Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

30 Good

About JoshAndersonONW

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 06/16/1973

Profile Information

  • Name
    Josh Anderson
  • School
    Olathe Northwest
  1. Hello! The Olathe Northwest Debate Tournament is Oct. 4th at 5th. We are seeking experienced judges who would enjoy varsity-level competition, an outstanding hospitality room, and a highly organized tournament experience. The registration link for judges is available at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dE9hMmRfcy1ESFRTNGF0VXhNM09LZGc6MA#gid=1 Judges may enter their paradigm on the form. Paradigms will be emailed to school approximately one week before the tournament. If you have any questions, email me at jandersononw at olatheschools dot org. Thanks! Josh
  2. JoshAndersonONW

    Dci Reform

    As an aside, I believe that KSHSAA does not permit Sunday competition at high school tournaments. My understanding is that non-KSHSAA schools can do whatever they want, and they typically call their Sunday rounds "exhibition rounds" to allow Kansas (and other states) to attend. While KSHSAA hasn't taken a firm stand on KS kids doing Sunday rounds at colleges and out-of-state tournaments, it would probably intervene quickly if a member school (like the DCI host) had any level of competition on Sunday, regardless of what they called it. Administrators would also likely prevent this from happening.
  3. JoshAndersonONW

    Dci Reform

    I believe that the majority of coaches agree that the DCI tournament is too big. Not all, but most. For the coaching community, the debate isn't necessarily about the size of the tournament, it's about the mechanism we choose to shrink the tournament, and thus far, no proposal has received a majority vote. The sticking point with most proposals seems to be about the floor, not the ceiling. In those years when a handful of very talented teams attend a whole bunch of bid tournaments, the bids are less widely distributed, which means that fewer teams qualify for DCI. Most proposed mechanisms intended to shrink the size of DCI work really well when the bids are evenly distributed, but under different circumstances, create an intolerably high threshold that would not only over-shrink the tournament, it would also jeopardize the perception that the system accurately invites the best teams in the state. If this were to happen, the outrage about the more-talented teams that didn't get in would be equal to or greater than the current outrage about all the less-talented teams that did get in. Given the choice between the two, we choose the latter, although we like neither. It is absolutely true that every round at DCI should feel like an elimination round, and the coaching community is very interested in finding better ways to make that happen. But we haven't discovered yet anything that would ensure a comfortable floor and a comfortable ceiling - everything swings too wildly in one direction or the other. One possible solution would focus on moving away from the simplicity of two or three bids. If two is too big and three is too small, we may have to think outside the box, and this opens up a whole new level of possibilities. I would invite all students and coaches to begin a discussion that could result in a) a proposal that includes some statistical modeling using data from previous years, and widespread support of the prosal from the coaching community. There is no reason why anything proposed and discussed here coudn't be the system we eventually adopt. Debaters are also highly encouraged to discuss this with their coaches. Keep in mind that there a few things that are working really well with the bid system, and most coaches would be reluctant to adopt a system that threatens or diminishes these advantages: First, there is almost zero support for retuning to a system where the coaching community ranks and rates individual teams via application. While that could guarantee a precise cutoff, it also over/under values teams based on perception, and we want all teams to be considered based on performance, not reputation. Second, the bid system does a good job of creating a magnet tournament each weekend to attract the top teams so that these teams get lots of exposure to each other. So creating multiple bid tournaments each weekend is probably a non-starter for most coaches. In olden days, schools would drive all over the state chasing their competition only to discover that their competition went somewhere else. Not only did our top teams miss the opportunity to debate each other, but our sophomores and juniors missed the opportunity to get wholloped and learn from it. Third, there is a widely held respect for the varying capacity of teams to travel and the distance they must do so. For this reason, geographic diversity is equal to and often greater than the perceived strength of a particular tournament when selecting bid tournaments. Any proposed model should ideally make it equally easy for any debater to qualify for DCI regardless of his or her zip code. Yes, there are are some realities that make this a very challenging goal, but any proposal must at least demonstrate some deference to it. I hope this becomes a forum where great ideas are elevated to the top. To do so, I would ask that any debates not central to the premise of finding a better system be set aside or started in another thread.
  4. It's a Christmas Miracle! Olathe Northwest is hosting the 6A/5A 2- and 4-speaker state championships on the weekend of January 13th and 14th. As the hosts, we are required to recruit a big chunk of the judging pool, especially for 4-speaker. We are very short on judges right now and not for lack of effort. So here's your chance to transform all your complaints into something helpful. Help me find these flow judges. I don't know their names, and I don't know how to contact them. Send me a PM with their contact info, or have them email me. I WANT to use them, and they are guaranteed to judge every single round. I will contact them, and I will sign them up. If they exist (and you say they do), tell me who they are, and I will seek them out.
  5. Here's the deal . . . 1. We have to beg schools to submit bids, so publicly trashing their tournaments will make the problem worse. If you reluctantly agree to do someone a favor, and they follow up by castigating you in public, you probably won't do them any more favors in the future. 2. There are 11 DCI weekends. For the past three years, 8 of those weekends have been uncontested - the solitary school that applied for that weekend automatically got the bid. Most of these single-applicant weekends have been JoCo or Wichita schools, which means we find ourselves consistently choosing the non-JoCo and/or non-Wichita school when there is a choice to be made. That's why Newton and KCKCC have gotten bids over SME and BV, and that's why Maize and Lawrence alternate each year. 3. Geographical diversity and balance is important for a variety of reasons, and when budgets continue to get slashed, geographic balance becomes even more important. Many folks have wisely argued that geographic diversity is more important than tournament quality since access to a tournament trumps access to a good tournament. 4. It is important that DCI looks like Kansas debate and not the other way around. While most of the concerns in this forum focus on logistics rather than style, a few comments have come close to suggesting that there is a preferred style of debate and the underlying assumption may be that DCI is somehow duty-bound to protect one style over any other. In fact, DCI is just the opposite: we want DCI to reflect what's winning, not what we think ought to win (and there's often a world of difference between the two). It's true that picking one tournament over another could subtly prefer one judging pool over another, but that's not a consideration we've been able to include in our decision-making process yet. So . . . here's what YOU can do to help . . . 1. If you want different schools to get bids, you ought to be encouraging your friends and colleagues across the state about submitting a DCI bid application. Students should consider back-channeling the kids you went to camp with, and coaches should consider the tournaments that they enjoy attending that don't apply for bids. 2. If you want different schools to get bids, thank the schools that agree to host instead of trashing them. If coaches start perceiving a DCI bid an honor for which there is much public applause rather than a curse for which there is much public outcry, we'll probably see more bid applications instead of fewer. I think we can all agree that it's better to have the opportunity to compete at an imperfect bid tournament than to have no opportunity at all. 3. If you want existing bid schools to change their format, talk to your coach (and only your coach). If she/he feels that you have a valid point, she/he can talk with the tournament host privately to express concerns or suggestions. Thanks!
  6. Nope, you're cleared for takeoff. There are no KSHSAA rules (or DCI rules) that conflict with the creation and presentation of this award. Quite literally, the only thing standing between the idea and the presentation of the first plaque is the willingness of those who thought of it to follow through with it.
  7. I absolutely agree with Mr. Dubois! I hope these folks accept this opportunity - there's nothing preventing them from making this award happen!!!
  8. Be careful, someone might think you're serious and try to start the revolution (again)!
  9. Dude. Seriously? That's like saying "I'll be the closet case at the mega-church conference." The poor kid has a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa at a Glenn Beck rally. Congrats, Volen, you've saved David Ralph and Jeramiah Forbes from being bothered at some future tournament. As for the rest of us, I guess it's time to play "Find the Fatty!"
  10. Please know that the DCI committee did not revoke any bids. It is the job of the host tournament to provide the committee with the names of the top 16 teams. The host tournament announced what they thought were the bid-earners, but another team successfully grieved that the bid ought to be theirs. The entire dispute remains at the local level and has nothing to do with the DCI committee. The fact that two (or three) teams wrestled over the 16th bid does not mean that every team who occupied that spot is or was entitled to a bid. The host school has since determined and announced who the 16th team was. The committee decision you mention was whether to offer a 17th bid in light of the confusion. The committee decided unanimously against creating a bid as compensation for pain and suffering. We don't deny that the pain and suffering is evident, we just think that handing out bids for reasons other than those explicitly posted is a very, very bad idea.
  • Create New...