the committee uses, so that's probably much easier said than done.

 

I think I phrased it wrong, I do not mean they prioritize teams with sucess on the national circuit but teams that did well at antional circuit tournaments- you use the HoFlo example- they recieved their bid at Emory, or Beacon- they got their bid at Lexington- but were alos in outrounds at many large national tournaments. I believe that the TOC should maybe look into this. For example- a tournament like, Alta or UT are often forgot of as Bid tournaments because they primarily attract competitors from within that region, Tournaments like Vestavia and Colleyville would probably also fall into this category. I have not done the research but this seems liek soemthing to investigate- did anyone recieve a bid from one of these smaller Bid tournaments and apply for the at large?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think I phrased it wrong, I do not mean they prioritize teams with sucess on the national circuit but teams that did well at antional circuit tournaments- you use the HoFlo example- they recieved their bid at Emory, or Beacon- they got their bid at Lexington- but were alos in outrounds at many large national tournaments. I believe that the TOC should maybe look into this. For example- a tournament like, Alta or UT are often forgot of as Bid tournaments because they primarily attract competitors from within that region, Tournaments like Vestavia and Colleyville would probably also fall into this category. I have not done the research but this seems liek soemthing to investigate- did anyone recieve a bid from one of these smaller Bid tournaments and apply for the at large?

 

Beacon DF - Lexington

GBS KS - Golden Desert

HoFlo GH - Emory

Lexington CS - Pennsbury

RHSM FT - Alta

Stratford MF - Vestavia Hills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

Yes, we (finally) got our bid at vestavia - what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean we fail nationally. On the contrary. I don't want to play the "who's dick is bigger" game, so I won't rant about all the wins and bid rounds we've had, but was there an argument being made here? I don't want to get called out on something when I'm not here to defend myself.

Thanks!

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

Yes, we (finally) got our bid at vestavia - what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean we fail nationally. On the contrary. I don't want to play the "who's dick is bigger" game, so I won't rant about all the wins and bid rounds we've had, but was there an argument being made here? I don't want to get called out on something when I'm not here to defend myself.

Thanks!

 

They weren't calling you out. You were a counterexample to the "only teams that bid at major national tournaments get at-larges" comment. They were saying Vestavia draws more of a regional draw. I've never attended, so I can't speak to that, but just clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

Yes, we (finally) got our bid at vestavia - what's wrong with that? It doesn't mean we fail nationally. On the contrary. I don't want to play the "who's dick is bigger" game, so I won't rant about all the wins and bid rounds we've had, but was there an argument being made here? I don't want to get called out on something when I'm not here to defend myself.

Thanks!

don't get a big dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Complete tangent, but has there ever been an at-large team that cleared to elimination rounds?

no - they all fail miserably

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I've always felt that the circuit could benefit from a little more openess and transparency, but that's just my opinion. I think that geographical distribution of the bids has something to do with it too - for instance, I'm fairly sure if a team from Virginia that had one bid, and had been in other outrounds, would probably get an at large on the basis of the geographical location (mid-atlantic is under representated at the circuit level) and the fact that only three teams from Virginia since 2000 have earned bids...so that might have something to do with it - location, and lenght of time between TOC appearances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations to all at-large teams. I am sure all are very deserving.

 

However, I think we can all agree that there should still be some transparency in selection criteria. Anyone in my position should be frustrated to see a team like Brophy MM not get an at large even though both debaters have two bids each, but only one bid together. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that this is the case with any other one bid team, yet that was only good enough to get 5th on the waiting list. Likewise I am sure there are other teams that feel their application deserved more credit than it received. Oh well, I am sure it happens every year where a well-deserving team does not make the cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the National Debate Tournament, every first round and second round vote is a matter of public record. Voters tend to take their votes very seriously, and usually have detailed methodologies. If one voter goes way out of line, s/he might be called out.

 

I believe this transparency is good, and merits duplication.

Edited by Antonucci23
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting back to what Brian had originally brought up-there have been 6 at-larges granted. If, there are no more, which very well might not be the case, then that means, assuming the aformentioned HP PY/Law Magnet CS drops are true, that there are 71 teams going to the TOC. If the Bellarmine drop is also true, then there are 70 teams going, meaning that some on the wait list can be added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the reasons I prefer the NDCA tournament is that you know what's what from the rankings, etc., going in - nothing is less to chance. I still like the TOC, I think it's a necessary thing (I view the TOC as the NDT, NDCA as CEDA if we are making those types of comparisions) but I do wish it was transparent - I can't even tell you who is on the committee right now, and they should reveal how they do this type of stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One team that should have an at-large is Dulles HC, seeing as Kevin accumulated 2 bids beforehand and then another with faraz.

 

yeah, this

 

Do you know if he's going to go with Saad? Or are they not debating at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the reasons I prefer the NDCA tournament is that you know what's what from the rankings, etc., going in - nothing is less to chance. I still like the TOC, I think it's a necessary thing (I view the TOC as the NDT, NDCA as CEDA if we are making those types of comparisions) but I do wish it was transparent - I can't even tell you who is on the committee right now, and they should reveal how they do this type of stuff.

Here's the 2010 Committee:

 

2010 TOC Policy Advisory Committee

 

Chuck Ballingall, Damien High School

Bill Batterman, Marquette High School

Ted Belch

Marie Dzuris, Centerville High School

David Glass

Jenny Heidt, The Westminster Schools

Sheryl Kaczmarek, Newburg Free Academy

Dan Lingel, Jesuit College Prep-Dallas

Linda Oddo, New Trier Township

Alex Pritchard, Westwood High School

Bill Smelko

Billy Tate, Montgomery Bell Academy

Tara Tate, Glenbrook South High School

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the 2010 Committee:

 

2010 TOC Policy Advisory Committee

 

Chuck Ballingall, Damien High School

Bill Batterman, Marquette High School

Ted Belch

Marie Dzuris, Centerville High School

David Glass

Jenny Heidt, The Westminster Schools

Sheryl Kaczmarek, Newburg Free Academy

Dan Lingel, Jesuit College Prep-Dallas

Linda Oddo, New Trier Township

Alex Pritchard, Westwood High School

Bill Smelko

Billy Tate, Montgomery Bell Academy

Tara Tate, Glenbrook South High School

 

He dun work der no more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, this

 

Do you know if he's going to go with Saad? Or are they not debating at all?

 

If Saad's smart he won't go with Kevin - serves Kevin right for a. ditching him after qualling and b. applying for an at large even after being qualled. Faraz said that the committee essentially flat out told Kevin that he'd already qualled with another partner and therefore he didn't need an at-large.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Saad's smart he won't go with Kevin - serves Kevin right for a. ditching him after qualling and b. applying for an at large even after being qualled. Faraz said that the committee essentially flat out told Kevin that he'd already qualled with another partner and therefore he didn't need an at-large.

 

 

I think what their team decided to do is up to them and we shouldnt criticize them for the choices they made on their own. I'm pretty sure your logic is flawed, I do not personally know Saad but something tells me like most debaters in the country he would probably love to go to the TOC. From what the premlininary field report for the TOC says it says Dulles KC will be debating.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think what their team decided to do is up to them and we shouldnt criticize them for the choices they made on their own. I'm pretty sure your logic is flawed, I do not personally know Saad but something tells me like most debaters in the country he would probably love to go to the TOC. From what the premlininary field report for the TOC says it says Dulles KC will be debating.

 

anon, you just got PWNED

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...