Jump to content

t-money

Member
  • Content Count

    371
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by t-money

  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.
  14. The nationals argument is not one that I find compelling, mostly because it would be a nightmare to have an open tab room with 5 billion coaches in it. It's just not logistically feasible. They certainly could use an online program that would post results to a website, I'd certainly be in favor of that. Ask yourself this, would you want tab to be closed at State? Most coaches would have a fit... why would they feel this way? Why is DCI any different?
  15. Again, not unique. The tournament is bigger than most invitationals now. There was a time when every round mattered and even the 3 down bracket rounds in were relevant round 7... That day has likely passed. I'd rather have more information. There's a reason why every other tournament operates this way. You can still close it for round 7 so that you have a surprise ceremony. It makes no sense to me to risk uncorrectable mistakes at a tournament that is arguably the most prestigious one that we have. It makes no sense to me that the tab process and results should be a mystery. Note that I'm in no way questioning the competence or integrity of the committee or the coach(es) that are chosen to run tab, that's not the point. The point is that I'd rather it be open when the stakes are high. I have nothing but respect for the traditions of DCI, that's why I've judged there 10+ times (6-7 times completely unaffiliated).
  16. I'm not against it, but there are just so few people that judge enough to make this work. I've judged about 20 or so of the top 25 in bids, and a large majority of the overall DCI teams. I'm not sure that I'd feel comfortable ranking teams outside of the top 10 or so.... Plus you'd have to have someone compile the results, and swear that person to secrecy as to not put everyone's ballots on blast. I just don't think it's feasible.
  17. See my post above, it's answered there. Sounds AMAZING. Sign me up. If you're not compiling "guess what dumb thing I saw" stories, I'm not sure why you're judging at all.... It's like 83% of the reason I judge. That's answered above. The perm solves this. Probably not a good idea. He's been pretty insufferable since the COY award
  18. First, let me clarify my position... Strategic choices are heightened by the importance of a debate. 2 examples: 1. My round 7 this year was a break round. The Negative decided to run wipeout, an argument that they didn't normally deploy... Had they known that the round was a break round, I'd imagine that they would have chosen different arguments. Perhaps not, but certainly having access to the information about the importance of a debate helps make better choices. 2. A hypothetical: Lets say a team has a case that they haven't broken and perhaps are saving for state. They may choose to break the aff early if they are aware of the importance of their debate. The reverse is also true. If they know that a round is irrelevant, they will know not to break the new aff (if secrecy for state is something that they want to preserve) This argument about making MORE debates irrelevant is kind of absurd. 1. The coach could choose to not tell the teams how they are doing. The coaches can choose not to go in there at all. ANY tournament can be a closed tournament in this way. 2. Kind of terminally non-unique, since EVERY OTHER TOURNAMENT OPERATES THIS WAY. 3. Irrelevant debates with good judges can be FUN, you can read poetry, or run D&G... or whatever other dumb thing the kids are doing these days. (I'm fully aware that I'm opening myself up to offense by making this argument) The perm solves all of your other "offense"... I just don't get why anyone would be against this, when the stakes are at their highest, I'd kinda like to know what's up. There has been no answer to my "tab mistakes" argument. I'll go ahead and assume that you made some sort of probability argument against the link.. EVEN IF you think it's not likely, the SQ doesn't allow any mistakes to be fixed. The Aff (open tab room) and the perm (open after round 5, then closed for round 7 results) both solve for the terminal impact (which is probably the biggest in the round) To preempt: I get that it's a tradition. No one loves DCI more than me, I've judged there more than any other non head coach. You know what else was a tradition? SLAVERY. Zero. Point. of. the. Holocaust.
  19. I'm not hearing any arguments about why the tab room should be closed other than "we like it that way" which doesn't solve for my offense. How about the perm? Open it one round earlier so that coaches and teams know whether or not they are in the break round (before the round). Note that I'm not basing this on hypotheticals, I really think that the debate that I judged in round 7 would have been very different if the teams knew it was a break round going in. I've also seen this happen in the past. You can still close it back to make the assembly a surprise. This also has the net benefit of being able to potentially address a tab mistake.
  20. I'm hesitant to post anything about this subject, but it won't be the first or last time that I give loud opinions about things... Now that it has been established that the large field is the preferred disposition, I think that there are a number of things that should be addressed about the tournament: 1. MPJ - It seems like this needs to be addressed. There seems to be changes from year to year on this front that aren't ever discussed or agreed upon. I think that this needs to be standardized with a written procedure, after consulting with a Darren Elliot type to get some best practices. My proposal would be to have a standardized ranking process and require that all judges post a philosophy to the wiki prior to the tournament... 2. The tab room should be open. Strategic decisions are sometimes situational.... having information about the importance (or non-importance) of a debate can have influence in what arguments are chosen. 3. I think that the tournament should break to octos after 5 (or 6) rounds.... or failing that: a. All 5-2 teams should medal... It broke nice this year, but I suspect that won't always be the case b. Round 7 (at the very least, probably round 6 also) should be paired high-low within brackets as opposed to high-high. I find it odd that the matchup between the 5 and 6 seed in round 7 is pretty much guaranteed to eliminate one team. c. Opp record is probably a better tie-breaker than speaker points or ranks, in this format specifically. The coaches also voted to eliminate the high-high matchup in round 1. This was a positive step.
  21. I'll add BVN EJ vs BVW BY - Sems at Wichita East BVN runs Heidegger PX and a bunch of case. (there might have been a CP, can't remember).. also T in/throughout. Spencer intelligently kicks out of the econ adv in the 2AC to devote more time to the K. Hunter gave a FANTASTIC 2NC on Heidegger. Seriously one of the better HS 2NCs I've ever seen. Sarah went hard on PX and T (I think) Chris gives a solid 1AR, correctly predicting what the 2NR will do (go for Heidegger) and spends time accordingly. Right before he gives the order, his laptop crashed to the floor. I thought for sure that the screen was shattered, but somehow it was totally fine. Spencer and Hunter's rebuttals are solid (but not spectacular). I was on the bottom of this decision, but it easily could have gone either way. The best round I've seen in quite a few years. This round was so good that I immediately texted/called several people to tell them how good it was.
  22. This is interesting. How many judges per entry does a EK school have to provide? I could see eliminating the community pool being an interesting solution. Especially if you combine it with a system where you either don't panel the first 2 rounds or allow freshman on day 1. This could keep your pool clean(er) and somewhat solve for the idle judge problem.
  23. A few points of clarification: 1. You can't host NFL after State. That is a firm KSHSAA rule that has zero chance of changing. 2. This whole idea of capping entries is baffling to me. If you did this pretty much every district would only qualify 2. I don't get why this is better than the SQ, AT ALL. I'm kind of meh on the Freshman thing. Sunflower has allowed Freshmen on day 1 for well over a decade, and it seems to work for them. I guess I'm not against it, I just think that the knee jerk reaction from a lot of coaches is going to be to say no. I can see both sides of this. Sam is 100% correct. While it is interesting to entertain the hypotheticals, the chances of anything changing are pretty low. The current system is certainly not optimal, but it is the same for everyone. Also, it has been this way for decades (ever since speed and contemporary debate became a thing). Adapt. Survive and advance.
×
×
  • Create New...