Jump to content

t-money

Member
  • Content Count

    371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

143 Excellent

About t-money

  • Rank
    Longtime Member
  • Birthday 07/09/1979

Profile Information

  • Name
    Tom Fowler
  • Location
    Bryan Dreiling's mom
  • Interests
    chicken wings and golf
  1. This is a myth. DCI has existed since the early 80s... long, long before there was any sort of controversy about the 500 mile rule. It was NOT created in response to out of state travel restrictions. It was created to match the best teams from all classifications in a way that the state tournament didn't. I think that people get confused because the DCI bid qualification system started around the same time that the "no TOC travel" thing really blew up (not to say that the issue didn't exist before then). The bid system was an idea borrowed from the TOC that addressed the issues many coaches had with the previous school ballot selection system.
  2. Linear disads might not have impact uniqueness, but they do/should have link uniqueness.
  3. So is it about education or the judge "answering for his/her crimes?" What you're missing is that it does actually answer the education "disad"... In my experience once a decision is made, the teams tune out and either become argumentative or just want to walk out. Education doesn't occur, because the winning and losing team are not in a mindset that allows for it to occur. I can explain my decision on the ballot. I love oral critiques, I've probably given more than almost anybody. I'm not fond of doing them at qualifiers though.
  4. I generally find that giving oral critiques at CFL/NFL/State is not as educational as it usually can be because there is so much emotion wrapped up in the outcome of the round. The time thing can be a real issue when you have a panel of judges. In a perfect world, every tournament would have them... But I can certainly understand the reasoning for not having orals at some "post season" tournaments.
  5. t-money

    Dci Reform

    Back in the day, all tournaments were 6 prelims QSF... at some point, people decided to go 5 rds OQSF... Shortly after, tournaments stopped doing octos altogether, so now we're left with 5 rds QSF.... Today's debaters are losing out on 20-30+ rounds over the course of their careers. My point is that you can do DCI in the old 6 rounds QSF format.... You can do 3 rds on Friday, lunch, assembly and still have time to do elims. Theoretically you could do rounds at 8, 10, 12, Lunch and assembly after rd 3. Qtrs at 4, Sems at 6, Finals at 8. In reality, the finals would probably start at 9 (or later)... Every tournament used to operate this way, It can be done. Yes, 6 rounds in a day is a grind... but only 2 teams have to worry about that and they have the adrenaline of being in finals to carry them through. It is also a grind to attend 8 tournaments in 1 semester, but that's how we do things in KS. This format could preserve the assembly by recognizing every team and announcing the break rounds. You could even do special recognition by bringing up all of the top 8 and facing them off in matchups like a boxing or ufc press conference (I've always wanted to see a tournament to do this) Edit: Volen is right. The coaches won't go for Sundays. I'm not sure I like the idea of it either. The tournament in it's current size would be better served by 6 prelims QSF + MPJ reform. If we get the numbers down to 25-35 (which some might call "too small"), the current 7 round tournament would be fine (with some tweaking to powermatching and MPJ).
  6. t-money

    Dci Reform

    Luke's post is very respectful and well thought out. I agree with pretty much every point. My idea would be to take the top 32 plus ties (or perhaps some other number that makes sense). IIRC this would have put the cut line at 2+2 last season and the number of qualified teams would have been around 38. Some years the cut might be 2, some it might be 2+1... 32+ is flexible. When I proposed this on the Ad Astra forum Mr Dubois noted that the + rounds aren't "official", but I don't see any reason why they couldn't be. We'd all agree that going 4-1 and breaking to qtrs is better than going 3-2 and getting an octos bid... The + rounds account for that. I can think of 2 main arguments against this: 1. There could be some teams "on the bubble" that may not be able to get to 8 tournaments if they don't get in. 2. It may be difficult for some teams to attend the extra bid tournaments required due to geography/scheduling problems My response to this would be a couple of things: 1. This is functionally no different than the pre bid system application days. Some teams were left out and had to scramble to find another tournament to fill their 8 after X-Mas. Perhaps someone would want to host a hard-luck state warmup on DCI weekend? 2. I think that the incentive for teams to attend extra bid tournaments is a good thing. There were more than a few teams that got 2 and stopped going to bid tournaments, this could create a feedback loop that would decrease the # of teams with bids and increase the talent level at bid tournaments. 3. The scheduling thing is what it is. Some people complain in the SQ, there will be no way to ever completely solve this. I don't think that this proposal would make the problem much worse. edit: One bonus negative argument w/ response What constitutes a team's bid total? Jimmy has 4 bids and Susie has 2! This one is a little tougher, but there are many ways to address it. One example is that the team bid total = the highest numbered individual as long as each member has at least 2. You could also make a rule that each team has to have attended 1 tournament together in order to attend DCI (with exceptions for scheduling issues/illness). This would prevent schools from splitting up a 4 bid team (for example) to go with different partners who didn't quite make the cut.
  7. Here's the link to House Bill 2623 http://www.kslegislature.org/li_2012/b2011_12/measures/documents/hb2623_00_0000.pdf What I find interesting is that there is a provision that requires all changes to KSHSAA bylaws to be approved by the State BOE. I don't think that the video addressed this at all... It essentially is putting a leash on KSHAA. I don't think that this is talking about rule changes to activities, but changes to the way that KSHSAA itself operates. This rule, combined with the new appointees to the board is a way for the State gov't to assert a little more control over KSHSAA. That said, I don't think that this would really effect Debate/Forensics. I'm not all that familiar with the current representation structure and if the new proposed league designations would apply to debate... I don't think that it would really change anything.
  8. That's good to hear. Best of luck. It needs to be said that you guys put up arguably the greatest season ever by a KS team. Congratulations on all your success.
  9. Just got word that Kapaun went 5-2 and cleared. Congrats to them.
  10. As for "big" schools the rankings would be: 1. (tie) Hutchinson - 16 1. (tie) Topeka High - 16 3. Blue Valley - 14
  11. I agree with nearly everything in Birzer's post. The tournament is too big. However, the vast majority of coaches (so I'm told, I wasn't at the meeting) preferred the SQ over any sort of tournament-shrinking reform. With that conclusion, I think that we need to make several changes to the format to give us more consistent results. With less teams, the 7 round format was ok because there was nowhere to hide. This is no longer the case. With a larger tournament, a team can go through the whole tournament and compile 5 wins, a losing opp-record and finish in the top 5. I think that an example of the problem is this year... If BY would have lost round 7 we would have had 3 6-1 teams and DCI would have been decided by speaker ranks (someone please correct me if I'm wrong)... I don't want DCI to be decided by speaker points. I'd much rather it be decided head to head, in out rounds. I realize that DCI has always been this way on some level, but a larger tournament allows for: a. More 6 win teams. b. Those 6 win teams to have a wildly different draw.
  12. http://hutchnews.com/Todaystop/Nickerson-students-follow Nice article about Nickerson
  13. Nickerson lost in the finals of 4A 2spk (I haven't heard who they debated). No one was seriously injured in the accident, although several were taken to the hospital.
×
×
  • Create New...