Jump to content
FlashMaster

Nfl Judging Reform

Recommended Posts

I'd like to start this thread by saying two things:

a.) Congratulations to all NFL qualifiers

b.)This is not a thread about who and who shouldn't have qualified this weekend. It's not an attack on any specific school, coach, team, or individual. It's a thread about making NFL a better experience for anyone, whether you "conform" to the style of debate I prefer, or a more traditional approach.

 

1) Institute MPJ. I think this should be a rule at all tournaments, but especially one like the national qualifiers. Mutually preferred judging creates the best alternative to the current system of NFL randomness. This is a common sense approach to assigning judges that benefits you no matter how you prefer to debate. For example, if you want to be judged by moms and dads because you prefer a more persuasive and traditional approach to debate, having a set of strikes to remove any judges who don't have that same view of what debate should be like would allow their judging pool to err more towards their specific style. Similarly, if there are judges who I view as "unqualified" (I use that term reluctantly) to judge rounds, we can strike them as well. The ranking of judges after the "strikes" are assessed also allows the debaters to have some input as to what their panel looks like, and at the very least prevents getting a judge who is biased against you for some reason.

 

2) Relax restrictions on school-sponsored judges from judging their own teams. I think this is perhaps one of the more illogical problems with the way judging in Kansas works. For example, I know that the judges I recruit for tournaments cannot be judging me. Subsequently, I have no incentive to recruit a judge with any skill at all. In fact, I actually have reasons to recruit judges who are biased, sexist, racist, or who have any other quality that might hurt the competition in order to benefit myself. I understand that someone's dad shouldn't judge them, but if I recruit a KU debater to coach at a tournament, they are automatically disqualified from judging me, even though there's no personal relationship. I'll give you this example: At any other tournament, Darshan (D-Train) Sivakumar could judge me, but as soon as I give him a phone call and ask him to fulfill Blue Valley West judging requirements for a single tournament, he not only is disqualified from judging me at that tournament, but apparently he can't judge me ever again. I think this creates the propensity for teams to intentionally recruit bad judges, and I don't really see any benefit from continuing this practice

 

3) Allow strikes every round

This is probably the most controversial or un-doable of my 3 suggestions. However, I think that initially scheduling 5 judges for one round and allowing teams to strike one judge each would create better panels, and gives debaters more control over who is judging them. This may not be doable due to small judging pools, which is why I wanted to post this for discussion. I have no idea some of the logistical problems that coincide with the national qualifying tournaments.

 

Again, these are just suggestions as to what I think would make debate better for any style of team. There may be severe logistical problems with doing this, and I'm not even sure how these types of rules would be changed, or even if NFL would allow this.

 

Thoughts, Ideas?

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) Relax restrictions on school-sponsored judges from judging their own teams. I think this is perhaps one of the more illogical problems with the way judging in Kansas works. For example, I know that the judges I recruit for tournaments cannot be judging me. Subsequently, I have no incentive to recruit a judge with any skill at all. In fact, I actually have reasons to recruit judges who are biased, sexist, racist, or who have any other quality that might hurt the competition in order to benefit myself. I understand that someone's dad shouldn't judge them, but if I recruit a KU debater to coach at a tournament, they are automatically disqualified from judging me, even though there's no personal relationship. I'll give you this example: At any other tournament, Darshan (D-Train) Sivakumar could judge me, but as soon as I give him a phone call and ask him to fulfill Blue Valley West judging requirements for a single tournament, he not only is disqualified from judging me at that tournament, but apparently he can't judge me ever again. I think this creates the propensity for teams to intentionally recruit bad judges, and I don't really see any benefit from continuing this practice

 

I think you can avoid this by having the judge you recruit be part of the "community" judging pool as opposed to judging for your school specifically. The only downside is they probably don't get paid.

 

Also, to tack on to that: Joy of Tournaments assigns judges randomly without taking into consideration judging experience or other 'subjective' factors. It doesn't make any sense to have experienced judges sit around and make less experienced judges judge. I think that after a certain point, you MUST have only school judges judge.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this is something that can be discussed in a (hopefully) civil manner. When I debated, I know a number of debaters my age who were dissatisfied after the qualifiers, myself included. That said, I'll agree the skills gained from being flexible as a debater are important - especially when debaters find themselves in rounds at the actual NFL tournament and need to adapt. I'm not familiar with how similar that judging pool is to the pool at qualifiers.

 

Two things I think need to be included in the discussion

 

1.) Even if the people on cross-x come to a consensus (unlikely), how would a proponent of reform go about implementing that in their district? Are students best off lobbying their head coach to push for these ideas at district meetings? Should students being sending open letters, petitions, etc. to those meetings? Do students and coaches from some Kansas districts feel satisfied with their qualifier paneling process? Previous discussions on cross-x about pre-round disclosure or the wiki seemed to be effective because participants of those discussions could convince current students to individually comply, but this is a challenge that would require an institutional change instead.

 

(I think a number of people's first objection to reform would be that Kansas consistently produces teams who do well at the national tournaments. Proponents of reform might consider something like a petition, or survey, that samples most debaters/coaches who attended their district qualifier to determine the consensus view of participants on the process.)

 

2.) Judge recruitment - I hope current debaters who feel frustrated or disappointed with their high school debate experience remember how important these tournaments and panels feel to them now when, in a few years, they have to make the decision to wake up on a Saturday morning to go judge high school debate. I was really pleased to see so many three trails alum who were my age come back this weekend. I think that if younger judges are consistently on panels with two judges who are not flowing/have not debated, there's a real danger that they'll conclude their ballot is not useful and stop coming back. I think that parents who find themselves on a panel with two judges who can flow and understand more advanced arguments would also be quite frustrated after a team calculated that their best chance of success was to ignore them and win the other two judges in a manner that the judge could not understand.

 

I think the strikes suggestion might make panels more consistent, in one of two ways -

 

A.) Each team strikes the most extreme option - so the team that wants a fast round strikes the judge with the least experience debating, the team that wants a slow round strikes the college judge, and the result is a more middle-of-the-road panel

 

B.) The teams want the same kind of round, and strike the same kind of judges, and then get the panel they both think is best to determine which team should qualify

 

 

 

Logistically, I think having changes to how judges are selected/ instituting MPJ might be easier to do at NFL than at invitational tournaments, since the computer pairs the rounds and assigns the judges anyway. I'm reasonably sure a computer program capable of taking preferences into account when assigning judges exists and is relatively easy to use, although I don't know how easy it is to change the NFL program that is used. Is this a national standard, or one that districts have some flexibility over deciding?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you can avoid this by having the judge you recruit be part of the "community" judging pool as opposed to judging for your school specifically. The only downside is they probably don't get paid.

 

Also, to tack on to that: Joy of Tournaments assigns judges randomly without taking into consideration judging experience or other 'subjective' factors. It doesn't make any sense to have experienced judges sit around and make less experienced judges judge. I think that after a certain point, you MUST have only school judges judge.

 

This makes sense, but schools will still be required to provide judges to ensure a large pool, which means there will still be judges who you know can't judge you.

 

Also, strikes either before the tournament starts or by round would prevent judges from just "sitting around".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Again, these are just suggestions as to what I think would make debate better for any style of team. There may be severe logistical problems with doing this, and I'm not even sure how these types of rules would be change, or even if NFL would allow this.

 

 

I thought the NFL might not even allow this but here is the relevant quote from the district tournament manual:

 

"a. Districts are encouraged to solicit opinions of all schools in the district when determining whether a strike

system will be used, and if so, what type of system. The decision of the District Committee is final.

b. If a District Committee chooses to implement a judge strike system, the chair must submit a complete

description of the proposed strike procedure to the national office for the approval. The description must be

approved at least seven days prior to the beginning of the tournament. Strike policy wordings should be sent

to nfl@nflonline.org.

c. The system used must be maintained throughout the entire district tournament. "

 

It doesn't really mention prefs just strikes though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are required by the NFL to use Joy of Tournaments to run the event. That means the following things right out of the gate.

 

1. MPJ is out the window; the program makes no allowance for it.

2. There is an immediate and irrevocable strike on "school judges" judging teams from the school that recruited them. The last time Aquinas hosted the entire community pool was blocked from judging the host school for this reason, though I gather we found a way around that in subsequent years.

 

Assuming a means of getting around the MPJ issues, such as manual removal and reinsertion of judges in every single round, you would still find yourself (in Three Trails) in a situation where you'd have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 judges with significant contemporary judging experience in the entire pool. This is what happens when every district in Kansas runs their qualifier at once. Moreover, schools which feel themselves to be less than elite in that style of debate will send those judges directly to the bottom of their pref sheet, making it extraordinarily difficult even for the teams that pref them to get those judges in a round in which they're not debating another contemporary team.

 

The strike system you propose has been attempted at national qualifying tournaments I've attended, including Flint Hills NFL some time ago and the old Salina Diocese qualifier. Here is what happens: the nature of the pool means of the five judges who roll into the round, generally only one of them is a contemporary judge. The coach of the less contemporary team in the round strikes that judge instantaneously. As a result, the contemporary judges sit in the hospitality room for the entire event. On rare occasion TWO contemporary judges roll onto the same panel, meaning the second-most-contemporary judge survives the strike and subsequently judges with two parents.

 

Meanwhile, the implementation of the two reforms proposed above delays the start of each round by 30-45 minutes. In very short order you reach a point at which the judges are no longer available for the rounds to which they originally committed.

 

I am fully sympathetic to your concerns. I see absolutely no way in which they can be addressed under the current NFL format. The scarcity of contemporary judges, and the splitting of that limited pool with multiple qualifying tournaments, is insurmountable. I wish it were otherwise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd first like to say that I'm glad to see this discussed in a mature and thoughtful way. I understand that emotions are high after NFL. It's a tough tournament.

 

My thoughts would be this:

 

1. Any kind of strike system that could be implemented would have to be when the tournament gets down to a reasonable size round 4-5ish, otherwise the tournament would be infinitely delayed.

 

2. If I'm not mistaken, MPJ is forbidden by NFL at the national level. I do agree with the premise that it could solve for some of the experienced judges sitting out rounds they can see.

 

3. Last year when we had this discussion, one of the problems that was identified was the fact that there were so many judges needed for 6 separate NFL tournaments on the same day(s). This particular weekend is problematic because a lot of colleges have their finals next week. It would be nice if regionals was pushed back to after the new year, and there could be 2 weekends of NFL tournaments.

 

This is a difficult problem to solve, there's no easy answer.

 

Edit: Damn you Dubois... You beat me to the punch again :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to add this as well. We need to institute a permanent moratorium on the following:

 

1. School A brings debaters' parents as their school judges.

2. Debaters from school A are eliminated from the qualifier, and they and their coaches immediately blame the loss on having been judged by other schools' parent judges.

 

Every year, every qualifying tournament, it's the same story. And it's very much a world's-smallest-violin situation.

 

Bring the sort of judges you'd want to be judged by. If you don't do so, don't complain about the judging pool, ever.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should just be able to show up to the round with our own judge, but if the other team does too they are disqualified.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should just be able to show up to the round with our own judge, but if the other team does too they are disqualified.

 

Even our novices were getting disqualified at EKNFL.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are required by the NFL to use Joy of Tournaments to run the event. That means the following things right out of the gate.

 

1. MPJ is out the window; the program makes no allowance for it.

2. There is an immediate and irrevocable strike on "school judges" judging teams from the school that recruited them. The last time Aquinas hosted the entire community pool was blocked from judging the host school for this reason, though I gather we found a way around that in subsequent years.

 

Assuming a means of getting around the MPJ issues, such as manual removal and reinsertion of judges in every single round, you would still find yourself (in Three Trails) in a situation where you'd have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 judges with significant contemporary judging experience in the entire pool. This is what happens when every district in Kansas runs their qualifier at once. Moreover, schools which feel themselves to be less than elite in that style of debate will send those judges directly to the bottom of their pref sheet, making it extraordinarily difficult even for the teams that pref them to get those judges in a round in which they're not debating another contemporary team.

 

The strike system you propose has been attempted at national qualifying tournaments I've attended, including Flint Hills NFL some time ago and the old Salina Diocese qualifier. Here is what happens: the nature of the pool means of the five judges who roll into the round, generally only one of them is a contemporary judge. The coach of the less contemporary team in the round strikes that judge instantaneously. As a result, the contemporary judges sit in the hospitality room for the entire event. On rare occasion TWO contemporary judges roll onto the same panel, meaning the second-most-contemporary judge survives the strike and subsequently judges with two parents.

 

Meanwhile, the implementation of the two reforms proposed above delays the start of each round by 30-45 minutes. In very short order you reach a point at which the judges are no longer available for the rounds to which they originally committed.

 

I am fully sympathetic to your concerns. I see absolutely no way in which they can be addressed under the current NFL format. The scarcity of contemporary judges, and the splitting of that limited pool with multiple qualifying tournaments, is insurmountable. I wish it were otherwise.

 

I'd first like to thank Mr. Dubois for clearing those things up, it's greatly appreciated.

 

There are two things that I would like to add to this thread.

 

First, I would like to reiterate Nelson's second point that we should relax the school judges restrictions. Although I think ideally your motivation for scouting your own judges should be more than competition, I understand that competition is the reality of how some schools might recruit. I understand Dubois computer program thing, but if there was anyway to get around that we should. Maybe there are loopholes where we could make every judge a volunteer or non-affiliated? Again, I have no idea, I'm just throwing it out there. And, the second part of this second point was that judges who are hired for one tournament are then struck from their teams for the rest. I don't think that this is NFL rules, but it might be.

 

My alternative would be no judges automatically struck from teams and rather have the judge hisself/herself decide whether or not they can judge the round objectively. It is a quick question during judge assignment. And, I think that the debate community is blessed with mostly smart and fair people that would make the likelihood of a judge intentionally picking up a team they want to pick up very low.

 

Second, I would like to add on to what Gress said:

 

2.) Judge recruitment - I hope current debaters who feel frustrated or disappointed with their high school debate experience remember how important these tournaments and panels feel to them now when, in a few years, they have to make the decision to wake up on a Saturday morning to go judge high school debate. I was really pleased to see so many three trails alum who were my age come back this weekend. I think that if younger judges are consistently on panels with two judges who are not flowing/have not debated, there's a real danger that they'll conclude their ballot is not useful and stop coming back. I think that parents who find themselves on a panel with two judges who can flow and understand more advanced arguments would also be quite frustrated after a team calculated that their best chance of success was to ignore them and win the other two judges in a manner that the judge could not understand.

 

 

Thank you to people like Amanda and others for coming back and sitting on that panel. I hope that everyone who currently participates in Kansas debate should understand how important it is that they give back. Those of us that are dissappointed with the results should come back and try to make the Kansas debate pool more like a college pool would be. I just hope that all of us have an interest in improving policy debate in the long run rather than fixing it for themselves.

 

Congratulations to all the qualifiers! This post had purely benevolent intentions, I hope no one takes it the wrong way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the following NFL rules or district rules?

 

1. No freshman judges

2. All rounds must be paneled

3. All schools are allowed 4 entries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing that could be done first to make the quality of judging better is make sure experienced debaters/judges are being used to their full commitment. This means not only college debaters, but also recently graduated judges who debated in high school, parents who have been judging debate for years, older judges who debated in high school and/or college when they were younger. I think/hope everyone can agree these kind of judges are preferable to a parent who is judging a debate for the first time. Even the best lay debaters, I think, would prefer a parent who has debate experience over one who has none. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a first time parent and I am not advocating they should be eliminated from judging at every tournament; but at an important tournament like national qualifiers, I think trying to maximize judges with more experience/exposure to debate would be a good thing. I understand it can be difficult to identify these kinds of judges but I think you can to a certain extent. I only judged 4 (and was originally only on the parings for 3) debates this weekend but was willing and capable of judging all of them. I know of at least 6 other experienced judges who didn't judge all the rounds they were capable of and I think at least one of the coaches in the tabroom could identify them as past/present debaters. I know that recruited judges get paid so them coming out to judge and not being used is certainly not a waste of their time, but it just seems like if schools are required to recruit a certain number of judges and go to the trouble of bringing more qualified judges that we should go to the trouble of using them. You know, some of these people actually like judging too (I'd much rather judge a debate than sit around playing brick breaker). I totally understand the reason for this is the computer randomly assigns judges but perhaps in the future there is a way to make sure judges are used to their full commitment? Maybe not, worth thinking about.

 

This is a great discussion and I particularly agree with Amanda's comment urging debaters to think about how to actualize these ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are required by the NFL to use Joy of Tournaments to run the event. That means the following things right out of the gate.

 

1. MPJ is out the window; the program makes no allowance for it.

2. There is an immediate and irrevocable strike on "school judges" judging teams from the school that recruited them. The last time Aquinas hosted the entire community pool was blocked from judging the host school for this reason, though I gather we found a way around that in subsequent years.

 

Assuming a means of getting around the MPJ issues, such as manual removal and reinsertion of judges in every single round, you would still find yourself (in Three Trails) in a situation where you'd have somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 judges with significant contemporary judging experience in the entire pool. This is what happens when every district in Kansas runs their qualifier at once. Moreover, schools which feel themselves to be less than elite in that style of debate will send those judges directly to the bottom of their pref sheet, making it extraordinarily difficult even for the teams that pref them to get those judges in a round in which they're not debating another contemporary team.

 

The strike system you propose has been attempted at national qualifying tournaments I've attended, including Flint Hills NFL some time ago and the old Salina Diocese qualifier. Here is what happens: the nature of the pool means of the five judges who roll into the round, generally only one of them is a contemporary judge. The coach of the less contemporary team in the round strikes that judge instantaneously. As a result, the contemporary judges sit in the hospitality room for the entire event. On rare occasion TWO contemporary judges roll onto the same panel, meaning the second-most-contemporary judge survives the strike and subsequently judges with two parents.

 

Meanwhile, the implementation of the two reforms proposed above delays the start of each round by 30-45 minutes. In very short order you reach a point at which the judges are no longer available for the rounds to which they originally committed.

 

I am fully sympathetic to your concerns. I see absolutely no way in which they can be addressed under the current NFL format. The scarcity of contemporary judges, and the splitting of that limited pool with multiple qualifying tournaments, is insurmountable. I wish it were otherwise.

 

The second point you make, to me, would be extremely frustrating. If I debated at STA, it would really bug me if we were recruiting judges like: Amanda, Maggie, Wright (His first name is slipping my memory right now) and a plethora of other extremely qualified judges, but because they went to the same school, they suddenly are disqualified from judging you.

 

I guess this raises a couple of questions that I myself can't answer because I've never been involved with the administrative/logistical side of the qualifier:

Are schools required to bring school-sponsored judges, or if the "community" pool is big enough, could they simply coordinate the judges they would like to be there and have them enter as "community" judges, and still maintain their ability to judge the team that "brought" them.

 

 

I'm going to add this as well. We need to institute a permanent moratorium on the following:

 

1. School A brings debaters' parents as their school judges.

2. Debaters from school A are eliminated from the qualifier, and they and their coaches immediately blame the loss on having been judged by other schools' parent judges.

 

Every year, every qualifying tournament, it's the same story. And it's very much a world's-smallest-violin situation.

 

Bring the sort of judges you'd want to be judged by. If you don't do so, don't complain about the judging pool, ever.

To be completely fair, this applies to me. But, I think my initial post my help to explain this. Most of the time, when tournaments and coaches reach out to BVW to recruit judges, we in turn try to reach out to college debaters, and of course we also enter our assistant coach Charlie into the judging pool whenever he's available. Unfortunately, there are several rules that (whether they're meant to do so or not) discourage recruiting good judges.

 

First of all, they can't judge me, so why bother? For example, this weekend, BVW recruited two UMKC debaters to judge several rounds. While we do this because we're interested in providing quality judges for everyone else, it's hard to justify doing so when they can't judge me. Especially in this scenario, considering I have never even talked to the two debaters we brought, but because they're affiliated with BVW, they're automatically struck from judging is, so why bother? While we don't think that way and still continue to try to recruit "good" judges, I could easily see how this would discourage others from doing so.

 

Secondly, freshmen can't judge. I don't really understand this rule, and I'm not sure if this is an NFL rule (could very well be, someone else who knows would have to clarify that) or a TTNFL rule, but I think they underestimate the integrity of past debaters in Kansas. I understand that someone may have a personal vendetta against you (trust me, if anyone in Kansas would understand this, it's me) but I also think the aforementioned reforms would fix this, because you could then strike them from the judging pool.

 

Also, I want to take a quick second to thank all of the past TTNFL alums who came back to judge. It's really cool to see people like Ciera, Amanda, Maggie, Sean Elliot, MacKenzie, and multiple other college kids (or sometimes, older) alums who stay up to date with the community, and who volunteer their time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the following NFL rules or district rules?

 

1. No freshman judges

2. All rounds must be paneled

3. All schools are allowed 4 entries

 

Here is the rulebook, you can read it yourself.

 

https://www.nflonlin...ions Manual.pdf

 

1. Unless I'm missing something, the NFL rules don't address this. Sunflower allows freshman on day 1. This is a district rule.

2. This rule is kind of weirdly written, but what I gather is that you don't HAVE to panel until you get to 8 or less teams.

3. 4 entries is the maximum amount. The total amount of entries a school gets (across all the qualifiers) is based on its members and degrees. Schools don't HAVE to send 4 teams.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Ciera's point about maximizing judging commitments - I don't know how this can be implemented without identifying certain judges as ones that could be prioritized. The Joy of Tournaments website is pretty confusing - the FAQs page (http://www.joyoftournaments.com/faq-tab.htm) seems to suggest judge preferences might be a tab option, and the 2012 Grapevine and Glenbrooks joy of tournaments home pages remind competitors to get their prefs in. The software also looks really complicated, and I'm glad that I don't have to try to figure out how to wrangle it once a year (and that STA still tabs on paper).

 

A word on not allowing first-year judges at NFL - I like it. The qualifiers are stressful, because the stakes are higher than at a typical invitational. As a first-year debater I don't think I would have had the confidence or perspective to be able to feel really independent from the debaters in the round - judging people who you've (recently) debated in high school is pretty strange, or at least I thought so last year. This is worse late in the qualifiers, because those debaters were likely prominent or rising while the first-year judge was still debating. One of my favorite parts of Kansas debate is the amount of socialization between debaters of different schools throughout the year and at camp - I think the potential problem is less that there might be a vendetta against individual debaters and more that judges are friends with one or both teams in the round, and that that makes judging in an already difficult situation even harder. Do other (especially younger) judges agree, or is this a personal opinion?

 

More clarity on which judges should be struck from which teams at districts might also be helpful, or at least make tournaments run more smoothly, because those decisions would be made in advance, judges would uniformly know which teams they could not judge, and the tournament wouldn't have to be delayed while judging changes were made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to add this as well. We need to institute a permanent moratorium on the following:

 

1. School A brings debaters' parents as their school judges.

2. Debaters from school A are eliminated from the qualifier, and they and their coaches immediately blame the loss on having been judged by other schools' parent judges.

 

Every year, every qualifying tournament, it's the same story. And it's very much a world's-smallest-violin situation.

 

Bring the sort of judges you'd want to be judged by. If you don't do so, don't complain about the judging pool, ever.

 

STA certainly practices what they preach in this regard. When I was coaching in 5A, I was always consistently impressed by the quality of STA's judges at state. I would imagine that Mr Dubois does the same at NFL.

 

I certainly understand the conundrum with judge recruitment. I do wish that there was a way to separate recruited school judges and school judges with actual conflicts. I don't think that there's an actual rule anywhere that says that if you recruit a judge they can never judge you again ever.... but I could be wrong about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, fair point, but not very constructive. A better question might be - is the pool currently representative of the pool at the national tournament? I don't have experience in this area - I'd say my rounds at CFL were, on average, more flow-centered and contained more high-flow judges than most invitationals I attended in Kansas. That might explain the difference in the qualifiers, or the qualifying pool or process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, where were the judging reform requests after BVW qualified to CFL with the same judging pool that we had at NFL?

 

There's certainly something to be said about being a graceful loser, but we should hold winners to the same standard of respect. This forum was begun and conducted in an extremely respectful manner with actual ideas about the nature of how to best improve the experience of the qualifiers for everyone in Kansas debate.

 

I also don't think it's fair to refer to the judging pools as "the same" since many talented judges were dispersed throughout different districts.

 

We are very proud of our qualifiers, and we want to be able to take even more pride in the way that the system of qualification happens. If you can't respectfully contribute to the conversation, don't.

  • Upvote 9
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, where were the judging reform requests after BVW qualified to CFL with the same judging pool that we had at NFL?

 

This is not a fair criticism of Jared's post. CFL and NFL are very, very different animals with two distinct sets of problems. It is a lot easier for local coaches to implement reforms in the district practices at CFL.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the following NFL rules or district rules?

 

1. No freshman judges

2. All rounds must be paneled

3. All schools are allowed 4 entries

 

The NFL rules have changed several times since I last reviewed them with an eye towards what I could get away with. My best guesses as to the answers to your questions:

 

1. This is NOT a national rule with regard to district competition, although I think it's still a rule enforced at the NFL national tournament. The coaches in Three Trails NFL (and in all other Kansas districts of which I am aware) have imposed this rule for the reasons Ms. Gress outlines earlier in the thread. The constituency for changing this rule within that community is less than substantial.

 

2. This is the one I'm least certain about. As of a few years ago, I think the rule was that you had to either panel ALL of your rounds or NONE of them. Another poster indicates above that the regulation may be that all rounds from quarters on must be paneled. To the best of my knowledge all Kansas districts panel and it's not something we've ever really thought about. Maybe we should.

 

3. National rule.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that that last post was a joke. You guys have no respect for anybody that qualified. Maybe in THIS forum you attempt to hide it, but a quick check of your twitter pages should resolve your last post. Stop posting trying to change something. Dubois said it perfectly, the NFL and the Joy of Tournaments keeps us from changing anything. When you post and say things like "we need better judges", you're insinuating that you were "screwed over", and should have qualified yourself instead of others. Learn to adapt, what do you think the prelim rounds at NFL look like? The level of respect and professionalism I've seen displayed over the last few days both at the tournament and after is disgusting. Debaters screaming the F word in a hallway in front of parents and screaming at coaches in tab and trying to enter the tab room after they lost is not okay.

 

Obviously the qualifiers deserve to be congratulated for doing well at the tournament, it's a difficult tournament and no one wants to take away from their success. I don't think anyone can deny that there is a bit of an issue when the best team in the state doesn't qualify. No one will deny that Blue Valley West Birzer/Yeamans is the best team in Kansas and one of the top teams in the nation. The fact that they are not representing Kansas at the NFL national tournament is a shame and reflects a problem with the way the national qualifiers work in Kansas.

 

And also, your adaptation concern is cute, but I think everyone knows parents with little to no debate experience will NOT be judging at the national tournament. Judges flow at NFL Nationals.

  • 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...