Cory, Travis, and Jon started a good discussion in comments section, but some others may not have access to comments section from school. I don’t. We realize that this is the track, prom, and thank-god-debate-is-finally-over season, so we thought a cyber worksheet might be in order.
Question 1. Can you live with two judge panels? Why or Why not
Question 2. If we go to two judge panels, what should we use as tiebreakers? Please list them in order.
Question 3. If you are a class A coach, when does a separate Class A tournament cease to be a viable option? Should it be decided on an event by event basis? Do we need to write rules establishing a contingency plan if we suddenly don’t have enough entries to warrant a separate tournament?
Question 4. Last season, the SDHSAA Board of Directors voted to waive the mandatory two team rule in policy debate. We will probably endorse the permanent elimination of that rule at our meeting. If there is no longer a two-team mandate, do we need to change the sweepstakes formula back to best entry?
Question 5. How may preset rounds are too many? When should the elimination process start?
Question 6. Are two IE rounds enough? Is what happened this past year better than the one and done.
Essay Question A. Do you want to see major changes at the state tournament? For example, Paul Harens claims that one proposal that was made in the distant past involved each school bringing only 5 students to the tournament. Those students would enter in all the debate and IE events. I only remember the wooly mammoth and saber tooth tiger; those of you who remember pterodactyls and the t-rex will have to vouch for the veracity of Paul’s memory. Anyway, what major changes would you like to see?
Essay Question B. If you don’t want major changes, what changes do you want to see happen in the state tournament?
Please post your answers in the comments section. Neatness counts. We can’t give late answers full credit.
5 comments:
Question 1: Two-Judge Panels -- I can "live with" perhaps any arrangement of judges that makes the tournament possible. One could argue that having rounds judged by one judge wouldn't be beyond the pale (some stomachs will turn at the sports analogy, but state basketball tournaments have the same number of refs as regular season games). If we can afford and obtain a large anough judge pool to keep three judges in every round, great. But on this question, it seems the practical policy paradigm needs to take priority over the philosophical LD paradigm: we'll have to accept the judging pools that we can afford.
Question 2: Tiebreakers with Two-Judge Panels -- Not by speaker points, that's for sure.
Question 3: Class A, How Small Is Too Small? Any event where we have fewer than eight entries is too small for me. We need at least to able to run a byeless sequence of quarters, semis, and finals in debate. In IEs, there should be at least 3 rounds -- 2 prelims with more than one section and a final. Smaller than that and we become too much like Class AA interp and one-act, where coaches pick entrants to come to the culminatory event of their season and perform once.
3.1: Contingency plan for insufficient entries -- No. I don't think any other activity has such a contingency plan (although that's a point for the committee to research). If this year's snow delay had caused Class A LD to collapse to two entries, the fair, reasonable, and practical option is to have them slug it out for the big trophy. We handle insufficient entries just like forfeits. If the hall is rented and the orchestra engaged, we still have the dance.
Question 5: Maximum Preset Rounds -- The more the merrier. I'll take presets until I run out of fresh contestants. Practically speaking, I liked this year's four. If we have the judges for five or six, great! There could be an argument for testing students under the sort of circumstances they face at most big tournaments during the season. Six might even be preferable to ensure an equal number of rounds Aff and Neg.
Question 6: Two IE Rounds -- Two rounds are barely enough. One and done is bad.
Essay Questions A and B -- I return to an arguably lazy LD position, offering not a formal plan but a value position; Whatever changes large or small are wrought, I welcome discussion of any changes created in the spirit of increasing participation and excitement at the State level. More schools, more kids, more rounds, more fun.
Q 1: Live with, don't like.
Cory is correct about basketball, but then again they have 3 to start with because one couldn't handle all of the running and watching everyone. I liken this to debate when one judge hears an argument and the other judge or judges, "never heard that."
Q 2: I am with COry. Not by speaker points, aka "Did you make me angry, annoyed or bored points?" and "Did I really need to be somewhat on the same wave length as the rest of the judges in the building?" and "A 30-ponit ballot...what is that? I only give that many points to those who are perfect in my eyes and none of these youngsters will ever be that good." (Sorry I got snarky.)
Q 5: 4 makes sense and 5 would also be nice, but the math doesn't allow. Remember the round where school A and school B hit and school D and school C hit, etc.?
Q 6: The shear numbers do not allow for 3 rounds well paired.
Two was amazing compared to 1 and out.
Question 1: Three is best, but I can live with two. It is not the best, but it is acceptable.
Question 2: I also agree with Bergan and Cory. Maybe use strength of Opp. and if that doesn't work, have them slug it out in a run off round.
Question 3: I know the state of Policy is the biggest concern. If we go with preset rounds (which I like!) Then I say that you should stop after 7 teams. You can still use preset at that point. I disagree that we need to have quarter-finals to break in A deabte. Semi finals are fine if they get more than 2 rounds to set them. I don't want to see the entire division meld. With PF growing and maybe even LD, I know that those can be viable events. It maybe that Policy event on the AA level will need to merge with A to keep it viable.
Q4: I am fine with it and think that teams that don't bring in anyone will lose out those point and must make them up some where else.
Q5. I think a range of four is fine. If there are more than 10 than go to quarter-finals. Four for all events and then 3 for A policy (unless we get up to 8 teams again!)
Q6. I agree with Jen. I think two rounds is all that you can fit in. I think that it is fine. I don't want two judges for this event though. It is a jumbled mess that three judges simplify.
Question 1 - It would be best with three but only if they are qualified judges, two qualified judges work and the change is likely necessary.
Question 2 - not speaker points. Run-off if it can be scheduled otherwise strength of opp.
Question 3 - not for me to comment on.
Question 4 - we should change the formula to best entry - I have always preferred this at any tournament.
Question 5 - it depends upon the number of entrants in the events (number of schools changes and not all bring two in each event). Often divisions are too small to make more presets worthwhile.
Question 6 - Again, not enough entrants to justify more rounds even though two does not allow for anything but an 'on' round for a competitor.
Essay - I wish that more rounds could be fit in, with more students participating and more judges providing a more lively exciting weekend. However, many of the decisions have been made because they were necessary (like shortages of judges, etc.) Willing to listen to others ideas----
I don't know if anyone is looking at these anymore, but here are my responses:
#1 -- I liked the two judge panel, but feel we should have more rounds. We obviously couldn't with the one-day tournament, but with a two-day one, I think we could get more rounds and then break. Three is nice, but the two is also good (the only question I would have is NFL points regarding splits?).
#2 -- Tiebreakers -- not speaker points, those are so arbitrary as to be meaningless! Why not have a tie-breaker round like they do at nats...if 6 teams have 10 ballots and 4 have 9, have those 4 duke it out for the last 2 spots (didn't we use to do something like this for A policy, the undefeated after 3 byed in and some 2-1 byed while the rest debated for the last spots).
#3 -- As a former A coach, unless the entries in all divisions get so low, I would say keep it the same. I think Jennifer makes a good point that Policy might have to combine, but is that feasible with sweeps?
#4 -- I think we can eliminate the 2 team requirement, but if that is the case, then we probably should go with the best entry in each for sweeps
#5 -- For debate pre-set rounds, it depends on the judges. Like I said before, if we have only 2 judges per round, 6 would be ideal. For 3 judge panels, 4 is probably enough (as in years past)
#6 -- I liked the 2 IE rounds and breaking, the 1 and done I never liked.
Essay A -- As for major changes, I'm not sure. I liked the efficiency of the tournament last year. I would like to see the schedule changed a little so there is not so much down time. This leads the students to boredom and that can create problems. So if we can somehow make the schedule flow better, that would be nice.
Post a Comment