Jump to content
kansas.debate

Team of the Year Award

Recommended Posts

...DCI is for those who want to compete in national-circuit style policy.
I really agreed with most of your post, but was surprised by the perspective that you shared in the snipet that I quote above. From your perspective, DCI is national-circuit style?

 

Since a majority of the rounds at DCI are judged by Kansas coaches and assistant coaches, I'm surprised by this perspective. Many of these same people are those who previous threads have referred to as dinosaurs who fight to artificially prevent the evolution of policy debate.

 

Please note, I'm not saying this perspective is incorrect. Perhaps flushing it out would bring productive dialog on what students view DCI as being, and thus clear any misconceptions that lead to some wanting a "Team of the Year Award".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem of just randomly assigning DCI bids to South Kansas tourneys is that the style differences will make it difficult for those teams to compete at DCI if they do qualify. If you get both your bids for getting into finals at some lay-dominated tourney, the requirement for high-flow judges at DCI is going to bury that team. Plus, there's already kind of too many teams qualifying for DCI (yes, I realize the irony that I'M the one making that statement). The state tournament does a good job of letting lay-oriented teams compete, and DCI is for those who want to compete in national-circuit style policy.

 

1) No one's talking about "randomly assigning DCI bids to South Kansas tournaments." See posts http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1813952&postcount=21 and http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1814055&postcount=22.

2) The best teams can adapt to any style, and this thread should not devolve into style elitism.

3) The steering committee, the coaches make these determinations about what DCI is for, and as far as I know, there has never been an attempt to exclude any style of debate from the tournament. On the contrary, to ensure inclusion, for a time the tournament experimented with two divisions -- traditional and contemporary (as mentioned earlier in this thread, a division the loss of which no one mourns). Not many teams applied to contemporary and it became all one division again.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really agreed with most of your post, but was surprised by the perspective that you shared in the snipet that I quote above. From your perspective, DCI is national-circuit style?

 

Since a majority of the rounds at DCI are judged by Kansas coaches and assistant coaches, I'm surprised by this perspective. Many of these same people are those who previous threads have referred to as dinosaurs who fight to artificially prevent the evolution of policy debate.

 

Please note, I'm not saying this perspective is incorrect. Perhaps flushing it out would bring productive dialog on what students view DCI as being, and thus clear any misconceptions that lead to some wanting a "Team of the Year Award".

 

I got ONE "dinosaur" at DCI this last year. All the others I got were progressive college debaters. And when I say "national circuit style," all I meant by that was that DCI is currently the most progressive tournament in Kansas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got ONE "dinosaur" at DCI this last year. All the others I got were progressive college debaters. And when I say "national circuit style," all I meant by that was that DCI is currently the most progressive tournament in Kansas.
That is very interesting and I thank you for sharing that detail. Based on that, I can see why you have your viewpoint of DCI. I'm guessing you pref'd the progressive college debaters (not me, no one pref's me), and thus that shifted your view of the tournament. But the fact that there were enough progressive college debaters available for you to pref makes your view somewhat valid.

 

Thank you for your definition of "national circuit style" in this context. Given the way you were using it here, I can see your statement as a compliment and would probably agree with you.

 

There are several factors that I think makes DCI different than what I would consider national circuit style. For one it runs more on time. And as qualified as the judges are, you don't see a lot of success by teams running the most bizarre arguments they can find like art appreciation performance, a project case, or some other fringe philosopher. I'm guessing the wpm rate is higher at DCI than at most invitationals in Kansas, but still significantly lower than a true national circuit style tournament.

 

That being said, I'd say there is a good argument that DCI represents a pretty good compromise between the extremes of styles in policy debate, and thus functions rather well at identifying teams that can do it all. And since I would say that a team that can do it all is the best, I'm thinking the status quo has some pretty good indicators for the best team in Kansas without creating some new mechanism.

 

Thanks again for the insight into other perspectives on DCI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is very interesting and I thank you for sharing that detail. Based on that, I can see why you have your viewpoint of DCI. I'm guessing you pref'd the progressive college debaters (not me, no one pref's me), and thus that shifted your view of the tournament. But the fact that there were enough progressive college debaters available for you to pref makes your view somewhat valid.

 

Thank you for your definition of "national circuit style" in this context. Given the way you were using it here, I can see your statement as a compliment and would probably agree with you.

 

There are several factors that I think makes DCI different than what I would consider national circuit style. For one it runs more on time. And as qualified as the judges are, you don't see a lot of success by teams running the most bizarre arguments they can find like art appreciation performance, a project case, or some other fringe philosopher. I'm guessing the wpm rate is higher at DCI than at most invitationals in Kansas, but still significantly lower than a true national circuit style tournament.

 

That being said, I'd say there is a good argument that DCI represents a pretty good compromise between the extremes of styles in policy debate, and thus functions rather well at identifying teams that can do it all. And since I would say that a team that can do it all is the best, I'm thinking the status quo has some pretty good indicators for the best team in Kansas without creating some new mechanism.

 

Thanks again for the insight into other perspectives on DCI.

 

True, my pref sheet did seem to have a de facto age limit of 30...

 

As for the bolded section, I won a round on wipeout and another on the Khorasan K (not PIC, K). Additionally, Rose Hill JM had pretty good success with Give Back the Land, Buddhism, and the Cites PIC. Kansas is more progressive than most would think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First DCI is a Tradition in kansas and if you look empirically teams who do well at DCI have gone on to win some insane hardware at the national level and even go on to smoke ppl at the college level.

 

DCI Gives credit to the teams who work hard in Kansas that cant go to nationals or cant go to the TOC or even have such a large course load they cant go to allot of tournaments ( IB Kids are a great example of this at Wichita East or even at other schools )

 

Also its just fun its a tournament with good debaters and good judges the whole time

 

Small schools have just as much an opportunity to do well as big schools ( it is flow though so yes south Kansas really has trouble getting to DCI )

 

DCI, is a opportunity to show who the best in Kansas is for a technical style of debate so i feel like claiming one team the best is just repetitive

 

DCI is separate in it that it isnt focused on a schools success but the teams as individuals which i dont think other tournaments do ( hence there is no sweepstakes trophy )

 

the qualifying process is like the TOC but was very different, this isnt to say that teams in kansas cant go to the TOC or national level tournaments, all you have to do is apply to Kashaa and they will tell you if you can go and WEAST and SME have done this a many a time

 

DCI's purpose is to show who the best in kansas is but not just the very best but all those that compete there

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Team of the year award should probably go to Carey/Hill-- most recent TOC bid.

 

just because a team gets a TOC bid doesnt make them the best in kansas there are lots of teams in kansas that cant compete at those tournys due to the budget or School Requirements

 

also another thing if there was such an award there wouldnt be a better way to claim who is the best than DCI, everything else would just be subjective to some sort of requirements laid out, which DCI does but in a way that isnt subjective or relative

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea of the DCI seems like a really cool thing to me. I have never been to a DCI level tournament through. I wish there was a way to expand it so smaller schools and schools from smaller regions got to participate more. Right now with almost all the tournaments taking place in the major cities it simply isn't possible for my area (south kansas) to get up there. Some teams do, but as a whole its very few. It simply hard to justify paying to go so far away when there is always a tournament close by each weekk. I am not sure there would be a way to change the system to make it possible for this change. I mean maybe give bids in much smaller amounts than the normal DCI tournaments to smaller regional tournaments, just an idea. I am also not sure we would be able to compete due to the difference in DCI competition from our area, but it be cool to get the chance. South Kansas had three state champion teams this year and I just wish we got to compete more against the big boys. Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

 

Each year, the DCI committee asks the state's coaches to submit their tournaments for consideration for status as a bid tournament. To the best of my recollection, no SKNFL school has ever sought to have its tournament deemed a bid event. Why not have one of the SKNFL schools seek bid status? Week two (ie immediately after WaRu) would be a good choice; it is often difficult for the committee to find an event that weekend.

 

When I was in school (80s-90s) DCI worked a little differently. There was no list of specific tournaments that awarded bids, and it was called DCI because teams applied to the tournament and the coaches voted on which teams were the best, and then the top 25 (my memory tells me it was 25, but I suppose it would make more sense for it to be an even number) competed at the tournament. (I see a parallel between how DCI balloting used to work and how student congress awards used to work, but both have now changed to a more structured process)

 

Although there were no set rules on which tournaments to attend and what division you competed in and what your win/loss record had to be - it was defacto procedure that if you wanted to qualify to DCI, you had to do well at a champ division tournament in each NFL district (there were fewer districts back then). If you consistently made it to break rounds at champ tournaments throughout the state, you had a good shot at qualifying to DCI.

 

Tournaments that you'd usually want to attend were: WaRu, THS, SMW, Shawnee Heights, Manhattan, Lawrence, Wichita East, Valley Center, Winfield, Salina Central, Hutchinson, Emporia.

 

I was from Parsons (South Kansas District, which at that time included Wichita), so we had several champ level tournaments in the district (in addition to the ones mentioned above, Wichita South and Wichita Southeast usually would host a champ tournament)

 

Teams from SKNFL schools (Wichita South, Wichita East, Wichita Southeast, Wichita Northwest, Wichita Heights, Campus, Goddard, Valley Center, Andover, Derby, El Dorado, Winfield, Parsons, Field Kindley) were regularly represented at the tournament, and DCI was a goal for our varsity teams every season.

 

Since the Sunflower District has split off from South Kansas, it feels to me like South Kansas is looked upon as the runt district of Kansas in terms of policy debate. There is no major city in the district, and there is no college that has a policy debate program (that I know of. Not sure if Southwesten in Winfield still has a team, they used to have a great program there), and there isn't a single champ tournament in the district. I have judged in the SKNFL district a lot this past year, and the kids are just as talented as ever, but save for Fort Scott, I didn't really get the feeling that DCI was on anyone's radar.

 

I think Derby, Winfield or Pittsburg could host a DCI bid tournament.

Edited by keiv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And as for the original topic of this thread, I don't think this award is necessary, since that's essentially what DCI is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really don't understand the point of this. Every year, the DCI pamphlet has the top teams from all previous years, and every debater who participates in quarters at state or higher is preserved on the KSHSAA website. If SME or WaRu or WEast really need another jack-off, why don't they just buy a trophy and engrave "SQUAD OF THE DECADE" on it, just so they feel that much better about themselves.

 

 

 

The problem of just randomly assigning DCI bids to South Kansas tourneys is that the style differences will make it difficult for those teams to compete at DCI if they do qualify. If you get both your bids for getting into finals at some lay-dominated tourney, the requirement for high-flow judges at DCI is going to bury that team. Plus, there's already kind of too many teams qualifying for DCI (yes, I realize the irony that I'M the one making that statement). The state tournament does a good job of letting lay-oriented teams compete, and DCI is for those who want to compete in national-circuit style policy.

 

Plus, the way it stands, you really only have to travel to one tournament to qualify. Trust me, I know the feeling. Rose Hill doesn't have the biggest travel budget either. Last year we could only go to three DCI tourneys, and we didn't even compete in the DCI division at WaRu.

 

The system right now is fine. There's always going to be someone left out, but the current system does a fine job of highlighting those elite teams every year.

 

idk why you feel that it's necessary to always have a tone of hostility towards everyone and everything when you post. fuck off and get a better attitude towards life.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem of just randomly assigning DCI bids to South Kansas tourneys is that the style differences will make it difficult for those teams to compete at DCI if they do qualify. If you get both your bids for getting into finals at some lay-dominated tourney, the requirement for high-flow judges at DCI is going to bury that team. Plus, there's already kind of too many teams qualifying for DCI (yes, I realize the irony that I'M the one making that statement). The state tournament does a good job of letting lay-oriented teams compete, and DCI is for those who want to compete in national-circuit style policy.

 

I don't think style difference is a problem, and the bids wouldn't be assigned "randomly" it would be the same as any other DCI bid tournament. I have no doubt that the SKNFL teams can hold their own against teams from other districts (they've been doing so since debate has existed in Kansas). The only issue, as far as I can tell, is having a coach at one or more of the SK schools being willing to volunteer to host a DCI bid tournament the weekend after WaRu. As I posted above, I think Andover, Derby, Winfield or Pittsburg are communities in the SK district that can put together a champ level judging pool.

 

Are there really too many teams qualifying to DCI? Is it that there are too many, or that as the number of teams qualifying grows, the overall quality of the tournament diminishes? How many teams were at DCI this year? 32? 34? Doesn't seem like too many to me, as long as all the teams are good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

El Dorado is hosting a DCI Bid Tournament next year. I believe that is in Southern Kansas. Is your high school gilded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael-

 

Not arguing with your reasoning, but does it follow that the existing DCI bid model has the same effect? If so, is there a model of DCI qualification that you would prefer?

 

My own opinion on the larger question is that DCI itself eliminates the need for such an award. It's best to settle the "best team in Kansas" debate through a series of actual debates among the top contenders, not through a series of regionally/stylistically balkanized events.

 

Dubois, the only problem with this is this idea in Kansas that DCI or state automatically proves without a doubt who is the best debater or best team just because of number of bids or who wins. I think this is bull hockey. Just because you have 9 bids to the TOC doesn't mean a 3 bid team isn't just as good. Some teams don't go to only DCI tournaments. Some teams are terrible in front of tech judges and some are terrible in front of lays. While DCI does decide who can debate the best in front of different judges that weekend, it doesn't speak to performance on a whole. Here's a situation: one team consistently beat up on another all year maybe losing a squirrel on a panel every now and then. Then DCI roles around and the one partner from the first party becomes sick and maybe can't speak as well or cover the same amount of arguments that they could have in full health, drops something important accidentally and the team that has lost 3 or 4 times picks up a win at the tournament that decides who is the best. Does this mean the latter team is better and more deserving of the term best in Kansas. Kinda a specific scenario but I know you could extrapolate that out to many different and very realistic scenarios. So then we get to "well the first party in the above maybe had 4 more bids than the latter, so that will settle who is better." If I remember correctly the team that won my senior year didn't have the highest number of bids, and 2 of the top 4 teams were barely in the top 10 in bids. (I could be wrong with Garden City, but I know we weren't with only 3) I'm not disagreeing that these tournaments single out the better teams from that year's crop, but it doesn't speak to performance for the whole year and take things like speaks (which doesn't matter as the last time I heard Kansas still operated mostly without quality points, something I will never understand) or individual tournament records, or important wins into consideration. Now that this rant is over, I'm not sure I support singling out a debater and stroking his ego to the tune of a big trophy is in any way a good idea. I just wanted to point out the flawed logic behind letting just one tournament decide everything unquestionably. So overall this post is worthless with no points correlating to the actual topic, so please everyone ignore it.

 

 

 

edit: if you don't want to read this probably slightly incoherent babble, the argument is; in no way does the one tournament of DCI unquestionably decide who the best is. Anyone can have a good tournament that weekend. The only reason it speaks to them being good is because there is a qualification process just to even be there. At best DCI says "these are the "best" 32 (or however many qual) teams this year"

 

 

 

One more edit: i did not read a single post past the one quoted. I think the TOC has made me argumentative

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: if you don't want to read this probably slightly incoherent babble, the argument is; in no way does the one tournament of DCI unquestionably decide who the best is. Anyone can have a good tournament that weekend. The only reason it speaks to them being good is because there is a qualification process just to even be there. At best DCI says "these are the "best" 32 (or however many qual) teams this year"

Under this logic, Ohio State should have been national champs in basketball this last season. KU would have been national runners up, right? Cinderella teams are bad because they just won on that night, but didn't have the season to justify that they are the better team.

 

I'm guessing you are a big time supporter of the BCS rather than a playoff format in NCAA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under this logic, Ohio State should have been national champs in basketball this last season. KU would have been national runners up, right? Cinderella teams are bad because they just won on that night, but didn't have the season to justify that they are the better team.

 

I'm guessing you are a big time supporter of the BCS rather than a playoff format in NCAA.

 

1. No. The BCS is just awful.

2. Using that logic and applying it to this situation. (State and DCI existing) Then all the teams in the NCAA tournament should have also gotten to go the the NIT and have another go at it. See what I mean? There's not a big enough difference between DCI and another DCI tournament that a lot of the top teams were at, say WaRu or THigh or whatever else has become a big tournament halfway or 2/3 of the way through the year in my absence. The logic that this one arbitrary tournament ultimately decides this is unsound. That's why if there was ever a want to decide the best team (Which shouldn't happen. I much prefer ego inflation that isn't sponsored by the community) there should be a point system (I don't mean turn to the bid system) instead of relying on 2 big tournaments or just DCI. While VCU may have played well in tournament, I would have liked to see them play Kansas 2 or 3 times and see who the victor is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No. The BCS is just awful.

2. Using that logic and applying it to this situation. (State and DCI existing) Then all the teams in the NCAA tournament should have also gotten to go the the NIT and have another go at it. See what I mean? There's not a big enough difference between DCI and another DCI tournament that a lot of the top teams were at, say WaRu or THigh or whatever else has become a big tournament halfway or 2/3 of the way through the year in my absence. The logic that this one arbitrary tournament ultimately decides this is unsound. That's why if there was ever a want to decide the best team (Which shouldn't happen. I much prefer ego inflation that isn't sponsored by the community) there should be a point system (I don't mean turn to the bid system) instead of relying on 2 big tournaments or just DCI. While VCU may have played well in tournament, I would have liked to see them play Kansas 2 or 3 times and see who the victor is.

A point system? Like the BCS? Computer models telling us who is better than who even though those teams never competed.

 

Or should it be like NASCAR, where there is a winner before the last race is even raced? Theoretically a team could have a big lead and not have to perform well at the end of the season.

 

I think playoffs and/or tournaments are the best way to determine who is best. VCU won the game that mattered most even if KU could beat them 9 out of 10 times. The Superbowl, NBA finals, and World Series may not always have the overall best teams, but they are the ones who won the games needed to get to that stage, and that makes them exciting.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point system? Like the BCS? Computer models telling us who is better than who even though those teams never competed.

 

Or should it be like NASCAR, where there is a winner before the last race is even raced? Theoretically a team could have a big lead and not have to perform well at the end of the season.

 

I think playoffs and/or tournaments are the best way to determine who is best. VCU won the game that mattered most even if KU could beat them 9 out of 10 times. The Superbowl, NBA finals, and World Series may not always have the overall best teams, but they are the ones who won the games needed to get to that stage, and that makes them exciting.

 

I don't understand why you are so concerned with defending the notion that DCI, or the NCAA tournament for that matter, accurately tells you who the best team is. You seem to be confusing exciting for those involved and the fans with accurate in determining the best team. IMHO DCI is best conceived as an exciting tournament where some of the best teams from around the state (across class divisions) get the opportunity to debate against each other one final time for the year. It is fun. Sometimes the "best" team wins. Sometimes they don't. That doesn't seem to me to be the important part of the tournament; having a fun, friendly competition with fellow debaters does. I am very sympathetic with the position that other ways of determining a "best" team in Kansas may not be desirable (and may suffer from the problems that plague the BCS and/or NASCAR). However, that doesn't mean that the winner of DCI should be considered the best team in the state.

 

ps. On a purely academic, argumentative note: grouping the NBA playoffs and the MLB playoffs with the NFL or NCAA basketball doesn't seem very sound. The former have 7 game series, which I think most would agree take a reasonable amount of variance out of the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: accidental double post erased. Mods feel free to delete this as I couldn't figure out how to in the new Cross-x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know where the discussion can go at this point.

 

I hear indictments of the idea that DCI determines the state's best team. I hear indictments of the idea that the greatest number of bids accumulated over the season determines the state's best team. The implication of these arguments, however, is that there IS no objective way to determine the best team in Kansas. I can't see how any of this is a defense of some kind of arbitrary "Team of the Year Award".

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know where the discussion can go at this point.

 

I hear indictments of the idea that DCI determines the state's best team. I hear indictments of the idea that the greatest number of bids accumulated over the season determines the state's best team. The implication of these arguments, however, is that there IS no objective way to determine the best team in Kansas. I can't see how any of this is a defense of some kind of arbitrary "Team of the Year Award".

 

It wasn't as much as a defense for a best team award, just a call for a different viewing of how the idea of a best team is determined in the state.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dubois, the only problem with this is this idea in Kansas that DCI or state automatically proves without a doubt who is the best debater or best team just because of number of bids or who wins. I think this is bull hockey. Just because you have 9 bids to the TOC doesn't mean a 3 bid team isn't just as good. Some teams don't go to only DCI tournaments. Some teams are terrible in front of tech judges and some are terrible in front of lays. While DCI does decide who can debate the best in front of different judges that weekend, it doesn't speak to performance on a whole. Here's a situation: one team consistently beat up on another all year maybe losing a squirrel on a panel every now and then. Then DCI roles around and the one partner from the first party becomes sick and maybe can't speak as well or cover the same amount of arguments that they could have in full health, drops something important accidentally and the team that has lost 3 or 4 times picks up a win at the tournament that decides who is the best. Does this mean the latter team is better and more deserving of the term best in Kansas. Kinda a specific scenario but I know you could extrapolate that out to many different and very realistic scenarios. So then we get to "well the first party in the above maybe had 4 more bids than the latter, so that will settle who is better." If I remember correctly the team that won my senior year didn't have the highest number of bids, and 2 of the top 4 teams were barely in the top 10 in bids. (I could be wrong with Garden City, but I know we weren't with only 3) I'm not disagreeing that these tournaments single out the better teams from that year's crop, but it doesn't speak to performance for the whole year and take things like speaks (which doesn't matter as the last time I heard Kansas still operated mostly without quality points, something I will never understand) or individual tournament records, or important wins into consideration. Now that this rant is over, I'm not sure I support singling out a debater and stroking his ego to the tune of a big trophy is in any way a good idea. I just wanted to point out the flawed logic behind letting just one tournament decide everything unquestionably. So overall this post is worthless with no points correlating to the actual topic, so please everyone ignore it.

 

 

 

edit: if you don't want to read this probably slightly incoherent babble, the argument is; in no way does the one tournament of DCI unquestionably decide who the best is. Anyone can have a good tournament that weekend. The only reason it speaks to them being good is because there is a qualification process just to even be there. At best DCI says "these are the "best" 32 (or however many qual) teams this year"

 

 

 

One more edit: i did not read a single post past the one quoted. I think the TOC has made me argumentative

 

1. AT: Squirrelly judging - The judging pool at DCI is pretty much consistently the best this state has to offer, Period. Even if it wasn't, great teams adapt. Totally irrelevant.

2. AT: What if my partner gets sick and/or a piano falls on me so I don't do good at dci - This is a devastating argument for which I have no response.

3. Pre-tournament bid totals: I disagree with the notion that this should be a heavy metric to identify the best teams. Perhaps if we modify this to add some sort of bids earned/bids attended or (better) out-rounds debated/bid tournaments attended ratios. Forgive me for going all Bill James on everybody, but I do think that the number of bid tournaments attended is an issue that should be accounted for. I think we agree here, but your post was a little unclear so I'm not sure :)

 

Over time, I think that the DCI has done a really good job of illuminating the "best" team of a given season. At least since the early-mid 90s (the time period I have witnessed). Sure, there have been some outliers, but more often than not the team that wins DCI is the best team (and would hold up to any other metric with which you could measure them). There are other tools you could use: DCI bid totals, success at State, Success at TOC bids, success at Nationals... DCI is just one of these tools, but generally it does an excellent job. It's not infallible, and I don't think that anyone would say that it is without question the only result that matters.

 

The best criticisms of DCI as a measure of the best individual team, are ones that haven't even been mentioned.

 

1. DCI breaks brackets - Anecdotal example: My senior year WaRu qualified 7 teams, and all 7 were probably up near the top 15 in the state. Those teams never had to debate each other. I'm sure that there are many other examples of seasons where individual schools entered 3-5 really outstanding teams. Any tournament which truly seeks to find the best individual team would take school affiliation out of the equation. This will never happen, nor am I advocating it.

2. 7 Rounds, no out rounds, no panels - I like it the way it is, but 6 rounds plus QSF would also be very interesting. DCI is unique in this way... not necessarily better or worse. Just different.

3. Closed tab - Would teams prepare differently if records were known pre-round? Another way in which DCI is unique... My personal preference would be to open the tab room, but I have deep respect the uniqueness and tradition of DCI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really know where the discussion can go at this point.

 

I hear indictments of the idea that DCI determines the state's best team. I hear indictments of the idea that the greatest number of bids accumulated over the season determines the state's best team. The implication of these arguments, however, is that there IS no objective way to determine the best team in Kansas. I can't see how any of this is a defense of some kind of arbitrary "Team of the Year Award".

 

I meant to imply that there is no objective way to determine the best team in Kansas. I also intended to argue, but did not do so clearly, that this is not a bad thing and takes nothing away from DCI, State or the current bid system.

 

I agree there doesn't seem to be any forward movement in this discussion. I probably should have stayed out of it; in fact, I would have but for my visceral need to defend the abstract notion that KU should be considered a better team than VCU last season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been forever since I've posted on this board, and almost as long since I've read it. I hate to start up the argument that occurred before, but I feel like the claim that debaters were not allowed to go to the TOC because of insurance and liability issues is a bit revisionist, and as someone who was both personally affected by the changes in TOC policy, and as someone who as experience with the TOC/Kansas relationship as both a debater and as a coach, I feel that I have a rich perspective on the changes that occurred. Seniors who had qualified to NFL were always allowed to go to the tournament, with the caveat that debaters younger than seniors that went to the tournament would be sanctioned by KSHAA, as explained by KSHAA prior to the 2007 TOC. That rule was changed to a sanction on the school shortly before the 2008 TOC was to take place. I think the historical discussion happening here ignores the degree of backlash against the TOC occurring from coaches across the state, and I think that the best way to acknowledge their concerns and to understand the place the TOC has maintained recently with respect to Kansas debate is to place it in this context. My point isn't to take a stance on the particular nature of those concerns, although I do think that many of them were valid, but instead, as I said before, to illuminate the recent history between Kansas debate and the TOC. I'm not going to answer a bunch of line-by-line posts, because frankly I don't think that's helpful, but I feel pretty strongly about this particular issue, so I felt it was important to weigh in and leverage my perspective, and I hope that this post is not taken to be either disrespectful to any of the coaches in Kansas (one of which I have been for the last four years), nor to be an argument in favor of allowing Kansas debaters to travel to the TOC (an issue on which I remain agnostic).

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seniors who had qualified to NFL were always allowed to go to the tournament, with the caveat that debaters younger than seniors that went to the tournament would be sanctioned by KSHAA, as explained by KSHAA prior to the 2007 TOC. That rule was changed to a sanction on the school shortly before the 2008 TOC was to take place.

 

Really, as has been hashed out several other places on this forum, the change was not an intentional attack from TOC to KSHSAA or vice versa. What happened was that TOC determined that they could no longer support entries which were technically "unattached" from their school. For instance, when Olathe Northwest had a pair of graduating seniors qualify and choose to attend the tournament, they were not to use any school resources, funding, or even technically the name of the school. KSHSAA's position on this was that it was only acceptable because of this disconnection; the feeling was that it would be unfair and unreasonable to punish a school for the actions of students who had exhausted their competitive eligibility at the high school level. Since the school had no foreseeable way to prevent the students from going, it could not be held accountable.

 

What changed in 2008 was that the TOC determined, largely for insurance and liability purposes, that they would require a school to essentially certify students' participation in the tournament. This was part of a larger trend nationally where many tournaments determined it was too risky to continue to allow competitors who were not claimed by any educational institution. The unfortunate side effect of this was that KSHSAA's rules now applied differently. If a school is to sign off on a student's entry, there is no more eyes-closed "you can go as long as we don't officially talk about it" sort of practice going on. A rule is still being broken, but now the school is required to be in on it.

 

There isn't anything more nefarious than this going on. I know the students who were directly impacted by the change felt unfairly singled out, but I would submit that the issue was as much transparency and communication as anything else. I don't know that we had a complete story for a while, and that's something that KSHSAA and/or the TOC could have potentially handled better.

 

(I should really just copy and paste this whenever this comes up; see you guys in the next thread about 5 months from now)

  • Upvote 1

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...