Daniel Moerner Wins Stanford
Palo Alto's Avi Arfin Wins J.V. Title
Paul Tyger and Daniel Moerner
STANFORD, Cali. — The Stanford National Invitational came to a close in the early hours of Monday morning with a final round that featured Los Altos High School’s Daniel Moerner and Strake Jesuit College Preparatory School’s Paul Tyger; the two very talented debaters competed through six preliminary rounds that included over two hundred debaters and through an elimination round bracket that began with the top forty-eight debaters in the field. In the final round, Daniel defeated Paul on a 3-0 decision to win the Stanford title. Congratulations to both debaters!
Daniel is coached by Eric Palmer and Stephen Hess; Paul is coached by Jerry Crist, Gary Johnson, and Murvin Auzenne.
Congratulations are also in order for the two finalists in the tournament’s competitive junior varsity division: Palo Alto High School’s Avi Arfin and Redlands High School’s Jessica Kaushal! The J.V. division began with just over one hundred debaters and cleared the top twenty-four debaters into the elimination rounds. In the final round, Avi defeated Jessica on a 3-0 to win the title.
Avi is coached by Jennie Savage and Daniel Sheehan; Jessica is coached by Michael Newbold and Stephen Caperton.
—
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
DOUBLES
Los Altos DM def. Lynbrook RR (Rohit Ramkumar)
Mountain View JM def. Rancho Bernardo TN (Tara Norris)
Monta Vista OA is forfeited to by Archer MS (Melissa Schall)
Hockaday JG def. Presentation NA (Nadia Arid)
Hockaday SV def. Strake Jesuit DD (David Donatti)
Analy CC def. Altamont SA (Sasha Arijanto)
Strake Jesuit PT def. Lynbrook GG (Gaurav Gupta)
Collegiate MW def. Hockaday LD (Lindsay Dolan)
Mountain View NP def. Gonzaga Prep AF (Augie Faller)
San Dieguito MS def. Strake Jesuit TL (Todd Liipfert)
St. Louis Park CT def. Meadows AK (Adrienne Keamy)
Palo Alto RR def. Mountain View DK (Daniel Khalessi)
Blake JS def. Mountain View DG (Daniel Garber)
Hopkins CD def. De La Salle TF (Tim Frank)
Rancho Bernardo CB def. Granada Hills ZA (Zita Aradi)
Monte Vista AW def. Carnegie Vanguard RV (Rachel Vogel)
OCTAS
Los Altos DM def. Mountain View NP (Natalee Pei)
Mountain View JM def. San Dieguito MS (Matt Slemon)
St. Louis Park CT def. Monta Vista OM (Om Alladi)
Palo Alto RR def. Hockaday JG (Joan Gass)
Blake JS def. Hockaday SV (Shivani Vohra)
Analy CC def. Hopkins CD (Conor Doherty)
Strake Jesuit PT def. Rancho Bernardo CB (Cameron Baghai)
Monte Vista AW is forfeited to by Collegiate MW (Marc Wallach)
QUARTERS
Strake Jesuit PT def. Monte Vista AW (Anna Ward)
Los Altos DM def. Mountain View JM (Jeff Merrill)
Palo Alto RR def. St. Louis Park CT (Catherine Tarsney)
Blake JS def. Analy CC (Chris Catterton)
SEMIS
Strake Jesuit PT def. Blake JS (John Scoggin)
Los Altos DM def. Palo Alto RR (Rahul Ramakrishnan)
FINALS
Los Altos DM def. Strake Jesuit PT (Paul Tyger)
CHAMPION
Los Altos DM (Daniel Moerner)
Popularity: 39%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 205.134.251.132
February 8th, 2008 06:47
[…] Coverage Scarsdale: […]
Posted from: 128.36.68.164
February 8th, 2008 16:13
i havent been to vbd in awhile but i couldnt help but notice that it resembles espn.com now
Posted from: 66.27.90.134
February 8th, 2008 17:09
good luck tara and cameron:D
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 8th, 2008 21:38
meadows as 1-0
analy cc 1-0
lynbrook ns 0-1
Posted from: 68.196.204.206
February 8th, 2008 21:49
Good luck to all those representing the fabulous state of New Jersey
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
February 8th, 2008 22:25
spirtos gotta be honest I never saw the point of updating after rd. 1, but I can’t rag on you for your efforts though.
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 9th, 2008 01:08
i mean as a debater when i wasn’t at a tournament i was always curious so i try my best
lynbrook ns 0-2
analy cc 2-0
meadows as 2-0
lynbrook rr 1-1
Posted from: 72.254.5.50
February 9th, 2008 01:29
Blake PO 1-1
I think John’s up at least 1, he didn’t get any disclosures.
Posted from: 72.254.55.97
February 9th, 2008 01:39
http://hs.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1010429022453&ref=share
if you have the means of viewing that i highly recommend it. (a glimpse into Phelan’s goals for the tourney)
Posted from: 72.254.5.50
February 9th, 2008 01:55
Matt and/or John (I’m guesing Matt by the email address but I’m not convinced Scoggin didn’t give you the idea). Please stop posting that link. It’s getting to the point where I find it harassment.
Posted from: 128.101.49.15
February 9th, 2008 01:59
in case you cant see the video you can use my facebook account:
email: julian.switala@gmail.com
password: wallri$goblin
Posted from: 38.114.142.192
February 9th, 2008 13:23
mvla jw- 2-1
mvla dk- 3-0
mvla dm- 3-0
lhs rr- 2-1
slp ct- 2-1
Hockaday jg-3-0
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 9th, 2008 13:24
analy cc: 3-0
Pres SG: 2-1
Meadows AK: 3-0
Meadows NB: 1-1
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 9th, 2008 13:39
Presentation NA: 3-0 (i thinK)
Meadows AS: 2-1
Meadows NB: 2-1
Posted from: 68.196.117.93
February 9th, 2008 16:11
Good luck Tara!
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
February 9th, 2008 16:42
gogo catterbaby racer
Posted from: 71.167.189.179
February 9th, 2008 17:58
garbert will win the tournament
Posted from: 38.114.142.116
February 9th, 2008 18:06
lhs gg- 3-1
lhs rr- 3-1
lhs cs- 3-1
lhs ns- 2-2
mvla dg- 3-1
pres na- 4-0
mvla dk- 4-0
mvla np- 4-0
mvla jw- 3-1
palo alto rr- 3-1
slp ct- 3-1
meadows nb-2-2
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
February 9th, 2008 20:14
ROHEEZY!
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
February 9th, 2008 20:52
I’m calling it for RAHUL
Posted from: 75.72.51.82
February 9th, 2008 22:09
hopkins cd: 4-1
Posted from: 72.254.14.68
February 9th, 2008 22:32
Millburn GB: 3-2
Millburn US: 3-2 (i’m not 100% sure)
Millburn KJ: 3-2 (also not 100% sure, missing a disclosure)
Posted from: 71.139.10.115
February 9th, 2008 22:33
Los Altos DM 5-0
Mountain View NP 5-0
Strake Jesuit PT 5-0
Mountain View JM 4-1
Mountain View MM 4-1
Mountain View DK 4-1
Mountain View JW 4-1
Hockaday LD 4-1
Posted from: 72.254.14.80
February 9th, 2008 22:40
todd is 5-0
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 9th, 2008 23:08
nick b: 3-2
amanda s: 2-2 no disclosure
chris catterton 5-0
Posted from: 69.228.187.235
February 10th, 2008 00:07
Hockaday JG 5-0
New Orleans Jesuit WS 4-1
New Orleans Jesuit AM 3-2
New Orleans Jesuit IJ 3-2
Posted from: 72.254.19.22
February 10th, 2008 01:25
Blake PO 5-0
Blake JS 0-5
Posted from: 72.254.21.212
February 10th, 2008 01:37
carnegie vanguard rv is 4-1
so are 1000000 other people
Posted from: 74.72.3.221
February 10th, 2008 08:37
Rachel, EMPLOY MY STRAT. IT’S NO FAIL.
Posted from: 74.68.51.212
February 10th, 2008 10:49
fish
Posted from: 38.114.142.88
February 10th, 2008 11:19
San Dieguito Acad ms 5-1
Rancho Bernardo TN 4-2
Rancho Bernardo CB 5-1
Posted from: 38.114.142.159
February 10th, 2008 11:47
Brentwood:
Brentwood MSh 4-2
Brentwood JL 4-2
Brentwood MSo 4-2
Brentwood MA 4-2
Brentwood BA 4-2
Archer:
Archer MS 5-1
Archer HR- 3-3
Posted from: 38.114.142.169
February 10th, 2008 12:39
lhs gg, rr, ns, cs are 4-2
Posted from: 38.114.142.96
February 10th, 2008 12:40
correction: lhs gg is 5-1
Posted from: 71.198.40.174
February 10th, 2008 12:57
Monta Vista OA: 6-0
Posted from: 76.175.197.13
February 10th, 2008 13:18
lets go brentwood.. hell yea
Posted from: 38.114.142.73
February 10th, 2008 14:15
lhs rr, lhs gg, los altos dm, hockaday jr, dinaddi (sp)
Posted from: 38.114.142.73
February 10th, 2008 14:15
those people broke
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 14:20
Analy CC
MV DG
Palo Atlo RR
Hockaday db and jm i think
granda hills ZA
2 collegiate kids mw and a novice
rancho tn
hopkins
these are what i remember from someone reading the posting quickly to me
Posted from: 38.114.142.73
February 10th, 2008 14:24
lynbrook ns broke [it was put as ‘mn’ realier]
Posted from: 67.165.106.132
February 10th, 2008 14:30
the collegiate ‘novice’ is daniel straus, and hes not really a novice
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 10th, 2008 15:31
does someone have even partial parings?
Posted from: 38.114.142.73
February 10th, 2008 15:39
dinatti’s 2NR was BEAUTIFUL (says a friend)
dinatti def. jessie something from hockaday 3-0 judge decision
Posted from: 38.114.142.73
February 10th, 2008 15:40
judges also liked the 2NR a lot
Posted from: 128.135.224.166
February 10th, 2008 15:43
meadows ak won in partl trips
Posted from: 38.114.142.73
February 10th, 2008 15:55
lhs rr wins
Posted from: 70.56.7.18
February 10th, 2008 16:13
go rohit
Posted from: 128.135.224.166
February 10th, 2008 16:21
archer ms over brentwood jl
Posted from: 69.249.94.118
February 10th, 2008 16:41
did any millburn break?
Posted from: 150.108.232.25
February 10th, 2008 16:46
Everything about David Donatti is beautiful
Posted from: 38.114.142.73
February 10th, 2008 16:59
Hopkins CD def. Hockaday CF, 2-1 judge decision.
random highlight of the round: jkwan flowing 1NC/1NR while lying on the ground.
Posted from: 66.27.52.166
February 10th, 2008 17:07
how r Rancho Bernardo CB and TN doin?
thanks
Posted from: 76.17.212.97
February 10th, 2008 17:35
Who is Hockaday CF?
Congrats, Conor!
Posted from: 66.27.52.166
February 10th, 2008 17:36
??
Posted from: 206.171.73.50
February 10th, 2008 17:42
Good job Brentwood JL
Posted from: 70.231.144.139
February 10th, 2008 17:51
lhs rr picked up on a 3-0
lhs gg picked up on a 2-1
lhs ns dropped
Posted from: 75.72.81.194
February 10th, 2008 17:55
Go Hopkins!
Posted from: 70.56.7.18
February 10th, 2008 17:57
YES ROHIT
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
February 10th, 2008 18:52
Rohit, you got this shit in the bag
Marc, go for bid #5
Posted from: 38.114.142.177
February 10th, 2008 19:14
doubles:
rachel vogel is debating anna ward in front of ashan, marie manley, and greg hertz.
i am judging donatti v. shivani with jon kwan and adam torson; flight b will be john scoggin v. daniel garber
Posted from: 38.114.142.177
February 10th, 2008 19:27
also,
rancho bernardo tn is debating mountain view jm
and
mountain view dk is debating palo alto rr
and collegiate mw is debating hockaday ld
Posted from: 128.135.224.166
February 10th, 2008 19:31
analy cc v sash a (dont remember school)
pinto, dan s, and someone
Posted from: 38.114.142.87
February 10th, 2008 19:41
Collegiate MW picks up octas over Hockaday LD on a 3-0.
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 10th, 2008 19:49
MVLA’s Jeff Merrill and Daniel Moerner won on 3-0 decisions
Posted from: 128.135.224.166
February 10th, 2008 19:51
Analy CC def. Altamont SA
2-1
Pinto, ?, Sheehan*
GO CHRIS
YOU’re QUALLED
Posted from: 76.212.198.36
February 10th, 2008 20:13
go slemon!
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 20:30
slp ct def meadows ak
2-1
Posted from: 76.17.212.97
February 10th, 2008 20:34
Congrats, Catherine!
Posted from: 38.114.142.177
February 10th, 2008 20:41
joan gass also won, in addition to shivani, congrats hockaday! iheard they also did really well in jvld.
Posted from: 24.22.251.42
February 10th, 2008 20:44
chris catterton finally breaks through that white wall which oppresses him.
Posted from: 63.225.146.107
February 10th, 2008 20:56
As related via Switala who was in contact with people at Stanford: Scoggin wins against Garber in a 3-0 decision
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 20:56
i love im proviidng most results and im halfway across the country from the tournament
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 10th, 2008 20:58
Heavy congrats to Natalee Pei, who won on a 3-0 and completed her TOC qual…Daniels Garber and Khalessi dropped. Congrats to Rahul, though, on ending the struggle.
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 21:02
so octas competitors so far:
Analy CC
Hockaday JG
Hockaday SV
Collegiate MW
SLP CT
MV NP
Los altos DM
MV JM
Palo alto RR
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 21:03
blake JS
Posted from: 75.72.51.82
February 10th, 2008 21:12
Congrats to hopkins cd on his second bid!
Way to go Conor!
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
February 10th, 2008 21:22
win diz cattert0nz0rz
Posted from: 74.68.51.212
February 10th, 2008 21:22
Congrats Marc!
Posted from: 72.24.136.181
February 10th, 2008 21:24
Congrats Connor.. Fargo
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
February 10th, 2008 21:25
RAHULLLL
Posted from: 74.70.112.133
February 10th, 2008 21:29
March Wallach is a beast
Congrats to Rohit, got a tough dubz draw dude :(
Posted from: 12.216.111.70
February 10th, 2008 21:31
NICE rahul
Posted from: 69.111.193.139
February 10th, 2008 21:36
Monta Vista OA is in octas. CONGRATS OM ON QUALLING!
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 21:42
hopkins cd v analy cc
nelson
jay
todd n
Posted from: 128.237.252.238
February 10th, 2008 21:47
Congratulations OM alladi :)!
infinite congrats on making it so far in this tournament, this season, and thus far in general.
Also first person to qual from monta vista in 6 years so huge accomplishment
Posted from: 38.114.142.127
February 10th, 2008 21:47
the few doubles rounds i know:
palo alto rr def mountain view dk 3-0 (weeks, cass, mandhania)
blake js def mountain view dg 3-0 (kwan, torson, olivarez)
collegiate mw def hockaday ld
hockaday sv def strake jesuit dd 2-1 (kwan, mcgrath, *olivarez)
hockaday jg def presentation na
analy cc def altamont sa
congrats rahul. you are a warrior.
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 10th, 2008 21:55
Los Altos DM over MV NP
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 10th, 2008 21:55
By the way, congrats to Om!
Posted from: 69.118.235.253
February 10th, 2008 22:14
YE RAHUL
Posted from: 99.145.19.135
February 10th, 2008 22:34
Just before I go to sleep I definitely need to congratulate both Chris and Rahul on qualing and bidding respectively.
Congrats to both of you.
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 22:45
Analy CC def. Hopkins CD
3-0, Nelson Jay Todd
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 23:01
Quarters:
Analy CC v Blake JS ( i think)
Los Altos DM over Jeff Merrill
Posted from: 71.134.239.57
February 10th, 2008 23:10
Catterton finally got his second bid…
MANLY
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 10th, 2008 23:23
catterton v scoggin is going to be a rager.
Posted from: 76.175.197.13
February 10th, 2008 23:32
scoggin let’s go
Posted from: 69.228.187.235
February 10th, 2008 23:34
mike, you’re so lame for not being here bc u can’t miss school
Palo Alto RR def. Hockaday JG (2-1)
congrats catterton
Go Rahul!
Paul Tyger hits Anna Ward in quarters
Rahul hits Catherine
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 10th, 2008 23:40
if i am guessing correctly
PT v AW
CC v JS
RR v CT
DM v JM
Posted from: 38.114.142.177
February 10th, 2008 23:42
spirtos guessed correctly
congrats to those who bid, and congrats to rachel on another bid round, way to ball hard at this tournament.
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 11th, 2008 00:18
moerner v rahul
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 11th, 2008 00:20
js def cc
2-1
nelson on bottom
hertz and jay on top
Posted from: 71.142.83.143
February 11th, 2008 00:35
congrats catterbaby and jeff on quarters
congrats to rahul for being a baller
bring it home moerner
Posted from: 24.7.127.124
February 11th, 2008 00:37
so whos left now?
Posted from: 71.142.83.143
February 11th, 2008 00:41
moerner, rahul, scoggs, and the winner of paul vs anna ward
Posted from: 38.114.142.154
February 11th, 2008 00:44
Paul won,so it’s Moerner v. Rahul and Scagga v. Paul
Posted from: 75.73.219.151
February 11th, 2008 00:47
go rah00l and scogzalicious
Posted from: 38.114.142.154
February 11th, 2008 00:48
as Midnight approaches on the West Coast, we still have yet to finish semis.
Stanford needs to make sure we don’t all fall asleep in the middle of rounds next year
Posted from: 38.114.142.154
February 11th, 2008 01:22
2-1 for Paul over Scagga. Dunno the other round
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 11th, 2008 01:22
Moerner on a 2-1
Posted from: 76.102.128.144
February 11th, 2008 01:27
Doubles:
Los Altos DM def. Lynbrook RR
Mountain View JM def. Rancho Bernardo TN
Monta Vista OA def. Melissa Schall (concession)
Hockaday JG def. Presentation NA
Hockaday SV def. Strake Jesuit DD
Analy CC def. Altamont SA
Strake Jesuit PT def. Lynbrook GG
Collegiate MW def. Hockaday LD (3-0: Manley, Peiris, Hertz)
Mountain View NP def. St. Mary’s AR
San Dieguito MS def. Strake Jesuit TL
St. Louis Park CT def. Meadows AK
Palo Alto RR def. Mountain View D(F)K
Blake JS def. Mountain View DG
Hopkins CD def. De La Salle TF
Rancho Bernardo CB def. Granada Hills ZA
Monte Vista AW def. Carnegie Vanguard RV (2-1: Hertz*, Manley, Peiris)
Some octas rounds:
Los Altos DM def. Mountain View NP
Monte Vista AW def. Collegiate MW (concession; Marc had to catch his flight)
Blake JS def. Hockaday SV
Strake Jesuit PT def. Rancho Bernardo CB
Some quarters rounds:
Strake Jesuit PT def. Monte Vista AW (3-0: Smitty, Kimball, Lawrence)
Los Altos DM def. Mountain View JM
Semis:
Strake Jesuit PT vs. ?
Los Altos DM vs. Palo Alto RR
Posted from: 207.207.127.254
February 11th, 2008 01:40
well i guess it’s not your birthday anymore since this tournament has taken so long, so i cant say win a tourney on your birthday… but still, rep the bay and win the round
Posted from: 207.207.127.254
February 11th, 2008 01:41
oh, and of course, rep the lincoln and douglas are dead memorial debate series… i’d just like to say that alumni have owned this tournament =)
Posted from: 38.114.142.127
February 11th, 2008 02:24
moerner def. paul tyger in finals on a 3-0. (adam nelson, alex smith, greg hertz)
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 11th, 2008 02:34
Daniel Moerner wins on a 3-0…some congrats:
Jeff Merrill on a well-deserved breakout. You will see more of this guy.
Natalee Pei for extending the streak and the qual.
Catterton on the qual.
Om on the qual.
Rahul for ending the struggle and breaking out in a major way.
Catherine on another solid showing.
Moerner for the title. Happy birthday sir.
Props to Michael O’Connell for some nice work with Jeff
Posted from: 72.254.37.66
February 11th, 2008 02:35
om alladi actually didn’t qual i don’t think. he went 6-0, didn’t debate doubles (concession), and lost octas. i don’t know, but i think that winning an outround is necessary to the bid. someone please address this issue, because if om didn’t bid, then only 14 people bid this weekend.
Posted from: 24.4.205.201
February 11th, 2008 03:06
congrats to all who did well! moerner got himself a great birthday present, and many others (rahul, paul, etc etc) proved they really deserve to shine at the TOC come May.
Congrats, too, to Anna for a huge breakout tournament. I’d love to take credit, but her hard work and dedication is really why she’s finally getting some of the success she’s long deserved!
Finally, while I don’t wish to detract in any way from the successes of those who advanced to late elims, I was frankly shocked by some of the decisions of the tab room. Strikes not applying for the bid round, a top-top pull-up round 6, breaking the top 48 kids (for no reason related to the bracket…just 48, at random) to outrounds…any and all of these are problematic, and taken as a whole they represent serious issues with the administration of the tournament. While we were lucky enough not to be overly affected by these issues, that’s really luck of the draw more than anything else. I know that many (including myself) were rather explicitly critical of the tournament while it was happening; I sincerely hope that criticism translates into improvement for the tournament in the future, because the current state of affairs is bordering on the ridiculous.
Posted from: 72.254.37.198
February 11th, 2008 03:37
i think the poor administration of the tournament was epitomized by a certain octas round where one competitor was forced to lose the coin toss for arriving two minutes late. that kind of shit should not occur. just a thought.
but on a brighter note congrats to moerner on the win, paul on finals, rahul on the breakout, catterton on the qual, etc.
Posted from: 66.108.88.254
February 11th, 2008 05:59
Big congratulations to Daniel and Paul, and to their coaches! Did they award iPods again this year?
.
To answer your post, Quinn — while it is obviously J.W.’s call, based on the policy bids awarded at St. Mark’s, I think Om’s bid will be recognized.
Posted from: 70.162.186.168
February 11th, 2008 06:16
Big congrats to Conor Doherty and Jeff Merrill and OMMMM on the bids!
Posted from: 66.233.57.238
February 11th, 2008 06:20
i called this. corgratiz to peeps who qual’d.
Posted from: 128.237.252.238
February 11th, 2008 07:31
and wow good job to all the kids from the bay..
Posted from: 165.123.229.181
February 11th, 2008 07:32
“om alladi actually didn’t qual i don’t think. he went 6-0, didn’t debate doubles (concession), and lost octas. i don’t know, but i think that winning an outround is necessary to the bid. someone please address this issue, because if om didn’t bid, then only 14 people bid this weekend.”
.
I am actually fairly certain that it’s *debating* an outround, not winning one. Last year at Manchester, Andrew Harris walked over Scarsdale people until finals, and then lost in finals, but still received a bid.
Posted from: 167.206.203.14
February 11th, 2008 07:40
RAHUUUUUUULLLLLL
Posted from: 216.220.216.162
February 11th, 2008 08:20
Good job to chriscatterton on the qual and RAHUL on an amazing job and pwning good job Vogel on another bid round
sorry that joan gass “forfeited” her ability to flip, that wasnt right
Posted from: 24.6.64.186
February 11th, 2008 08:39
Congrats to Moerner for winning the tourney, RAHUUUL for breaking out (I told you it would happen), Anna and Jeff for bidding, and Natalee and Chris for completing the qual!
Posted from: 69.181.125.125
February 11th, 2008 10:11
Yea the rule about deating the bid round was actually instituted when i was a debater to prevent walkovers in outs from multiplying bids. the person who didnt debate outs and ws walked over, ie two ppl from the same team hitting in doubles of an octos bid. Also, I’m not sure he should be penalized for a concession, if you concede the bid round you probably deserve to lose. But even then the rule I think doesnt affect people who byed through an earlier round and then walked over, i think according to the records a bye is considered a win, ie two Meadows kids bid at Alta without debating. All in all I’m pretty sure his bid is legit. He was 6-0 anyway, gotta be some testament to his legitimacy.
Posted from: 160.94.28.166
February 11th, 2008 10:56
WHOA! congrats to daniel, daniel, daniel, rohit, CONOR, natalee, jeff, daniel, catherine, chris, john, daniel, rahul…
Posted from: 24.4.205.201
February 11th, 2008 11:04
oh wow i somehow missed this earlier - congrats to jessica on finals of JV!
Posted from: 66.193.126.2
February 11th, 2008 11:09
To Post 121 (Ali Huberlie)
How many people did Scarsdale break that year?
And what did Manchester break to?
Because that’s redonculous.
Posted from: 71.139.10.115
February 11th, 2008 11:16
We got 80GB iPod classics with adhesive plaques.
The final picture that Todd took of Paul and I is pretty struggin…that was about representative of how we were debating at 1:30 am.
Posted from: 129.99.132.59
February 11th, 2008 11:31
As one of the judges in the octas round where the toss was “forfeited”, I would like to add my objection. Poor tournament administration is not a reason for punishing debaters. The tournament was running 3 hours late at that point, and the problem with getting rounds started was that they were scrambling to put together panels because people had to catch flights. The panel was finally assembled for that round less than five minutes before both debaters were assembled. The LD rounds started at 8:00 AM, and the tab needed to get 1 prelim and two elim rounds completed by 5:30 PM to get that octas round off on time. Pairings for octas were released during the awards ceremony at 8:40 PM. Panel substitutions weren’t final until 9:00 PM. For the tournament director to walk in and demand that the debater forfeit the toss because she not in the room the minute the panel was finalized was audacious.
Posted from: 66.167.126.130
February 11th, 2008 11:36
lynbrook rr= rohit ramkumar
palo alto rr= rahul ramakrishnan
just fyi
congrats are in order to- moerner, rahul for getting number 1 and chris for completing the qual, nat for competing her qual, and anna for getting her bid! awesome job guys!
Posted from: 74.73.42.55
February 11th, 2008 11:44
Congrats to everyone that did well.
While I appreciate the Stanford Debate team for putting on a tournament that must be a nightmare to run, there were some glaring issues that hopefully the tournament could overcome in future years.
1. Lateness - While being RIDICULOUSlY late is sort of a hallmark of the Stanford tournament, something seriously needs to be done. It is confusing to me how round 6 can end sometime near 10am and triples does not start until about FIVE HOURS LATER.
Usually when I schedule a flight for 11pm on the final night of the tournament, we are able to debate more than just doubleoctofinals. It’s sad considering the Stanford reg fee’s are incredibly sky-high, yet we miss out on a large part of the tournament due to poor scheduling.
2. I quote from the pairing “strikes do not apply in doubleoctofinals.”
Wait, what? Of all times to ignore strikes. There were doubles rounds where 2/3 of the panel had been struck, which is just outrageous. In the HOURS between outrounds I’m sure some attention could have been paid to assigning non-struck judges to the right rounds.
As always, fun time and thanks all around. Hopefully some of these issues are fixed.
Posted from: 67.40.155.155
February 11th, 2008 11:47
Jeff Merrill and Conor Doherty holding it down for Delta Force Debate. Nice job, guys.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 66.108.88.254
February 11th, 2008 11:49
Wait — the sixth round is on Sunday? Does the tournament start on Friday or Saturday?
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 11th, 2008 11:59
friday 2 rounds 3 on saturday 1 prelim and all outs on sunday
Posted from: 134.173.93.226
February 11th, 2008 12:15
Congrats Catterbaby.
I would like to say that Palo Alto RR was fantastic when I judged him in doubles.
Posted from: 128.135.98.247
February 11th, 2008 12:28
i know
los altos dm was 2nd speaker
analy cc was 3rd
Posted from: 66.108.88.254
February 11th, 2008 12:29
“friday 2 rounds 3 on saturday 1 prelim and all outs on sunday”
.
This is a really surprising schedule to me. Is there not enough room availability for running all the divisions? What time do things start on Saturday? The split schedule with policy debate has always ruled this out for us — not to mention that there is an increasingly strong local tournament on the same weekend — but I never realized there was so much downtime in the schedule.
.
Was there a round robin this year?
.
Daniel: I trust the iPods are in the photograph? :o)
Posted from: 67.165.106.132
February 11th, 2008 12:34
re: quinn’s question
the relevant rule as far as i can tell:
A team or a LD debater must win at least one elimination round to be eligible for a ghost bid. For example, if a tournament breaks at the double-octas level and is a TOC qualifier at the octos level, if two people or teams from the same school met in octos round, a ghost bid would be awarded. If a tournament breaks at the octos level and is a TOC qualifier at the quarters level, if two people or teams from the same school met in the quarters, a ghost bid would be awarded.
two things to note: i couldnt find any other similar restriction for non-ghost bids, and the rule still hasnt been changed to reflect the way that its really used (those examples place the bid round 1 round too early based on how the rule has been used in the past few years).
the rule for a regular bid is just:
A âqualifying leg is earned when an L-D debater, Policy Debate team, Student Congress debater or Public Forum team reaches or surpasses the designated elimination round at a TOC-approved tournament.
no qualifications on how you get there, just get to the round and youre good.
look for yourself: http://www.uky.edu/Provost/ChellgrenCenter/Debate/champions.htm
congratulations to marc and daniel from collegiate for a good showing this weekend. props also to moerner for his pre-tournament prediction.
Posted from: 64.91.217.43
February 11th, 2008 12:40
saturday started at 10am, friday started at 530pm, sunday started at 8am. i have to also echo the concerns of mumper, ankur, et al. this being carnegie vanguard’s first time at stanford, we were frankly befuddled as to why the tournament schedule was the way it was off the bat. 2 rounds on friday, only 3 on saturday, and then 7 total on sunday seems a bit crazy. also, the ’strikes don’t apply to double-octafinals’. . . that, i must say, is particularly angering when we paid thousands of dollars to come to a tournament for a bid, and the bid round happens to be the one with the least amount of management. while i am not a fan of ‘the boy who cried illegit at tournaments,’ i found it even more frustrating to have one of my kid’s doubles judges to say earlier in the tournament “i’m not qualified to be judging.”
that being said, the tournament was a fun experience insofar as seeing a lot of people, and there were some good rounds (our prelims judge draws actually were pretty good [mumper, larry mcgrath, greg hertz, etc]), but the outrounds paneling was just, a let-down to say the least.
and jon, no, there was no round robin.
Posted from: 67.165.106.132
February 11th, 2008 12:40
ps: a related rules question
i had long thought that there was a rule in place which required debaters to participate in the round where the bid is awarded (to prevent people from leaving as soon as they have bids i suppose). i can find no such rule online; has it been changed, or did it ever even exist?
Posted from: 69.134.16.205
February 11th, 2008 12:48
Whats with all the forfeits?
Posted from: 71.139.10.115
February 11th, 2008 12:51
Marc Wallach had to leave due to a plane flight. The schedule on Sunday broke down about like this.
Round 6: 8:00 AM
Triples: 2:30 PM
Doubles: 5:30 PM
Octas: 9:00 PM
Quarters: 10:30 PM
Sems: 11:45 PM
Finals: 12:40 AM
Posted from: 65.112.165.162
February 11th, 2008 12:58
The tournament schedule was bad enough even had it run on time. The fact that only TWO rounds took place between 8am and 5:30pm on Sunday is absurd. There are a number of reasons things went wrong, but it is frankly embarassing for a tournament with an Octas bid to end up like this. The TOC illuminati would lose a good deal of credibility by awarding this tournament an octas bid again next year.
Posted from: 67.168.66.202
February 11th, 2008 13:04
I just want to say congrats to Anna on the bid! I really enjoyed the round (which I lost) with you and you have this way of sounding really clear/polite/upbeat and being confident without being rude. I was going to say congrats after your round w/ Rachael, but I had a feelng that RFD was going to take a little while.
Congrats to Rachael, too. Seriously, is it possible for you not to break? =D
Posted from: 209.98.146.245
February 11th, 2008 13:09
Congrats to Catherine on another bid, Daniel and Paul on finals, Rahul, Scogs, Catterton and Merrill on some extremely well-deserved breakouts (especially Rahul, who seems to have worked his ass off for this tournament and was blowing away everyone who watched him debate as a result), and Conor on completing the qual.
That said, I’d like to echo a lot of what’s been said about the way the tournament was run. An absurdly relaxed schedule (e.g. three rounds over the course of the entire day Saturday) is fine if you actually make some effort to stick to it, but when the information provided before the tournament about when it begins and ends turns out to be off by several hours, it ends up screwing a lot of people over. Marc Wallach may or may not have a bid because octos was running so late that he had to forfeit to make his flight. We went into quarters knowing the even if Catherine won, we would have to forfeit the next round to catch our own flight. That’s not what debaters should have to worry about when they pay however many hundred dollars in the hopes of going deep at a tournament.
Judge assignment was also a big issue. Aside from the decision to disregard strikes in the bid round, decisions about judge placement in prelims often seemed totally unintelligible. After being told that the community preference sheets would determine judge prioritization in prelims, we got a judge in a 4-1 round who had never seen a debate round before this tournament and whom no one in the tab room had heard of. Earlier we got a judge who barely spoke English. And even though strikes were due at something like 1:30 on Friday, they didn’t go into effect for presets starting at 5 and 7 respectively, meaning that we got a couple of struck judges in those rounds as well.
That said, I do think Stanford is a great tournament in a ton of ways, and I hope they manage to solve some of the organizational problems they were dealing with for next year. My suggestion would be to compartmentalize the tournament more, meaning keep LD localized in a particular part of campus rather than having rounds all over the place and have a separate LD tab room in that area. A lot of the delay seemed to be caused by judges and competitors not being able to find their rooms or having to walk 15 minutes to get to them, and more of it seemed to be caused by tab getting overwhelmed with so many different events that they couldn’t attend to very simple tasks like pairing doubles after triples results came in.
Posted from: 24.4.205.201
February 11th, 2008 13:18
if anyone cares:
doubles,
palo alto RR > MVLA DK
hockaday JG > presentation NA
both 3-0 (mandhania, cass, weeks)
octas
slp CT > MV OA 2-1 (werner, mandhania, *mcgrath)
quarters
palo alto RR > SLP CT on a 3-0 (hess, mandhania, peiris)
Posted from: 74.73.42.55
February 11th, 2008 13:44
Agree with Babb. This tournament should be a quarters bid (maximum). They should increase Harker or other west coast tournaments to make up for it.
Or just fix this.
Posted from: 69.12.136.2
February 11th, 2008 14:54
congrats to (i started to write a list here, but there are way too many) everyone who did well.
on the scheduling/delays, I agree with Christian when he says we should “compartmentalize the tournament more, meaning keep LD localized in a particular part of campus rather than having rounds all over the place and have a separate LD tab room in that area.”
I think they moved the tournament away from tab to the 200 building after doubles was such a struggle. Once that happened, the tournament ran pretty well if you look at what DM posted.
Doubles: 5:30 PM
Octas: 9:00 PM
Quarters: 10:30 PM
Sems: 11:45 PM
Finals: 12:40 AM
That schedule seems permissible (in terms of time between rounds, not time of day), even if it doesn’t have the frightening efficiency of apple valley.
Posted from: 67.165.106.132
February 11th, 2008 15:07
re: christians point about marc
sean tells me that there was a debate but marc had agreed to concede. in other words, he was both polite (willing to let someone else advance since he couldnt debate the next round) and made sure he was covered from the unwritten rule i asked about above.
Posted from: 76.30.71.86
February 11th, 2008 15:09
i left early on sunday (noon) because like apparently spirtos i have to go to class, so i missed out on the sunday scheduling drama despite having my flight delayed 7 hours out of san jose - a totally different story.
for a tournament that prided itself so much on its attempts at legit-ness (per the welcoming assembly by the director), i have never seen a tournament near this caliber run so poorly. not only was sunday ridiculously behind schedule, they could not even start the first prelims on friday and saturday on time. looking at the panels on vbd, i see that strikes did not apply for any of the outrounds (not only doubles). for a tournament that required a judge for every 2 debaters (?), the tournament was doing an awful job placing judges. there should have been a massive surplus of judges where the judges in the pool actually got rounds off. this was not the case. what happened to all the judging fees? did stanford just eat them all as profit in addition to $80 entry fees? why aren’t the less experienced judges and random stanford students judging all of the 2-3 and 1-4 rounds? my complaints could continue but it seems others have addressed similar issues.
the problem with the tournament? NOT CAPPING ENTRIES. 240 varsity LD entries. stanford did not have the rooms or the people to tab all the debates that were happening. Stanford has become the new Harvard where the only goal is to make as much money as possible off of entry fees by letting the tournament and judging go down the drain. At least don’t put on the facade of quality.
Posted from: 67.8.227.203
February 11th, 2008 15:12
Congrats to Gauruv, Catterton, Marc, JScog, Rahul, Daniel, and Paul
Posted from: 76.30.71.86
February 11th, 2008 15:16
congrats to moerner.
and to scoggin, rahul, and catterton - all of who were debating very well this weekend.
and to anna ward on quarters.
Posted from: 128.12.77.243
February 11th, 2008 15:30
congrats moerner - this is a big win. you might have to start coaching me soon.
big ups to natalee for completing the qual (now the fourth to do so from MVLA) and to Merill for getting his first bid.
rahul man. how was that like rogue? and catterton you’ve been working hard since camp to get this, congrats.
Posted from: 65.112.165.162
February 11th, 2008 15:37
To answer the question about forfeits, Melissa Schall (Archer) also decided it would be better for the team to catch its flight than pursue the ordeal of getting a later flight (none of which were even available on our airline for that night). It was an impressive and selfless decision for a senior who may not compete again at a national/travel tournament.
As Sean and Tarsney have said, this kind of stress should never be placed on teams and their debaters. Sunday was absolutely miserable for us, attempting to determine our options with airlines, parents, and hotels at the last minute because the tournament was over two hours late in posting only the THIRD round of the day.
The tournament’s inability to stick even remotely to its own schedule was a bit ironic given the list of 10 problems for which students would be held responsible if they didn’t immediately contact the help desk (which was incidently, by no fault of their own, sometimes of very little help). I suppose it is one thing for the tournament to disavow responsibility for judges not showing up and the like–but if they’re going to hold students to such a high standard of proficiency, they should hold themselves to similar standards.
Almost two hours into the wait for double-octas pairings, a friend and I visited the help desk to ask where tab was and what was going on. Having been told the tab room was open (or partially open), this seemed a reasonable request. We were denied that information however, and told that by “open tab” the tournament meant coaches could rate the judges prior to the tournament. Good luck figuring that one out.
So, we stealthily followed one of the runners to what we assumed was the tab room, and jackpot. Again, after having waited almost two hours for doubles, the tab room said they were still waiting on some ballots. There appeared to be next to nothing being done about it.
We were also frustrated by the staggering of rounds, which in conjunction with rampant lateness (even round 1 started at least 30 minutes late) precluded any meaningful or recreational use of time. Had the tournament divided the schedule in half (e.g. policy in the A.M. and LD in the P.M.), many schools would at least have had half a day to enjoy the Bay Area. As it was, there was so little certainty as to when the next round would start that leaving campus was too risky.
Likewise, rounds didn’t get out until so late that having a team dinner out was either unfeasible or inconvenient. Someone jokingly surmised that this was all part of an elaborate conspiracy to inject business into the school’s greasy spoon eatery, The Treehouse.
I have never seen a schedule that was so thoroughly indifferent to the interests of its participants. In light of this, I can’t help but laugh that the invitation virtually begged schools to wait through Sunday evening an attend the awards ceremony. I’m assuming the LD award ceremony got off by 2am or so, but needless to say, we did not wait around to find out.
Among reasons for this tournament’s problems:
-It let too many damn people in. Cap it. And cap what schools can bring in. One reason for the inconsistent judging (we were pleased with our judges but have heard some horror stories from others..) is that when schools can bring 20 debaters, PENALIZED for bringing fewer than 10, charged outrageous fees for hiring out judging obligations, and explicitly discouraged from doing so… parents are going to end up in the pool. This might be alright in California’s unceasingly hysterical “Leagues,” but it is unacceptable for a tournament of such TOC caliber.
-Too many events. There’s a reason Greenhill never runs a bad tournament. It specializes in debate and gets the job done well. It knows how much space it has and doesn’t penalize people attending the tournament in order to satisfy some expansionary ambitions.
-Even with space constraints, the schedule seems to have been developed by a team of either sadists or knuckle-draggers.
*** There seems to be LITTLE DOUBT that financial motivations have contributed to a tournament that was neither “good” nor “great” as predicted by Mr. Frasier. While a number of high school tournaments put on phenomenal tournaments without any significant financial gain, the trend of massive and poorly run college-sponsored tournaments continues. Sean is right–the consumers deserve a better alternative. It may be up to them ultimately to simply NOT GO TO THE TOURNAMENT. BUT, we are put into a difficult position when the TOC conflates a terribly run tournament with a valuable bid-opportunity. This distorts the market and artificially inflates the tournament’s value despite its failure to merit such vast patronage.
We paid Stanford our fees with the expectation that we could theoretically compete in a bid round with plenty of time before our flight. Instead, we had to forfeit that bid round. We waited through three days of a tournament that dragged on and on inexplicably and foreclosed any opportunity to enjoy the Bay Area without unnecessarily missing school only to be faced with a stressful and disappointing climax.
Perhaps the shittiest part of all this… the poor Stanford debaters stationed at the help desk… the friendly gentleman working in tab who kindly apoligized when we had to leave. Obviously, so many of the hard-working and friendly folks at Stanford deserve absolutely no blame for what took place. I was impressed time and again, in fact, but how polite and friendly many of the Stanford students were. They deserve much recognition for being put on the firing line by a tournament that was structurally and inevitably doomed to fail. My thanks and appreciation go out to a lot of the folks who had to work within a severely flawed system.
In any case, I don’t think there’s any need for blame. But there is a need for consequences. The tournament should be awarded the status of other tournaments that can’t run on time… typically local tournaments with no bid and inept administration… or perhaps CHSSA league tournaments.
Where’s my refund.
b
Posted from: 65.112.165.162
February 11th, 2008 15:41
WOW–I didn’t realize octas didn’t start until 9… and Finals at 12:40am. If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be hilarious.
… Glad we left when we did. Had we changed flights, and had Melissa Schall won her doubles round, we would have had to CHANGE FLIGHTS AGAIN!!!
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 11th, 2008 15:51
This tournament was infamously bad when I was a student. The turning point happened in my first year coaching, when Cherian and Seth Halvorson starting running tab. For the next couple years the tournament was fantastic. Last year the APDA team (I think?) decided they wanted to run the tournament themselves and it massively declined. If indeed this is the situation, then someone should let this team know that there is no shame in farming out their tournament to people who know how to schedule for the event and run a big tournament. YDA farms out Yale to knowledgable tab people every year and my impression is that this solution works. I don’t think the issue is “Stanford is a bad tournament take its bids” - it’s obviously a more competitive tournament than many quarters tournaments and one other octos bid. When the rr was running strong it was arguably one of the toughest octos bids. There just needs to be a change in leadership, and it is in the interest of the Stanford team to make it happen.
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 11th, 2008 15:54
Correction - I think Stanford is better than virtually all quarters bids (some times Blake and Valley have monster years) and is at least as good as Harvard, Berkeley and AV in terms of competition.
Posted from: 65.112.165.162
February 11th, 2008 16:04
Obviously octas bid tournaments will have better competition. Competition tends to be a function of where the bid is rather than how well a tournament is run. People fly out to get bids… not to patronize well-run tournaments. My point is that Patterson & Co. would be better serving the community by giving bids to the tournaments that are well run. Then THOSE tournament will have more competitive fields and Stanford will have a less competitive field.
I don’t think saying Stanford has a similar level of competition to other octas bid tournaments says anything uniquely about Stanford. It just means when tournaments have octas bids, they’re always going to have a roughly similar level of competition (obviously more so than quarters bid tournaments). If Harker had an octas bid this year instead of a semis bid, I bet it’d have a great field of debaters too…
Posted from: 74.73.42.55
February 11th, 2008 16:09
I hate to keep beating the dead (dying) horse, but people keep posting things that I cant help but agree with
“*** There seems to be LITTLE DOUBT that financial motivations have contributed to a tournament that was neither “good” nor “great” as predicted by Mr. Frasier. While a number of high school tournaments put on phenomenal tournaments without any significant financial gain, the trend of massive and poorly run college-sponsored tournaments continues…we are put into a difficult position when the TOC conflates a terribly run tournament with a valuable bid-opportunity. This distorts the market and artificially inflates the tournament’s value despite its failure to merit such vast patronage..
This is so phenomnally true. As someone who participated in College debate, I understand how difficult it is to have an administration supportive enough to fund debate endeavors. Tournaments like Stanford/Berkeley/Harvard/etc are all necessary for programs that exist because of the money they make from the tournaments they put on.
But seriously, give something back. You have a RESPONSBILITY to the consumers that purchase your product. Unfortunately, bids are inelastic, and until people start actively not showing up (never going to happen) or the bid is reduced, the tournament has no incentive to correct it’s misgivings.
Stanford fee’s were outrageous. Nobody part of the tournament would disagree - our overall fee’s were DOUBLE what they are at most other tournaments with the same amount of entires/uncovered judges. And again, I understand, this funds your program. But an obligation exists for you to provide us with something worth our money, and Stanford failed miserably.
The greatest irony was the opening speech where Matt Fraizer openly prided the tournament on listening to criticism and constantly improving the event. Sorry, but that just fell ond deaf ears.
Posted from: 207.111.117.1
February 11th, 2008 16:16
Were community judges recruited from the student body? This has been a problem that has plagued college tournaments before.
.
Eric is right that the YDA brings in a very experienced tab staff — Chris Palmer, Jim Menick, Joe Vaughan — and has improved considerably. Columbia also deserves recognition for this.
Posted from: 140.247.103.44
February 11th, 2008 16:43
The problem with Babb’s argument is that bid allocation seems partly determined by inertia. With few exceptions, bids aren’t rapidly reallocated. There are plenty of tournaments that have their bid level set way too high and others which have been plausible octos bid candidates for years (Blake and Valley come to mind) both in terms of the excellence of the tab staff and competition. My point is just that there’s a very plausible solution to the issue available to the Stanford team (if they are in fact the agent in question) which works for other tournaments and which doesn’t require that the TOC committee set a precedent for massive yearly reallocation.
I also think that any proposal to cut back the bid level of California should be carefully scrutinized. Californians have won TOC in ‘03, ‘06, and ‘07, reached finals in ‘05, and reached semifinals in ‘04, ‘05, and ‘06. As a state, only Texas has a resume like that from the past five years (champ in ‘05, finalists in ‘06 and ‘07, semifinalists in ‘03, ‘04, ‘06 and ‘07). My point isn’t California is the best debate or something silly like that; I’m just saying that if you give TOC track record any weight, this region matters.
If Sean is right, though, that the Stanford team will not listen to reason, then I think swapping some bids to Harker might make sense. That is still a net loss of 4 bids to the NorCal region though, which seems unfair given the sheer number of tournaments that have too many bids in some other regions.
Posted from: 65.112.165.162
February 11th, 2008 17:10
Agreed on keeping the bids in Cali.
I’m sympathetic to Eric’s point that an easy solution would be for Stanford to just have someone capable run it. And maybe that can happen, at which point I wouldn’t complain.
I guess my concern is with the prevalence of problems this year and the extent to which some of them just weren’t tab’s fault. The schedule, size, lack of hired judges (note the call for judges on VBD didn’t go out until Feb 5) weren’t tab’s fault. Ridiculous policies like penalizing a team $50 for not bringing a shit slew of debaters, for example, seems to be a policy purely designed to drive up profits (at the expense of the tournament’s quality).
I also agree with Eric that a precdent of shifiting bids around quickly might become problematic. But other than appealing to historic trends, I guess I’m interested in what exactly the disadvantage would be for a world that held tournaments to high standards, even if that required quick shifts in bid. Maybe one bad year would be too harsh of a criterion for removing a bid level. But, frankly, the risk of losing a bid seems a perfect incentive for encouraging top notch tournaments. The historic reality of intertia doesn’t seem to have much good reason behind it–my guess (and partially my understanding based on heresay) is that this intertia has more to do with politics and/or a lack of understanding or interest in what’s going on at tournaments by the TOC folks. I’ve heard that despite significant clamor last year about how bad a particular bid tournament was, Patterson basically said, “alright so X’s bid stays where it is, moving on.”
Sure, there’s a gray area between responsiveness and hyper-responsiveness, but the post Koshy years at Stanford are quickly demanding a change IMHO.
b
Posted from: 65.112.165.162
February 11th, 2008 17:17
Is there a way this discussion could be moved to a thread that doesn’t detract from the congratulations/etc to the debaters who rocked at this tournament?
Posted from: 67.177.225.35
February 11th, 2008 17:19
The Stanford tournament has been notoriously late for many years, especially when they chose not to employ highly qualified tabulation room staff. There are many reasons for this. The primary one is that the members of the Stanford Debate Society have no culture of running a tournament in an efficient manner. Out of the blue, when they made the decision to allow Cherian and his crew run the thing, it was beautiful. That’s because they were penalized. For years, the Stanford tournament had an Octofinal bid. Then, it was reduced and they had to listen. They ran a wonderful tournament, hosted some incredibly competitive round robins, and reestablished their name. Then, for some reason, they decided to go back to the way things used to be. Fair enough.
Tournaments are going to be well run and poorly run. Tournaments like Stanford will respond when their money is at stake. If it’s not, then they won’t. As debate people, the choice is yours. From what I understand, the tournament down at CHHS is extremely well run every year. I know that Colleyville ain’t as pretty as Palo Alto, but the tournament does run on time.
Michelin Massey
Posted from: 24.23.195.189
February 11th, 2008 17:29
In response to Stephen’s comment:
“If Harker had an octas bid this year instead of a semis bid, I bet it’d have a great field of debaters too…”
I’d like to weigh in. The Harker LD tournament has had one of the most outrageously qualified and competitive field of debaters of any tournament in the country for at least the last 3 years. And the judging is phenomenal as well. Plus it’s got some world-class perks: a top-notch round robin, copious amounts of free delicious food for debaters and judges, free housing for debaters flying in, wonderful tab, helpful student ballot runners, great awards, and a small, intimate setting. It’s the best kept “not so secret” of the TOC circuit and this year’s structure is going to make it that much better.
See you there!
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
February 11th, 2008 17:39
congrats paul. i think you have a thing for california tournaments
Posted from: 67.119.14.50
February 11th, 2008 17:39
big ups to scoggin and the tyger for such beastly domination.
Posted from: 65.112.165.162
February 11th, 2008 17:40
1. Ditto to Michelin’s sentiments entirely. The historical analysis seems to suggest that Eric’s similar accounts of the once and future great Stanford tourney may indeed be reasons bid allocation is a strong incentive.
2.
And just to clarify re: Jennie’s point… my comment was not to say Harker doesn’t already have a great field of debaters. My guess is just that if it had an octas bid, the level of competition would rival other octas bid tourneys. It seems as though the only factor that attracts travelling debaters other than bid level might be the host’s name recognition (e.g. “Stanford” and “Harvard” sound like the best tourneys in the country to people who know nothing about debate… such as college admissions departments ;-) ).
But yes, Harker sounds amazing, and we look forward to bringing a pretty big group out this year and in years to come!
b
Posted from: 24.23.195.189
February 11th, 2008 17:41
I’d also like to echo Stephen’s comments about the consistently friendly and helpful ballot table staffers. Stanford U debate team member Ben Picozzi was awesome (as always), as were Erik Holland, and Ranjeet Sidhu. They had a *lot* to deal with and did so with excellent humor and grace.
Posted from: 71.106.83.38
February 11th, 2008 17:42
While Babb already addressed everything I would have said, I do have to say the comment by Ashan of “if you concede the bid round you probably deserve to lose” is totally ludicrous in this situation. The tournament was running so late that rather than force my team to miss our flight, I decided we should leave the tournament. The idea that I “deserve to lose” for something that wasn’t my fault in the least is actually quite insulting.
That said, congrats to everyone who did well this weekend, but especially to Laura Bomes and the two Brentwood boys who debated triples.
Posted from: 24.23.195.189
February 11th, 2008 18:08
Stephen —