Ilya Gaidarov Wins Alta
SANDY, Ut. — The vicennial edition of the Alta Silver & Black Invitational concluded Saturday night with a final round that was to feature Torrey Pines High School’s Ilya Gaidarov and Monta Vista High School’s Tarun Galagali. As Tarun had a flight to catch, the round did not take place; instead, Tarun forfeited, leaving Ilya with the tournament title. Congratulations to both debaters for advancing to finals!
Ilya is coached by Vivian Feig; Tarun is coached by Om Alladi.
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
PARTIAL DOUBLES
Forthcoming.
OCTAS
Monta Vista TG def. Loyola MM (Michael Mezzatesta)
Loyola CP def. Fort Lauderdale DB (Dylan Boigris)
Torrey Pines IG def. College Prep PS (Paul Strauch)
Lone Peak CP def. Vashon KE (Katherine Everett)
Lone Peak OG def. College Prep RG (Raman Ganti)
Churchill County RP def. Loyola TM (Tim McHugh)
Harker CV def. College Prep VR (Viraj Raygor)
Brophy Prep JL def. Torrey Pines CS (Colin Scott)
QUARTERS
Loyola CP def. Harker CV (Chetan Vakkalagadda)
Lone Peak OG over Lone Peak CP (Cameron Partovi)
Monta Vista TG def. Brophy Prep JL (Jeff Lockhart)
Torrey Pines IG def. Churchill County RP (Robert Parker)
SEMIS
Monte Vista TG over Loyola CP (Chris Peak)
Torrey Pines IG def. Lone Peak OP (Oliver Gappmeyer)
FINALS
Torrey Pines IG over Monte Vista TG (Tarun Galagali)
CHAMPION
Torrey Pines IG (Ilya Gaidarov)
—
TOP SPEAKERS
1. Robert Parker — Churchill County High School (NV)
2. Ilya Gaidarov — Torrey Pines High School (CA)
3. Oliver Gappmayer — Lone Peak (UT)
4. Katherine Everett — Vashon High School (WA)
5. Michael Mezzatesta — Loyola High School (CA)
6. Chetan Vakkalagadda — The Harker School (CA)
7. Kevin Colton — Brophy College Preparatory School (AZ)
8. Chris Peak — Loyola High School (CA)
9. Megan McHugh — Desert Vista High School (AZ)
10. Dylan Boigris — Fort Lauderdale High School (FL)
Popularity: 7% [?]
test
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
December 12th, 2008 23:25
[...] Alta — Awaiting Results Dowling Catholic — Awaiting Results Isidore Newman — Awaiting Results Ridge — Awaiting Results Westlake — Awaiting Results [...]
Posted from: 67.108.233.162
December 12th, 2008 23:59
All 5-2s will clear (as opposed to the straight octas listed in the invite)
Posted from: 99.55.171.45
December 13th, 2008 00:00
Why the fuck is Alta a quarters bid?
Posted from: 69.181.134.250
December 13th, 2008 00:15
does anybody know harker and brophy are doing
Posted from: 24.7.92.133
December 13th, 2008 00:20
So that excellent debaters from a region that has few other bids, and very few travel opportunities (for a whole host of reasons, almost always out of the debaters control), have a chance to compete for a chance to go to the TOC.
Seriously, there are some awesome programs out there…If you put Salt Lake City West in Dallas area, where they would get some access to local tournaments with at least some national-circuit type rounds, they’d be much more known nationally. Plenty of good debaters from Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, and California come out.
It’s entirely true that the competitors here are not as well known as the competitors at other quarters bids…but that’s a self fulfilling prophecy…take all the national-circuit bid tournaments out of a region, and surprise-surprise, no-one knows the debaters from that region.
Posted from: 99.55.171.45
December 13th, 2008 00:32
Jay,
Maybe we should make the Hawaii LD State Championship an octas bid to have geographic diversity.
Posted from: 64.255.180.64
December 13th, 2008 00:41
Harker CV is 5-1
Posted from: 209.2.234.107
December 13th, 2008 00:44
torrey pines IG and CS are both 5-1.
Posted from: 72.254.93.47
December 13th, 2008 01:23
Do remember that this tournament serves the entire mountain region, not just Utah. WY, ID, NM, AZ and CO (all states adjacent to NV) have not a single bid between them. Additionally, most schools in Utah limit their debate teams to a single overnight trip each year. Ultimately, if debaters in this area are to qualify to the TOC, there must be bids available in the area. The tournament has also been very responsive over the years to requests and suggestions from the TOC committee, including offering 7 prelim rounds and clearing all 5-2s.
I usually hate to agree with Jay about anything, but he’s correct that many just don’t know about the strong debaters from this region. My debaters have been impressed by many opponents this weekend. Lone Peak, in particular, stands out (and I could name others if I were with my debaters).
Posted from: 66.91.82.161
December 13th, 2008 01:58
@ 6
despite the fact that i probably agree with you about the state of the hawaii state tournament (an am probably more qualified to offer a judgement about it), its unnecessary to use it as the prime example of bad debate.
thanks,
the guy who won that tournament last year.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 08:16
I agree with the diversity point here. I think, however, the real issue is bid level. I really believe that the quarters bid entices people from neighboring states (and some not neighboring) to regularly appear at Alta to “bid hunt”. Last year, for example, only 2 outround participants were from UT. AZ/CA/NV were all well represented. And only 1 bid was collected by a UT resident. Two years ago 0 UT residents received bids. Instead they went to CA/MN/NV/WA.
If the bid was lowered to semis or even finals it would decrease the incentive for others to attack UT for it’s bid this weekend. All this is to say that I think that finals bids do a MUCH better job of servicing a region than do quarters bids. We’ll see how it pans out this year, but I’m willing to wager it’ll be much the same.
If diversity is the argument, then you HAVE to decrease the Alta bid.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 13th, 2008 08:19
Seriously @6, dont be a dick.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 13th, 2008 08:25
And why decrease the Alta bid if it’s the ONLY bid many people from UT get access to? It just doesn’t make sense. Equality and fairness for all, right?
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
December 13th, 2008 09:22
GL to my peeps from Desert Vista and Brophy!
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 09:34
Because the only way for them to have a good shot at getting the bids we have to eliminate the incentive for teams to travel into UT and take the bids.
For example, AZ is a relatively under serviced area. ASU as a finals bid pretty much ensures that teams with tons of other opportunities don’t collapse on AZ that weekend. History then, proves, that AZ folks get bids more frequently at ASU than do UT folks at Alta.
Seems pretty simple.
And for the record, those UT folks typically make it out to 2 or more other bid tournaments each season. Not that it’s a ton of opportunity, but the ZERO other chance argument is just false.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 09:43
Maybe a little clarification is needed. If we are seeking to promote geographic equality (to some extent) then the system that we (the TOC committee) constructs to promote that must take into consideration the way things play out in the real world.
If we declare that the WY/ MT/Dakotas are under represented and therefore deserve a bid tournament. So the TOC Cmte grants a bid to a tournament in Billings (the most central location). If that tournament was a finals or semis bid you probably wouldn’t see teams from IA/MN/NV/CA/etc showing up (just as you don’t see many other states at Alabama or Washington low level bid tournaments). If, however, the Billings tournament was a quarters bid you’d probably see folks from all over the map showing up for a shot at the bids (just as you do at Valley/Alta/etc).
This is to say that the number of available bids deeply impacts the likelihood of the tournament’s insularity. If you want the bids to stay in that state/region then the level has to stay low.
Posted from: 207.233.77.181
December 13th, 2008 10:11
anyone know loyola results?
Posted from: 128.59.153.153
December 13th, 2008 12:48
Torrey Pines IG and CS are both breaking with 6-1s
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 12:52
Dan,
The thing is, I think it’s good from some out of state people to come in. Really, of all the states you cited as having bid, not one is represented sufficiently. I have no problem with Arizona, Nevada, and Montana taking bids at Alta. California is a different category, in that it’s much more represented than these other states, but I’m hard pressed to call california over-represented in terms of bids. Seriously, whereever you redistributed these bids, they’d go to areas MORE represented than the regions served by Alta.
Also, the point is not that Utah should be given bids without competition. The point is that they should have a chance to compete in this type of debate, and get to see what out-of-state competition is like, without having to travel 400-500 miles. A lot of these kids do everything right- They go to camp and they work hard. Then they come back to Utah, and get VERY GOOD at the style of debate they do at locals. But they don’t get a chance to apply what they learned at camp in national-circuit style rounds. That’s what Alta does. It gives sophomores and juniors in the region a reason to go to camp, and it prepares them for their travel tournaments (if they are allowed to).
The sole goal is NOT to have the bids stay in the region…it’s to give them a chance to compete for bids. If insularity were the goal, your theory about finals bids makes more sense. Insularity is NOT the goal (Utah is plenty insular in terms of debate as it is).
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 12:57
Some vague results (from memory, from one phone call from Lexy).
Cleared to Partial Doubles-
5 Rounds in Partials, 22 debaters advance w/o debating
Some of the partials:
College Prep PS vs. San Ramon Valley AS
College Prep RG vs. ? (can’t remember…it’s someone registered independent)
College Prep VR advances over College Prep AK
Two more Partials…can’t remember.
Advancing w/o Debating
Churchill County RP
Loyola TM
Loyola MM
Obviously really incomplete, but I wasn’t trying to memorize results during the conversation w/ Lexy.
Posted from: 99.55.171.45
December 13th, 2008 13:04
at 10,
stop being a douche. no one cares about you.
Posted from: 75.25.160.95
December 13th, 2008 13:05
Good Luck Ilya, Colin!
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 13:14
I’m remembering a few more
Monta Vista TG is in a bubble round, though I don’t remember against whom.
Torrey Pines IG advances w/o debating.
Posted from: 207.233.76.149
December 13th, 2008 13:15
OMG! A BID!!!
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 13:15
And Torrey Pines CS w/o debating.
Posted from: 69.181.134.250
December 13th, 2008 13:22
did harker cv bid
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 13:26
Bid is quarters, octas haven’t started…so no, Harker has not bid yet
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 13:40
LOYOLA COOKIN UP THAT POTATO STEW 2 WEEKENDS IN A ROW!!
LETS GO MEZZ AND TIM!!
FEED ME THE STEW!! DAMNIT!!! FEED ME THE STEW!
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 13:40
The bid round:
Loyola MM v. Monta Vista TG Nelson, Kearl, Willoughby
Loyola CP v. Ft. Lauderdale DB ” ”
College Prep PS v. Torrey Pines IG Empey, Peiris. Daniels
Lone Peak CP v. Vashon KE ” ”
Lone Peak OG v. College Prep RG Savage, Dorsey, Heaton
Loyola TM v. Churchill County RP ” ”
Harker CV v. College Prep VR Eckstein, Lawrence, Saez
Torrey Pines CS v. Brophy JL ” “
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 13:44
Partial Doubles results:
College Prep PS def. San Ramon Valley MS on a 2-1 (KEARL, LAWRENCE, Peiris)
College Prep RG def. Awty PH on a 2-1 (NELSON, EMPEY, Eckstein)
Monta Vista TG def. Riverstone TG on a 3-0 (SAVAGE, DORSEY, HEATON)
Posted from: 24.16.180.238
December 13th, 2008 13:49
OMGZ. Go katherine, oli, tim and robparker!
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 13:50
Speakers:
1. Robert Parker (Churchill County)
2. Ilya Gaidarov (Torrey Pines)
3. Oliver Gappmayer (Lone Peak)
4. Katherine Everett (Vashon)
5. Michael Mezzatesta (Loyola)
6. Chetan Vakkalagadda (Harker)
7. Kevin Colton (Brophy)
8. Chris Peak (Loyola)
9. Megan McHugh (Desert Vista)
10. Dylan Boigris (Ft. Lauderdale)
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 13:56
I think the quarters bid is important for bringing circuit debaters to the area. Finals bids cause isolation because folks will not travel all that far to them under most circumstances. The goal is not simply to give debaters in the mountain states a shot at bids, but also to bring the circuit to them in order to give them a shot at becoming competitive in that style of debate.
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 14:02
Silly demographic stuff.
Top ten speakers and bid round participants were from AZ, CA, FL, NV, UT, and WA.
Posted from: 204.8.196.66
December 13th, 2008 14:10
I LOVE YOU, LEXY GREEN…both for your help with coverage AND your common sense with Alta.
:o)
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 14:20
Jay – If bringing kids in from other regions is the goal then I’m confused about how we chose what tournaments deserve which bids. AZ is insular so make ASU a quarters so that Cali and TX kids come in and take all the bids?
I really don’t see why a semis bid would solve both our positions.
Posted from: 64.255.180.64
December 13th, 2008 14:27
Harker has now bid.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 14:30
If bringing in debaters is a goal then we should inflate bid levels at a whole host of tournaments b/c nobody ever travels to those areas and it’s hard for them to get to large tournaments because of distance.
ASU
Everything in WA
UPenn
Absent a compelling reason for WHY ALTA I’m confused.
The elim round participants are from:
Loyola (3) – A program in CA that constantly travels
CPS (3) – Same as above
Torrey Pines (2) – Same as above
Harker (1) – See above
Ft. Lauderdale (1) – FL program that constantly travels
Brophy (1) – AZ program that constantly travels
That’s 11 of 16. I suppose it’s up to each to draw their own conclusion. But 11 of these programs are at over half a dozen bid tournaments every season.
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 14:33
Well, semi’s is a compromise, so to some extent it obviously solves some of both sides’ advantages.
I’m a little confused what your advantage is. Your argument is make it finals, so they keep the 2 bids in Utah.
My response to this is that 2 bids (and probably more) will go to underrepresented states anyway w/ a quarters bid. So bids for representation is a wash.
The big advantage for the quarters bid is what I argued earlier, and what Lexy says concisely in #33. The goal is not just to give bids to UT. The goal is to give them a chance to engage with a community that otherwise ignores them.
There have been some really high profile rounds at Alta between great local debaters and out-of-state kids. With lots of kids watching. It’s a chance for kids who don’t see those rounds very often to see something different, and see if they want to pursue it.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 14:34
Congrats Chethan
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 14:36
Jay – See my response above. That means we should jack up bid levels at lots of tournaments. You agree with that?
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 15:12
Why Alta-
1. Washington tournaments and ASU have not been responsive to tournament quality demands. Alta has added 7 prelims, and REALLY improved their judge placement/panels. I’ve never been to Washington tournaments or ASU, but I’ve heard stories about hidden outrounds, and generally poor tournament admin.I’m not sure if I know much about the situation in PA, but it’s just 100 miles from New York, and they have Acela Amtrak, so Boston is sort of reachable.The Meadows is great quality, Dan :)
An Aside: If this debate is a proxy for Meadows vs. Alta, the argument I’ll really rely on is that Meadows doesn’t have to come at Alta’s expense. Having two tournaments serve this region is perfectly reasonable. Meadows is drawing well, due to high quality and good fly-in location. W/ a national draw, the bids are going to great debaters, and there’s no over-representation of the region (we are sooo far from that)
continuing on why Alta…
2. Centrality
Washington’s not central to many regions. Also, Washington may not be too badly underserved…Whitman, Auburn, Federal Way have bids. That may not be enough, but its not more critical than Alta. PA, not central to 5-6 underserved states…
3. History
There’s definitely inertia to bids. To some extent, that’s bad, but in other ways it’s good. With Alta, institutional structure is good, and teams as far as Idaho (Seriously, a google search for Alta brings up the calendar for the Blackfoot High School, ID debate team) plan on Alta every. There’s no guarantee a new bid tournament reaches that kind of regularity. Remember, a lot of these school probably had to fight to get permission to go to Alta…no guarantees they make the switch.
Sorry my last post was unresponsive…It was written prior to seeing post 38
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 15:14
Loyola MM and Loyola TM dropped. Loyola CP won his bid round
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 15:18
oh, and regarding California kids taking bids.
This is to some extent a more recent development. In 2004-2006, it was closer to 50-50 on local debaters vs. out of state. Some of this may just be fluctuation with Utah programs. In 2005, and 2006, Salt Lake City West cleared 3-4 debaters. I remember in 2005, I debated 3 Utah debaters in outrounds.
Also, to some extent, this is because the tournament has improved. The judging is much better- look at the panels. 7 Prelims makes the break much more logical. I wouldn’t be surprised if more debaters came from out of state in the future. To the extent that this improves the competition level of the tournament while still allowing local kids to compete, interact, and win some bids, I think its a good thing.
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 15:20
Results I know:
Monta Vista TG OVER Loyola MM Nelson, Kearl, Willoughby
Loyola CP OVER Ft. Lauderdale DB ” ”
Torrey Pines IG OVER College Prep PS Empey, Peiris. Daniels
Lone Peak CP v. Vashon KE ” ”
Lone Peak OG OVER College Prep RG Savage, Dorsey, Heaton
Loyola TM v. Churchill County RP ” ”
Harker CV OVER College Prep VR Eckstein, Lawrence, Saez
Torrey Pines CS v. Brophy JL ”
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 15:24
Churchill County RP OVER Loyola TM
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 15:27
Definitely a lobby for TMS. Last thing we need is more bids. Thanks.
Your #1 makes sense. It seems to gloss over the desert aspect of the tournament. I also think your #3 helps to explain this. If every tournament had pressure from the national circuit to improve, it probably would. Probably bad to base things on horror stories you’ve heard. I had heard awful things about Alta and was a proponent of the tournament after my first experience there last year.
Your number 2 begs the question: centrality to what? Yes, Utah touches many states. Maryland lacks reasonably distanced bid tournaments. Colorado. Etc. If we just deemed some tournament in those regions “bid worthy” we could make those into responsive tournaments as well. Right? I still don’t see why the logic for the quarters bid isn’t dangerous.
I think most of your #3 is addressed above. It seems to justify giving bids to tournament X and five years later saying it’s always been this way.
I want to clear. This is NO WAY an attack on Alta (the program or the quality of the tournament). Nor on the competitors that benefit from this opportunity. I’m merely trying to demonstrate that the system that we all cling to has some serious problems. Every year people ask about this tournament in particular. A thorough vetting seems to be good.
That said, I think UT debaters of recent history like Ben Empey and Jason Ockey (sorry if I misspelled that) were talented and would have benefited their region from having the ability to compete at TOC. Sadly that never happened. I’m not sure that bringing some competition to the region once per year accomplishes the goals above. Getting kids from this region to championships seems like a better goal since they often end up giving much back to their former teams (Ben is a great example of this).
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 13th, 2008 15:28
I agree, Jay.
Posted from: 75.25.160.95
December 13th, 2008 15:36
Any news on Torrey Pines CS?
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 15:39
Haha – I meant to say NOT a lobby for TMS. I really don’t care how many bids my tournament has. Nor am I lobbying for any other specific tournament.
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 15:55
These Utah teams really do have very strict travel limits in most cases. It’s totally bizarre to me, but Utah districs tend to have a policy of allowing each HS a set number of overnight trips for the year (the number tends to be 10 or 15). That number is PER HS, not PER team or club. As a result, the sports teams, clubs, Model UN, community service, etc. are all in competition for overnight trip opportunities. Not too surprisingly, no one gets more than one overnight per year, as every other group would scream if anyone got two.
Posted from: 160.39.144.18
December 13th, 2008 15:57
congrats ilya!
torrey pines cs dropped on a 2-1
Posted from: 76.88.28.133
December 13th, 2008 15:58
ilya bid…
oh god the world has come to an end
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 15:59
Quarters:
Harker CV v. Loyola CP Empey, Kearl, Yeager
Lone Peak OG v. Lone Peak CP
Monta Vista TG v. Brophy JL Savage, Lawrence, Heaton
Churchill County RP v. Torrey Pines IG Nelson, Peiris, Willoughby
Posted from: 68.230.73.179
December 13th, 2008 16:01
GJ Jlo
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 16:02
So…3 bids to CA, 2 bids to UT, 1 bid to AZ, 1 bid to NV.
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 16:05
Oops. 4 to CA. Can’t count.
Posted from: 136.152.150.114
December 13th, 2008 16:05
I didn’t think it was a lobby Dan…Sorry if it came off that way. Mostly covering my bases because its illogical to discuss this region w/o mentioning a very good tournament in Las Vegas…
On #2: Centrality in the sense that it’s about as central to those 5-6 states as you’re going to get. Lets be real here- there’s 3 tournaments with bids in NV, AZ, UT, NM, CO, ID, and WY. Why is it dangerous to give one quarters bid. The slippery slope is empirically denied by the last 5-10 years, since there’s been no movement to rapidly give bids to UT. The opposite has been true. For some reason, when looking to take away bids, Alta is the focus, rather than highly redundant bids in the Northeast.
As far as the Maryland/PA stuff. First of all, if this is a priority, there’s a lot of ways to shift a few bids from NY/NJ to PA,MD. This would not disadvantage NY/NJ much since 1. They have quite a few bids already and 2. Many of them (most, I’d say) could make it to Baltimore or Pennsylvania.
It’s pretty funny to think ALTA is related to PA/MD. It’s not like we can only serve one underserved region at a time…
Also, when people like Ben go back to coach, it really helps to have a solid tournament to put your sophomores in. Seriously, no one wins significantly in the first 5 championships they go to. If a utah debater can do Alta twice and then travel his junior year, all under the tutelage of Ben Empey, they’re a lot more likely to have some shot at success.
Posted from: 75.25.160.95
December 13th, 2008 16:11
Good job Ilya on getting the bid, and Colin on making it to the bid round.
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 16:16
“It’s pretty funny to think ALTA is related to PA/MD.”
And it’s even funnier to compare the UT, WY, ID, NM, AZ, CO area with the PA, MD, NJ, NY area if you take a moment to look at a map. The travel distances involved are simply not comparable. Which is not to say that I would be averse to shifting some bids to serve underserved areas in ANY part of the country, including the tiny, crowded states of the northeast.
Posted from: 24.16.180.238
December 13th, 2008 16:18
oliver-gratz on da bid!! come back to washington…we miss you.
tim- way to rep LDVE
katherine- way to rep WA
mezz- youz a stud. i ain’t positive, i’m definite.
propz to robparker also.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 16:44
Good. So let’s accept that Alta is a good example. Can we (the TOC Cmte) work on this? This = shifting bids from bid dense regions to bid starved regions. All areas deserve TOC.
Can we work specifically on Kansas? I know it’s another state with bizarre travel restrictions. Indiana as well. there are major programs in these regions that also deserve to have high end debate brought to them.
Posted from: 68.104.1.44
December 13th, 2008 16:47
Congrats to Rob and the Lone Peak kids. I look forward to seeing you all at Golden Desert.
Posted from: 69.181.134.250
December 13th, 2008 16:54
are quarters done yet
Posted from: 207.233.77.181
December 13th, 2008 16:54
great job on the bid, peak!
way to go mezz and tim
LOYOLA
Posted from: 163.248.154.46
December 13th, 2008 17:03
The Kansas problem may not be solved by us so long as the state high school are not allowed to go out of state to attend the TOC. Even if they could qual, they couldn’t attend (the KC Central policy saga of a few years back is a good example of this).
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 13th, 2008 17:08
What about Oklahoma? They don’t have a single bid tournament, and the problem is that there simply is no incentive to travel to Texas, due to the many small teams located there. I highly recommend at least considering some sorta option for them. Especially since the original TOC was founded in part by a Muskogee coach.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
December 13th, 2008 17:17
How about every state from South Carolina to Delaware? Hawaii? Alaska? I think a good thing to implement in the next few years would be bid tournaments at the champion level- bids go to the winners at a few tournaments. This could be used to justify giving a lot more bids to pretty small tournaments (20-30 people). Furthermore, these small tournaments would be almost assured of local draws, because nobody would travel that far for the chance to get a bid.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
December 13th, 2008 17:18
Oh wait, I guess NC has Wake. Every other state in that strip.
Posted from: 207.233.77.181
December 13th, 2008 17:27
Loyola CP is in sems
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 17:36
PEAK!!! FEED ME THE POTATO STEW!!!
Posted from: 66.91.82.161
December 13th, 2008 17:47
I think it would be a good idea for more tournaments to allow and even encourage independent entries. Living in Hawaii, my ability to attend bid tournament is obviously limited. However, I am going to VBT and CPS as an independent this season (major thanks to the directors of both tournaments). I think it would be better to allow people who live an ocean away from a bid tournament or people who are unable to attend them due to financial or bureaucratic reasons to attend tournaments that are great tournaments than to place bids in tournaments merely for the sake of diversity. I think something that a few people have touched on is that the competition, not the bids, matter most. I am not going to CPS and VBT because I think I can bid. I think there is almost zero chance of that happening. I am going because I really like that style of debate and I want to attend circuit tournament. While placing a championship bid in Hawaii would be cool from a selfish perspective, I really don’t think that would solve anything. While it would not be pragmatic now, in the future, online tournaments might work using some variant of skype or something. As for the Kansas problem, if debaters in Kansas never faced barriers to independent entries, it would probably be significantly easier for people there to debate.
Posted from: 71.139.23.60
December 13th, 2008 18:13
I think we should solicit the opinion of Kamehameha SM on this issue. The opinion of Punahou AC? No.
Posted from: 99.55.171.45
December 13th, 2008 18:21
everyone knows the northeast is rich in bids. but a lot of tourneys there have good competition.
Posted from: 66.91.82.161
December 13th, 2008 18:22
@ 73
Who is Punahou AC?
If you are referencing me, I neither attend Punahou, nor have the initials AC,nor appreciate being told that I shouldn’t have an opinion.
Posted from: 12.165.102.248
December 13th, 2008 18:29
While I do agree that Utah deserves some bids as there are good debaters out here, I don’t believe that Alta has the same standard of judging as many other quarters bid tournaments or even some semis bids like Grapevine or UT. In my experience, those tournaments both have far better judging as a whole than does Alta despite having only a semis bid. On top of that, there is no way that the competition at Alta compares with tournaments like Bronx or Blake, two other quarters bids (just look at who has won those tournaments in the past).
Also, the idea that Utah needs Alta to be a quarters bid so that Utah debaters can bid is ludicrous. Just look at who got the bids here: only one school from Utah actually got bids as far as I can tell. And if Utah debaters want bids they certainly should not try so hard to attract out of state debaters.
Posted from: 71.139.23.60
December 13th, 2008 18:34
JFM: When I say AC, I mean AC, not JM or even BO.
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 18:36
For those wanting updates on rounds:
Harker CV OVER Loyola CP b/c loyola had to leave to catch their flight
Posted from: 66.197.167.120
December 13th, 2008 18:37
At the end of the day, the voice of Johnny Tsunami is the only one that really matters.
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 18:39
scratch that. both Harker and Loyola had to leave, so a coin was flipped for the round and Harker won it.
Posted from: 209.2.208.155
December 13th, 2008 18:40
finals is ilya vs. lone peak og
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 18:42
or whoever peak was debating
Posted from: 66.91.82.161
December 13th, 2008 18:42
Moerner: out of curiosity, who then is Punahou AC?
Posted from: 72.254.122.30
December 13th, 2008 18:44
@ 78: actually, i didn’t walk over loyola CP. we had the quarters round, i dropped on a 2-1. the tournament closed out in sems because three of the four semifinalists (torrey pines IG, monta vista TG, loyola CP) had to catch flights; lone peak OG was the other semifinalist.
huge congrats to tarun, ilya, and rob for bidding, and to mezz for being top seed!
Posted from: 98.112.164.45
December 13th, 2008 18:45
yea, my bad. so who actually was declared champion?
Posted from: 209.2.208.155
December 13th, 2008 18:53
@ 84, from my understanding ilya and lone peak are still having the round… i think ilya chose to miss his flight
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
December 13th, 2008 18:59
Yea… why are there restrictions on independent debaters? It doesn’t really make sense (at least to me) why somebody should need a school’s backing to debate, especially when the school doesn’t have a team/isn’t particularly supportive of their team.
Posted from: 128.59.153.155
December 13th, 2008 19:07
that’s right ilya, keeping it in the family
Posted from: 136.152.163.139
December 13th, 2008 19:29
On Meyers, RE: Kansas
This is a slippery slope argument (if we give Alta a bid based on geographic concerns, we should take care of Kansas too)
First of all, there has been absolutely NO slippery slope on this issue AT ALL in the last 5 years. (see post 58)
So there’s absolutely no risk that keeping the status quo regarding Alta will lead to a bid-diluting pandemic.
So your position boils down to we should lower the bid at Alta because we haven’t given bids to Kansas, and it’s logically inconsistent or unfair to help one region and not another…
is that it?
Posted from: 72.254.123.2
December 13th, 2008 19:30
Semis:
Loyola CP v. Monta Vista TG (Monta Vista W Loyola F due to plane flight home)
Torrey Pines IG def. Lone Peak OG on a 2-1 (don’t know details as I was gone at this point)
Finals:
Torrey Pines IG v. Monta Vista TG (Torrey Pines W Monta Vista F due to plane flight home)
Props to Ilya for risking his flight to debate and congrats to all.
Posted from: 75.25.160.95
December 13th, 2008 19:31
Gratz on the win Ilya!
Posted from: 72.254.123.2
December 13th, 2008 19:47
I still want to know how a bid helps Kansas if it will not be allowed to go to the TOC. Independent entry does not solve because a Kansas school that allowed its kids to attend would be booted out of the activities association (and not just for debate, we’re talking football and every other activity). And there’s no way the TOC could accept entries attending against the express policy of their school.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
December 13th, 2008 19:51
I still don’t get why debate needs to be tied to a school- if you’re registered as “Independent XX” there’s absolutely no good reason you could be punished by anybody.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 13th, 2008 19:55
congrats mezz on another bid round, tim for running 6 offs and getting to a bid round and the one and only chris peak for dominating and getting to semis.
Posted from: 68.92.39.80
December 13th, 2008 19:56
I think Punahou AC= Kiwi Camara
ENFORCABLE????
Posted from: 66.91.82.161
December 13th, 2008 20:04
Re: Lexy and Fisch
I can see the benefits of having debate OPTIONALLY tied to a school. Like if you want to prep with people and not hit them at tournaments, doing it by school is a good way of doing it. Also, for supportive school, it enables funding.
However, for schools in which the coaches/admins do not support circuit debate, the schools get in the way. As long as someone can make it to and pay for the tournament and get someone to assume liability, any student should be allowed to go to an invitational.
Lexy, in terms of what you said about independent entries not solving for Kansas, I believe you and all, it makes no sense to me.
If I did airsoft competitively instead of as just as a hobby with my friends, but my school did not support it, why should my going to the TOC of airsoft without an association with my school (hypothetically speaking) jeopardize my school’s participation in other activities?
It seems like a structural embrace of independent entries might solve in the long run, or at least it ought to.
If the issue is circuit competition and not bids/TOC, I think it would be worth it to have a dialogue on VBD about how to get circuit style debate into more local circuits. I remember Babb saying at VBI that as the newer generation of coaches take over, this will occur.
Posted from: 66.91.82.161
December 13th, 2008 20:05
Oh, and major congrats to Michael Mezzatesta on the bid round.
Posted from: 64.12.116.76
December 13th, 2008 20:51
From a tournament director’s viewpoint, independent entries = liability nightmare waiting to happen. Saying that there is someone there to assume liability is VERY different than a school actively consenting to allowing students to travel and thus being able to hold ALL representatives to some standard of behavior and obligation.
In our litigous society, it doesn’t make sense to allow independent entries…
Posted from: 98.218.230.121
December 13th, 2008 21:08
I want no part of the bid distribution issue on this thread – I’ve made clear my general views elsewhere – except to say: the Mid-Atlantic is NOT the same as the Northeast when you want to talk about travel costs.
What I do want to say is major congrats to Ilya/Torrey Pines for taking Alta for two years in a row (yay Viv!), and props to Rob and Chetan for representing the Shadow Lab big time as usual.
Posted from: 72.214.129.235
December 13th, 2008 21:17
I am definitely not qualified to offer any sort of solution to this bid problem, but I’d like to say that, as a kid from Utah, having this tournament and being exposed to awesome debaters and judges had a hugely positive impact on my life. I understand that Alta may give out some illegit bids, like mine, but many people, like the meadows kids last year, for example, deserved their bids, and this tournament does help Utah debate a ton.
I really want to thank all the judges (like dan, jay, and ashan, specifically),older utah kids, and those working behind the scenes giving Alta bids for helping me and Utah debate as a whole develop at least a little bit.
Posted from: 76.164.29.162
December 13th, 2008 21:20
I wanted to give some love you Oliver for getting to semi-finals. Sorry you couldn’t close it out but you have another year. Way to get your first bid
And congrats to Parker for being first speaker….
Posted from: 75.80.139.173
December 13th, 2008 22:24
Congrats to Ilya for winning Alta. Torrey Pines rocks. Two champions in a row. The torch carries on..
Posted from: 76.93.137.42
December 13th, 2008 22:26
major props to ilya, colin, and chris peak!
Posted from: 72.199.38.115
December 13th, 2008 23:27
Good job Michael and Tim for your Bid rounds :) You’ll get it next time!!
Good for bidding Rob, Collin Rob and Chris Peak!!!!
Posted from: 24.7.123.93
December 13th, 2008 23:30
GRATZ TARUN
Posted from: 75.42.178.78
December 13th, 2008 23:47
ilya my man
must have been a pretty intense finals round :P
(yeah i know)
get another bid
Posted from: 72.130.138.114
December 14th, 2008 00:45
Thanks to Lexy and the rest of the Alta tournament staff for a well-run tournament. The judging in outrounds was consistently good; the same goes for prelims.
Also, props to paul + rob + oliver on legit outrounds, to peak for reppin’ lawrence/donatti, to tarun + chetan for getting the bids, and to the whole loyola team on the massive outrounds showing.
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 14th, 2008 01:12
C H R I S
P E A K
Posted from: 69.105.30.19
December 14th, 2008 02:20
mezz doesn’t win bid rounds
Posted from: 206.251.74.247
December 14th, 2008 08:57
[...] Alta — Finals: Torrey Pines’s Ilya Gaidarov was forfeited to by Monte Vista’s Tarun Galagali. Dowling Catholic — Finals: Lakeville South’s Christian Keil defeated Valley’s Ross Brown on a 3-0 decision. Dowling Catholic RR — Finals: Lakeville South’s Christian Keil defeated Saint Louis Park’s Catherine Tarsney on a 5-0 decision. Isidore Newman — Quarters Ridge — Finals: Bronx Science’s Saboor Sheerazi defeated Hunter College’s Isabel Patkowski on a 3-2 decision. Novice Finals: Scarsdale’s Geoffrey Kristof defeated Hendrick Hudson’s Sophie Ruff on a 2-1 decision. Westlake — Finals: Winston Churchill’s Lynn Bimler defeated Austin SFA’s James Monaco on a 3-0 decision. [...]
Posted from: 98.14.255.196
December 14th, 2008 09:07
For the record, Ilya, Chris Drake and Vivian Feig may be your debate coaches, but you know I remain your life coach.
Congratulations!!! And congratulations to Tarun!!!
Posted from: 98.14.255.196
December 14th, 2008 09:08
And big congratulations to Dylan on his speaker award!
Unrelated question: how many people were in the field this year?
Posted from: 98.210.140.232
December 14th, 2008 10:43
Congratulations to Alli Martin and the Alta Crew for running such a smooth tournament (and one of the most hospitable). Congrats to Ilya on the title oliver, rob, peak, chetan, and jeff on the bids. And mezz, on the 1st seed. Also, well done to your buddy tim and Coach Ashan on the outrounds show.
Posted from: 155.97.238.226
December 14th, 2008 11:50
Congrats Oliver and Cameron!! In my opinion Utah schools get out to quite a few bid tournaments…and besides when we consolidate (ie, Lone Peak/West/Bingham) all travelng together we’re able to attend even more. Just wait to see us represent at Golden Desert :)
Sure we don’t have the huge budget and opportunities that maybe other schools have, but it’s kind of a motivation to work harder, I think. That said, thanks to everybody who helped make Alta awesome!
@112, the pool was 80 ppl, I’m pretty sure
Posted from: 75.42.197.193
December 14th, 2008 11:54
Congrats to all that bid. Especially Peak! First LD bid for Loyola EVER!!
Congrats to Parker for legitimately beating me in an outround. haha Next time do better in prelims so that I don’t have to hit you in outs!
Mezz, next time, its our turf, get ready for the close out.
Congrats to Ilya on the bid and win, both well deserved.
Epic semis battle between Peak and Tarun. The way Peak flipped that coin and Tarun called heads: beautiful, an art form. not many debaters can flip and call as well as they did.
Posted from: 99.166.23.99
December 14th, 2008 12:25
Congrats to Ilya and Peak on the bids
Posted from: 136.152.149.164
December 14th, 2008 12:43
Vashon KE is Katherine Everett.
Congrats to Katherine, Ilya, Tarun, The Loyola Kids, Robert, and everyone else in outrounds…
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
December 14th, 2008 14:35
Attacking Alta for having bids is like attacking the janitor at Lehman Brothers as the company is going under.
More (and larger) problems exist in the distribution of bids than Alta – if you even see Alta as a problem.
Posted from: 69.120.236.168
December 14th, 2008 14:48
Can we get a bid distribution discussion thread going?
Posted from: 71.214.198.119
December 14th, 2008 15:03
yes.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 14th, 2008 15:19
Yes.
Posted from: 99.55.171.45
December 14th, 2008 15:31
Maybe JW is drinking too much
Posted from: 208.179.21.24
December 14th, 2008 16:08
Congrats Tarun!
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 14th, 2008 16:21
Congrats to Puke and Ill-ya
You guys are sick!
Posted from: 98.125.241.168
December 14th, 2008 18:18
Again, it’s Katherine Everitt. Not Everett.
slash props to chris peak, tarun, chetan and oliver for bidding!
and good job mezz and tim for failing like me.
Posted from: 75.42.197.193
December 14th, 2008 18:29
Katherine, we’re glad to welcome you into struggs mansion where we spend most our lives livin’ in a struggler’s paradise.
Posted from: 69.105.30.19
December 14th, 2008 18:30
every tourney has a strugg mansion
with dropped args, defense, and bid round passion
Posted from: 72.67.167.86
December 14th, 2008 19:04
nice job tarun for completely violating fairness and winning the round based on the flip of a coin.
ilya, excellent work reppin Lawrence-Donatti.
also congrats to parker, chetan, cameron on bidding.
and mezz, tim, and katherine – u better bid next time bitches…
Posted from: 24.205.203.169
December 14th, 2008 19:18
Thanks to everyone who gave props. I have to say mucho congrats to Mezz, Tim, Chris, Tarun, Ilya, Katherine, Oliver, Brophy, Ft. Lauderdale, Jeff, Culver (for getting my ballot rd. 7, he knows why), et. al. Also thanks to everyone who helped the tournament go, especially Ali Martin for letting me in. And some sick judges; Micah, Ben, Nelson, Ashan, Jenny Savage, etc.
As for Alta having a bid, just from personal experience, there are some debaters who like me have to pay for all of their travel/entry/housing/food etc. expenses in order to go to tournaments. It’s even harder when the closest bids are about 500+ miles away (Meadows, Golden Desert, Berk, Stan, Alta, etc.). That puts a lid on bid opportunities so coming from a bid starved area (relatively speaking) I think geographic diversity is a necessity in terms of ensuring equality of opportunity to compete at the TOC.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 14th, 2008 20:22
well done parker and chetan.
Posted from: 24.164.191.184
December 14th, 2008 20:22
and mezz.
Posted from: 71.202.108.34
December 14th, 2008 23:15
Congrats Ilya and Tarun!
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 01:08
I’ve said this before, but I feel like it needs to be said again: Rational discussions about bid distribution can’t happen when every criticism of the quality of the field at a given tournament is taken as a personal assault on every single debater in that field individually. This is especially true because tournaments with weak fields give previously unknown debaters a chance to break out, and those debaters and their coaches are justifiably happy and excited afterwards, which means that no one wants to rain on anyone’s parade and everyone wants to rally to the defense of the kids who are psyched about doing well. That’s all understandable, but it’s also stupid.
With all respect to the kids that did well this weekend, any one of whom could be a dark horse on the verge of a big breakout (the only one of them I’ve seen at all recently is Ilya, who was solid when I judged him at Glenbrooks), anyone who claims that Alta is anywhere close to the level of competition typical of a quarters bid has their head in the sand. I get to say this because SLP has been to Alta before, two years ago, and has done fairly well there. We picked up three bids, all of which were first bids for the debaters who got them, and had half of the maybe-still-infamous quadruple co-champions that year. And while I would say that our three kids who bidded were all good debaters (two of them completed their quals with bids at Stanford, and one of them got another at Berkeley), I can’t deny that their collective success at Alta was wildly out of proportion to their collective level of success at other bidded tournaments, and I’m sure none of them would deny it either. Similarly, other debaters who do well at Alta, while no doubt good and probably in some cases excellent, do not typically do similarly well at other bidded tournaments, and I don’t buy that the only reason for that is that Alta is the only bidded tournament they ever go to (I know for a fact that five of the eight schools in quarters get other bid opportunities in the course of the year). The bottom line is that everyone knows this tournament is not nearly as competitive as most other quarters bids, and that anyone who can say with a straight face that the pool at Alta is as strong or deep as the pools at Valley, Bronx, Blake or VBT simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Now, that says nothing about regional-diversity/equality-of-opportunity kinds of arguments. I think those arguments do carry some weight, because there is always the legitimate possibility of a very good debater with very little money to travel cropping up in a region that’s not strong enough to support a ton of bid opportunities purely on strength of competition. That possibility, to me, justifies sprinkling some finals bids around the country so that everyone or nearly everyone has one within a couple hours’ driving distance. In regions with more competitors, it might even justify semis bids. But to stick eight bids in a state on the off chance that there are eight TOC-level debaters with absolutely no other bid opportunities, especially in a state that as far as I know does not have any great history of success at the TOC, seems to stretch that principle to the breaking point. The situation would be different if there were enough of a national draw to keep the level of competition on par with what’s typical of a quarters bid, but that historically has not been the case or even close to the case at Alta. If nothing else, there are other regions that are equally “under-served” that don’t get anything like the same largesse. If the Southwest needs a quarters bid to sustain regional competition, why doesn’t the Rust Belt (Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and Michigan almost certainly have a much larger population than the state supposedly served by Alta but I think possess a collective total of zero bids and very few opportunities in close driving distance for most parts of those states), the Northwest, or the dirty South? If there are really high-minded Rawlsian principles at work here, why have their never been bidded tournaments in either Alaska or Hawaii, the two states where the barriers to competition on the national circuit are BY FAR the highest? Why did Wake get its bid cut to sems, when it both serves a similarly “under-served” region with at least the same history of success as the Utah region and had a typically stronger national draw? To say one more mind-blowingly obvious thing that everyone already knows but that some people will still probably manage to take mortal offense to, there are politics at work here, and pretending there aren’t is silly. Given that fact, I don’t know if there’s a reasonable chance of Alta’s bid status changing, and maybe Bietz is right that it’s not the biggest problem there is–the at-large process serves as a check against the quality of any one tournament, and requires debaters to show a consistent record of success elsewhere to actually end up at the TOC. But it just annoys me that people are so willing to go to the mat, get all worked up, and generate long strings of blatantly sophistical arguments defending what’s self-evidently nothing more than a polite falsehood.
That said, congrats to everyone who did well at Alta–doing well at any varsity tournament is an accomplishment, and at Alta much more so than most regardless of how it compares to top-15 tournaments in the country. And as an important caveat, nothing I’m saying should be interpreted as criticizing any aspect of the tournament besides strength-of-field. I’m always surprised that more people don’t go to Alta, given that (at least based on my kids’ reports from being there) it’s excellently administered, in terms of everything from efficiency to judge placement to the approachability of the tournament administration and tab staff, food, trophies, et cetera, on top of having eight bids which I’m sure plenty of people at this point in the year would love to get their hands on. The criticisms of the judging are I think valid, but the tournament does its best with what it has–if all the teams that would bring good judges stay away because they predict bad judging, the prophesy becomes self-fulfilling, but to the extent that top judges do show up, they’re placed in the right rounds and used as much as possible. So, I wish people would go to Alta and make it the tournament it’s capable of being (we would likely go every year if it wasn’t opposite Dowling). I just don’t see any reasonable prospect of that happening based on the available historical evidence, and given that unfortunate reality I feel like the bid should be cut to sems.
Posted from: 76.94.89.102
December 15th, 2008 07:02
Christian says:
“But it just annoys me that people are so willing to go to the mat, get all worked up, and generate long strings of blatantly sophistical arguments defending what’s self-evidently nothing more than a polite falsehood.”
In the words of Walter, “calmer than you dude.”
Alta is an easy target. There are regions of the country that never have to defend the large number of bid tournaments that always get passes, even with declining numbers or that don’t even draw the top debaters of that region to the tournament. Or, regardless of how well the bid-earning debaters traditionally do once they get to the TOC.
I’m not sure if its possible to have an honest discussion about it without making feel like their region is being attacked. That said, why pick on the little-guy that, honestly, only tries to improve?
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 11:26
I get to get worked up–what I’m saying is true :-)
But I’m not really sure what your argument is, Bietz. I agree that there are other tournaments whose bids should be called into question. And in fact some of those tournaments have had their bids called into question and subsequently demoted, e.g. Wake, Blue Key (at least I think it was Blue Key–one of the Florida tournaments at any rate), and a couple of Northeast tournaments in recent years. I don’t know why Alta is particularly as “easier target” (whatever that means) than those tournaments, unless it’s because it’s even less competitive than they were, and the reason it’s an easier target than the tournaments I was comparing it to (Valley, Bronx, Blake and VBT) is that those tournaments are genuinely far more competitive and give bids to debaters who do far better at TOC. If your claim is that people criticizing Alta’s bid level are being hypocritical, you must have just missed the dozens of identical discussions I’ve seen on results threads for tournaments in other parts of the country.
If your claim is that people criticizing Alta’s bid level are being mean, I’ll agree with you that it’s tough to not make criticisms of the bid sound like criticisms of the debaters who got the bid/the region they come from. But the terminal implication of your claim that we should shy away from hurting the feelings of “the little guy” seems to be that we can never have any sort of public discussion about bid distribution other than just saying “Wow, the existing system sure is perfect and awards bids to all and only the most deserving debaters in the fairest manner possible, huh?”. If the claim is that bid distribution is an issue for JW and the advisory committee to worry about and that they can do it in a private forum that doesn’t risk hurting people’s feelings, I suppose there’s some truth to that, but I don’t like the idea that members of the community who aren’t on the advisory committee or good friends with someone who is shouldn’t be able to provide feedback on bid allocation or suggest changes.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
December 15th, 2008 11:46
I present 4 letters for your consideration: NDCA
Posted from: 66.240.48.106
December 15th, 2008 12:16
@136: Dan speaks truth. The current point system needs some revision, but the NDCA solves.
Posted from: 74.70.200.228
December 15th, 2008 12:20
Congrats Rob. Well deserved.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
December 15th, 2008 12:46
Yes. Go to the NDCA.
Christian – i’m in favor of openness. i think the TOC committee should release how they vote on things (at-larges, bids) etc. In fact, i think the notes of meetings should be public.
My point is that there are larger concerns the LD community (the whole debate community, but specifically LD) should deal with.
I specifically have a lot of problems with how college tournaments are run and especially use LD as a fundraisers for their debate team and do absolutely nothing in return for the community.
1. Tournaments where no effort is made to find qualified LD judges, even though they charge huge fees and huge hired judge fees.
2. Tournaments where there is none to little hospitality for judges/coaches/parents.
3. Tournaments where 2 bucks is charged for a piece of pizza that is cut in squares.
Alta tries hard. Every year they work to improve. If you take away their bids, their tournament dies. A true market approach, which I’m pretty sure you would respond with, to bids would mean that bids would be concentrated in 4 parts of the country primarily at colleges because those tend to draw huge numbers (most of the people attending not even caring about the bid).
Let’s use bids to encourage running good tournaments with responsive tournament directors.
Go to the NDCA.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 13:19
I’m all in favor of people going to the NDCA, and I agree that it provides a good middle ground between the TOC and NFL qualification systems that promotes regional diversity and equalizes opportunity for kids from regions where the general level of competition isn’t as high (and which consequently don’t have the same number of bids–denying that this connection exists, even if it doesn’t hold absolutely, is silly). I’m glad the NDCA exists and I hope more people start going to it. I still think, however, that the TOC continues to have them best system for identifying the very best debaters in the country, and that it is and ought to remain the gold standard for national success. And even if that weren’t the case, the existence of the NDCA is just another good reason why the TOC should focus on doing its thing and trying to get the 70 best debaters rather than doing what the NFL and NDCA tournaments are doing already by trying to spread the wealth around.
I agree that the issue you identify with college tournaments is a problem. However, the magnitude of the problem is way below what you make it out to be. The “market” approach you criticize has not in fact resulted in the concentration of competition and bids at college tournaments–of 15 or so octos and quarters bids, only four are run by colleges (and I challenge anyone to make the argument that Emory is just trying to pad its bottom line by cramming in as many competitors as possible–only three big tournaments are really open to your criticisms). The tournaments that the market has rewarded most are tournaments like Greenhill, Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Valley, Bronx, Blake, VBT, etc, which make a consistent effort to attract top competition and supply top judging. I don’t get why “the market” would reward crappy tournament administration, and I’m guessing that the competitive turnout for Stanford this year will illustrate that it doesn’t.
Incidentally, I should be clear that what I would advocate, and what I suggested in my first post, is not a pure market approach but one that’s primarily market-based (and yeah, does concentrate bids in Texas, Cali, the Upper Midwest and the Northeast) but that also distributes finals bids and a few sems bids around the country to account for the possibility of good debaters without the resources to travel springing up in less competitive regions. My objection is not to the principle of giving everyone chances to bid in their region, but to the practice of using way more bids than are necessary to achieve that purpose. Alta as a sems or finals bid seems totally fine and reasonable to me.
Finally, I don’t get the idea that bids should be given to tournaments purely as a reward for effort. First off, there are tons of tournaments that are well-run by hardworking, benevolent members of the community. Not all of them should have quarters bids. But second, bids are supposed to reward debaters, not tournaments. Making bids into shiny gold stars for tournament administrators defeats their purpose as a means of determining who the best debaters in the country are, and screws over debaters in competitive regions like NorCal, Texas and the Midwest who can’t get bids because there are only enough in their region to be snapped up every weekend by a few elite debaters. Given that only so many people can go to the TOC, bid distribution is a zero-sum game and any time one region gets sympathy bids it results in other regions (and the debaters in them) losing deserved bids.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 15th, 2008 14:05
I thought that NFL finals was the “gold standard” for success…
Posted from: 136.152.156.5
December 15th, 2008 14:53
So I stepped away for a little too long, it seems.
Christian says a lot, and there’s no way I could pick out all of it, so forgive me for what I overlook.
Christian says regional diversity may have value, but quarters = gratituous, and finals = better.
This discussion happened earlier in the thread…the gist of my argument is that a finals bid would have the effect of giving two bids to utah, but WOULD NOT improve debate in the region in any way. Bringing out of state competitors in and letting them debate is important, because they bring more judges, more coaches- the sort of diversity that might encourage local-circuit debaters to consider trying to travel.
The goal of bid diversity, in my mind, at least, is NOT to give bids to a region. It’s to create a series of high quality rounds, so that sophomores and freshmen in the region get to debate prelims (and some elims) in front of circuit-style judges, and to watch outrounds. They are WAY more likely to go to camp and try to travel (and will be more successful when traveling) if they’ve seen what they’re paying for.
Alta has been changing a lot- my sophomore year (5 years ago) there were 5 prelims, with 3-4 circuit judges in the pool total, and judges for outrounds frequently refused to disclose, and even conferred about the round. The schools there are building programs. I’ve talked about SLC West, but that’s not it- Lone Peak had a great tournament, it seems. People forget that great programs start with 1 of 2 things. Either they have great resources, and get a great coach, or they have a breakout group of self-motivated debaters, who then build the program. Mountain View was far from an established program when Navot Tidhar was debating. That’s what can happen, and is happening, in Utah.
The references to other regions like the rust belt or the south in this thread COMPLETELY baffle me and MAKE NO SENSE. If you are worried about bids for those regions, it seems that arguing against Alta is a poor choice. If you are using their need to bids to simply justify taking Alta’s bids, that’s pretty bad too. Seriously, is your impact really just that its irrational to help one underserved community without helping another. Because if the impact is logical inconsistency, I could care less. I’d argue for bid diversity elsewhere too. This argument has popped up in like twice on the thread (DMeyers, Christian) and there’s still no impact.
Posted from: 136.152.156.5
December 15th, 2008 15:09
I wanted to add a few words on what Christian “would advocate” (his post #140, Paragraph 3). The gist is that he’s ok with the market concentrating bids in 4 regions (Cali, TX, Midwest, Northeast), and then just throwing a few semi’s or finals bids everywhere else, on the off chance of “the possibility of good debaters without the resources to travel springing up in less competitive regions”
Debaters don’t just spring up. Anyone who has coached has seen the learning curve it takes. You have to lost rounds to things you have no experience with (off-case, K’s, Theory, Good NC’s) and learn from it in order to succeed. People from underserved regions suffer because the tournaments they attend don’t prepare them, or even let them see what they need to do in order to succeed.
Has anyone noticed that VERY talented debaters from small regions don’t show up until their senior year for the most part? And they usually don’t win at the highest level… Why? Because their senior breakout is often the equivalent of sophomore or junior year in a major region. Rob Parker is a great debater- I bet he’s been to less than 5 tournaments with bids. A good majority of circuit debaters get to 5 tournaments by sophomore year.
My advocacy- it’s better for some tournaments to remain bids even if concentrating on the major regions would improve bid tournaments. I don’t really mind if great tournaments like Blake or Apple Valley stay quarters bids, or if Princeton or Yale get cut to sems bids. This will encourage the growth of good debaters from a broader range of regions. Long run, it could easily improve the quality of the TOC. Really, the best debaters from Midwest, Cali, NE, TX etc. are generally going to make it to the TOC. We should develop broader talent base.
Posted from: 66.119.143.249
December 15th, 2008 15:56
I think I speak for cameron and myself (the two lone peak ld debaters who got bids) when I say that Alta is easily one of the most well run tournaments I have attended. To be honest, the judging was a breath of fresh air after drowning in lay judges and tab room errors at other tournaments that I have attended that also have bids. I just want to voice my approval for the tournament and would like to thank everyone who came for some amazing debates.
Posted from: 74.227.246.92
December 15th, 2008 16:30
bietz says “In the words of Walter, “calmer than you dude.””
interesting choice of quote from someone who is actually responsible for this kind of stuff. if you’re interested in openness, lets hear some. were you flashing your piece and demanding that JW mark alta a zero? what was your recommendation for harvard-westlake, which got a new bid this year? same question for the other tournaments in the LA region that suddenly got put on the map.
ill trade you a more obscure reference. “The less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it.”
Posted from: 72.213.166.24
December 15th, 2008 16:36
Duh Duh Duuuuuhhhhhh!
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
December 15th, 2008 16:39
I voted for alta to keep its bid, but argued that it is ridiculous for alta to be considered the same region as Southern California.
There was never a vote on Fullerton (25 miles from me). Given the opportunity I would have voted against it. Having heard how it was run this year, I will recommend re-allocating it. There was never a vote on the Desert Classic.
H-W, yes I made the pitch.
USC had a bid as recent as three years ago. There has never been SoCal representation on the committee.
I voted for Stanford to stay, but if the bid was taken away that those bids be re-allocated.
David McGinnis suggested that, after examining data from quarters-bid tournaments, the VBT be considered to be moved to an Octos. I said that the VBT has always been willing to “put in the time” before moving up a level.
I voted for Wake to be reduced. I voted for Princeton to be reduced. I think I voted for ASU – even knowing we would never attend.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 16:49
Arvay: No, it’s not.
Jay: I take your point, and I agree that there’s a certain unfairness to the fact that where a debater lives makes a big difference in terms of how easy it is for them to get good and reach the top level of national competition. I suppose that’s another good rationale for some degree of bid diffusion. It still doesn’t justify Alta’s quarters bid, though, for a number of reasons:
(1) The purpose of the TOC and the bid system is not primarily to achieve equality of opportunity or help kids learn debate. Other mechanisms exist to make that happen, even if they’re currently (and probably inevitably) insufficient. The purpose of the TOC is to act as a national championship for the very best debaters in the country, and the purpose of the bid system is to identify them. Maybe a part of the purpose is also to develop those debaters, and maybe there’s some importance to bringing in debaters who have lots of natural talent but not enough experience, technical proficiency or whatever to put them in the elite. But predominantly, the goal should be to get the best 70 debaters possible together in one place for one tournament, and handing out quarters bids to regions for no other reason than to help freshmen and sophomores in those regions develop doesn’t serve that purpose. And, as I pointed out, it also screws over deserving debaters from other regions.
(2) Bid distribution can’t be expected to make any meaningful dent in the problem of unequal opportunity. Getting to debate one or two good debaters and watch one or two good outrounds a year is not enough to put someone who doesn’t have the chance to travel into the elite. For someone who does have the chance to travel, then travel solves and Alta is just one more tournament that doesn’t serve nearly as much of a developmental function as Berkeley, Stanford, Harker or VBT do in the same region.
(3) In fact, bid distribution won’t have any effect at all on student development unless the bid actually attracts top competitors, which Alta’s bid has historically failed to do (for quite a while now, I think). All the arguments for Alta keeping its quarters bid seem to be premised on the idea that that bid is acting as a major draw for competitors, and while I’m sure there are a couple of teams who wouldn’t have come if the bid had been at sems instead, I really doubt it would make a huge impact. If the only way to get as good as the best people in the country is to see them in action, then Alta is not making that happen.
(4) Empirically, it hasn’t worked. While I’ve certainly seen a couple of very smart debaters come out of Utah, the state is nowhere close to the level of pretty much any other state I can think of with a quarters bid in terms of producing TOC competition.
(5) Although this doesn’t address the problem of kids not being able to travel, you’re wrong that great debaters “don’t just spring up” in the sense of coming from regions that don’t have a lot of bids and aren’t generally seen as nationally competitive. Just in terms of the Southwest, Susan Morrow and Sam Kliener are good examples of that happening in recent years, and I really don’t think it was all because of Alta. That requires the resources to travel and go to camp and such, but I think the unfortunate fact is that reaching the top level on the national circuit requires those things wherever you live. We should focus more on equalizing opportunity through programs like Voices and Perspectives that give those resources to kids who otherwise wouldn’t have them.
Finally, you misunderstand my point about regions like the Rust Belt. My claim is that if you think Alta needs to keep its quarters bid to promote debate in that region, you should be lobbying the TOC Committee as hard as you can to create a new quarters bid next year in the middle of Ohio to serve the same purpose for them that Alta serves for you. For whatever reason, no one seems to be pushing for that. My point is that people reflexively defend the status quo by appealing to principles that, if applied consistently, would yield absurd results like minting about ten new quarters bids around the country including ones in Alaska and Hawaii and then either practically doubling the size of the TOC pool or having to take away tons of bids from tournaments in “over-served” regions.
I still think no one’s answered the question of why Alta needs to be a quarters bid rather than semis or finals, other than to say that more bids = more competition. So I guess my question to anyone still engaged in this discussion is whether you think Alta should get its bid bumped up to octas next year, and if not why not? Every reason that’s been given for keeping it at quarters would equally well be a rationale for bumping it up to octas, so if that’s what people are actually pushing for, that would clarify things a little.
Posted from: 72.213.165.80
December 15th, 2008 17:06
Umm… Whats not? If this is about the NFL, the simple fact that everyone around the country has an equal chance of attending, with much larger numbers, makes it better. If I’m from a small school that cannot make the national circuit, then I cannot do the TOC. Meanwhile, it would be much easier for me to attend the NFL national tournament, economically at least. So if I was the best debater in the country, and I get to go to nationals rather than the TOC, then it follows that the NFL, due to the fact that more people can compete, is the Gold Standard for success.
You may disagree with this argument, but it doesn’t matter, as the forensics community as a whole recognizes the superior legitimacy of the NFL as the gold standard.
Posted from: 72.213.165.80
December 15th, 2008 17:08
I just realized that my entire post can be summed up tin 1 sentence.
You and I would rather be NFL champions than TOC champions, because being an NFL champ means beating more people.
Posted from: 207.47.44.190
December 15th, 2008 17:54
@148: Christian, for what it’s worth, Sam only ever earned two bids. And one of those bids was earned at Alta, where he dropped in quarters.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 15th, 2008 18:02
Arvay: Here are 3 reasons why you’re wrong
1. NFL nats has notoriously bad judging. A teammate and friend of mine who debated at nats last year in LD got marked down for reading a 1250 word aff case in 6 minutes because she was too fast.
2. The judging at individual nat qualifying tournaments is also usually poor, which means many very talented debaters dont qualify for one reason or another. Additionally, because the vast majority of people qualify to Nats based on lay judging at local qual tournaments, the NFL tournament is much more lay overall.
3. The concentration of highly talented debaters in certain areas means that many good debaters dont even qualify for nats. For example, the California Coast NFL district, one of the most competitive districts in the country, has several national circuit LD debaters, competing for only a few spots. Meanwhile, my district, the Southern California district, is much less competitive and we get to send as many (or at least almost as many) people to nats in LD.
4. The idea that nats is better because its bigger makes no sense. We have to account for the quality of the people competing. The 70ish people who compete at TOC are arguably the 70ish best debaters in the country. The 220ish people who debate at nats are NOT the 220 best debaters in the country. Why? Well, because smaller, more isolated places like wyoming and idaho are not gonna put forward the same quality of debaters as the Dallas, Bay Area, Twin Cities, or Houston circuits, even though they send almost as many people. You can also think of it this way: The Alta tournament has more people in the field than TOC. That doesnt mean that what Ilya did this weekend is more impressive than what Chris Theis did last year.
Now, this is not to say that winning nats is a small feat. All of the people who have made it to finals at nats over the last few years have been EXTREMELY talented and successful debaters. How ever, the idea that nats is the “Gold Standard” is not true.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 15th, 2008 18:03
sry, i posted 4 reasons. my bad
Posted from: 72.213.165.80
December 15th, 2008 18:25
Your first two points can be grouped into three arguments.
First, that’s simply your opinion. I would argue that if you spread overboard, then you deserve to get marked down.
Second, There is no evidence to warrant your point but your own opinion. As we all no, that never counts as proper warrant in the debate world.
Third, I would argue that diversity is a good thing. This is precisely what makes nationals a good thing. It’s the variety that you get, which you will not encounter at the TOC.
To your next point, this is countered by the fact in, say Texas, they split it up into many districts with many (3-4) qualifiers for each of the districts. Meanwhile, In Arkansas, they have only one district with 2 qualifiers. So, it is proportional to size, which is perfect for getting the very best to compete. Furthermore, if 200 people competed at a district tournament, and only 4 got to go to nationals, then its fair to say that those 4 are the best of that district, so that make the district size argument responsive.
Finally, you are misinterpreting the TOC size and NFL size argument. More people compete to be the NFL champion. Less people compete to be the TOC champion. This makes the NFL more competitive. This is as simple as I can make it.
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
December 15th, 2008 18:45
“More people compete to be the NFL champion. Less people compete to be the TOC champion. This makes the NFL more competitive. This is as simple as I can make it.”
I think this claim is false. While I think that very good people compete at NFL’s, I do not think it’s true that because the NFL tournament is bigger, it is more competitive. Just having more people compete does not make the tournament more competitive. rather, a larger pool would more than likely be less competitive because there is a much larger “bottom”. furthermore, the competitiveness of a tournament is not decided on the size of the pool, but rather the talent within the pool. Nobody would say that the 350 person pool of Harvard is more competitive than the smaller pool of Greenhill, even if the top debaters go to both. this is true because the larger the pool, the less likely you are to hit to hit a top 30 debater because there are many more 3-0’s, 4-0’s and so on.. whereas, at greenhill it’s very possible you hit TOC debaters 3-6 rounds (depending on your record). On the contrary, TOC is a much smaller pool, and it takes much more than just one weekend at districts to get to the TOC, making the pool much more competitive. Also, I think the fact that the Nationals Champion has never been the TOC champion says something about either the two completely different styles of the tournament, or the fact that the TOC is a much more difficult tournament. But maybe that is a moot point.
All that being said, I think this discussion could be better solved by discussing what “competitive” means.
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 15th, 2008 18:57
1. 1250 words/6 minutes = 208.3 wpm= approximately conversation speed (not spreading). Spreading is generally considered to be upwards of 300 wpm. So, it was just shitty judges who needed everything orally spoon fed to them at one word per minute.
2. Inexperienced parent judges are worse judges than people who have been coaching or judging high level debate rounds for years. Thats not my opinion, thats EVERYONE’s opinion. Actually, thats a fact. Moving on…
3. Diversity=cool. Diversity does not, however, equate to a good field, particularly when there is so much of a discrepancy in the talent levels of people competing at nats. The same friend of mine who debated at nats in LD last year said that she, in the course of six rounds, debated everyone from TOC-qualled circuit debaters to debaters who just read a three minute NC and didnt answer her case. At nats, this is what “diversity” looks like. Comparatively, although some people at TOC are more talented and skilled than others, everyone at TOC is at least a VERY GOOD debater. The same cannot be said of nats.
4. The number of districts in each state is irrelevant if certain districts still have higher concentrations of good debaters. For example, arkansas could quall two mediocre debaters cause mediocrity is as good as it gets in arkansas. Meanwhile, the Longhorns district in Texas or the California Coast district will all feature multiple debaters with multiple bids at their district tournaments, and most of them wont qual to nats, even though they are better than most of the people who do qual from other districts. You’re missing the point. The “very best people” from each district are not equal to one another in their talent. There is much more equality in skill level at the TOC. Everyone at TOC is good. Not everyone at nats is good.
5. There is no district in america with 200 people competing at nat quals.
6. The argument that more people compete to be the nat champion so its better is bullshit. I have been to nats three times, and i plan to attend a fourth time this summer. At no point did have I ever considered myself to be in competition to be the national champion. Moreover, even if more people compete, most of them arent good anyway, because most debaters out there are mediocre to poor in their debating skills. I mean, if someone quals from a district tournament in the middle of nowhere with 16 kids in the tournament, half of whom are novices, what they accomplished isnt remotely as impressive as someone who earned a TOC bid against skilled varsity competition.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 18:57
“You and I would rather be NFL champions than TOC champions, because being an NFL champ means beating more people.”
Uh…not at all. I took seventh at NFL’s and went 4-3 at TOC and was vastly happier about and prouder of the latter accomplishment than the former.
The “more people make the tournament more competitive” argument is great–by that standard, either Harvard or Berkeley is the real national championship and NFL’s is somewhere around sixth or seventh on the list of most competitive tournaments. Also, any tournament with 17 or more debaters in the LD pool is more competitive than the Greenhill Round Robin. And any rec league team that plays in a league with more than 30 teams and wins its league championship is better than the Celtics. I’m guessing Paul Pierce probably thinks you’re wrong, Arvay, but what does he know?
Posted from: 75.42.197.193
December 15th, 2008 19:09
so yeah. Alta. Good tourny this year. Some good debating going on there.
Not that I don’t enjoy this debate about where bids ought to be and all, but I do think that it should have it’s place outside of where we congratulate people’s successes. And whether or not you think Alta deserves the quarters bid, I can personally tell you that the debaters that made it to quarters this year are all deserving of bidding. Even many that lost in octos will probably bid during the jan/feb topic.
so, that being said, Congrats to everyone that did well at Alta!
Posted from: 70.173.180.114
December 15th, 2008 19:24
Im the national champ then
thanks christian
:-D
Posted from: 72.213.166.171
December 15th, 2008 19:39
I’d just like to touch on a couple of points.
Christian. You’re argument where you compare nats to Harvard is inherently flawed. At Harvard, only about 23 states are represented. At TOC, I believe that the number isn’t too much higher. At nats, all 50 states are represented. Hence why, upon winning nats, you can call yourself the national champion. Hence why it looks better, historically, with colleges.
Fritz. #5. Is irrelevant. You’re attacking a hypothetical example. If that holds true, then I argue that there are no tournaments with 16 people, have of whom are novices. You’ve just set up a double paradox.
I’ve gotta go right now.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 19:40
Well, you or…why do I have no memory of who won Harvard that year? Jon??
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 15th, 2008 19:41
Who cares? Its not the golden standard that Berkeley is
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 19:53
Wait, so now it’s number of states and not number of competitors that determines how good a tournament is? What you originally said was: “More people compete to be the NFL champion. Less people compete to be the TOC champion. This makes the NFL more competitive.” I’ll go with it, though–it certainly makes me happy to think that getting Bettendorf to drive up for our tournament two years ago made it more competitive than TFA State.
Also, why is my argument “inherently” flawed as opposed to just flawed? It seems you’re admitting that my argument would be valid if all 50 states were represented at TOC, so the flaw’s not “inherent,” is it? Why do debaters think that inappropriately inserting words like “inherently” or “intrinsically” or “fundamentally” into arguments makes those arguments more true? I think I’m going to start docking points for that…
And what’s a “double paradox”?
Posted from: 71.63.156.220
December 15th, 2008 20:01
THE SPECIFIC RHETORIC OF ARVAY’S POST IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIVE TO YOUR POINT, CHRISTIAN.
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 15th, 2008 20:17
Christian I think Arvay is just saying that from a perspective of which is more representative or from outside the debate community, nationals looks better. I find it hard to believe that hes actually advocating that nationals are more competitive.
Posted from: 136.152.156.89
December 15th, 2008 20:32
A little late…
Going through post 148 (Christian on Bid Allocations):
Christian says:
1. The TOC is a test of the best debaters, not to create equality, so bids on merit
2. Alta = one tournament, not big difference.
3. Need to attract top comp. to Alta, haven’t done so
4. Empirically, hasn’t worked- UT not that strong yet
5. Susan Morrow + Sam Kleiner prove you can “spring up” and be a good debater.
6. Consistent application of equality = absurd outcome. (continuation of rust belt)
On # 1:There’s no reason why the TOC can’t be both a formative and measurement device. The choice to give and take bids has impacts on entire regions, so those impacts have to be considered. Also, my argument at the bottom of 143 applies: The very good debaters from major regions should already be able to qual, given the multiple opportunities. TOC should, in long term, work to broaden talent pool.
0n #2: One tournament is a big difference given restrictions on travel. Salt Lake City West, a good example school, in past years went to Alta, CPS, and Berkeley. 3 bid opportunities only, because state won’t let them travel more- See Lexy’s post #51.
on #3: This is a matter of degree…I think plenty of very talented debaters are coming into Alta. It’s not as many as Bronx, to be sure, but it’s better than nothing. And to be clear, the brink for improving the local debate is NOT having the TOC champion come to Alta. Just having some solid judges and good debaters is enough to have the preparatory effects I refer to.
on #4: First, you have to consider where they started. I’d argue a few programs have improved. Certainly UT debaters have improved a lot. Your measures of improvement are not sensitive enough for this issue- They’re not going to go from never seeing bid tournaments to consistently clearing a few kids at the Glenbrooks and other tournaments you attend.
on #5. This argument is pretty funny. Sam Kleiner is a good example of “springing up”. Note though- everything I argued in posts earlier about breakout debaters from underserved regions is true about Sam. He didn’t make his run until late his Senior Year. He didn’t have a ton of bids (or opportunities). One of his two bids was at Alta. If Sam is an argument against Alta, I’m once again, really confused. Even if 2 debaters can “spring up” over a 4 year span (and I’m sure it’s more than that…plenty of good debaters we’re leaving out) that doesn’t change the limitations on both the number or breakout debaters and their potential placed by poor opportunities.
And now, my favorite, #6. The impact is that I’m being inconsistent in my advocacy for bid representation. First, this argument smells like the kind of argument made for not sending peacekeeping to a region (“but people are dying everywhere! Why go in here?”), or similar issues. You don’t need to solve all meaningful battles to fight one good one. Second, I wouldn’t mind a quarters bid for the rust belt. This discussion is happening, so I’m engaging in it. I’m not some hypocrite if I’m not out starting a new tournament in an unfortunated region. Third, this region discussion is happening across the board on the Committee- If you put together a high quality tournament in an underserved region, get around 3-4 states at minimum, I feel the committee will look favorably. That tournament doesn’t exist yet, so I’m not advocating for it. Fourth, Logical consistency is a useless standard and not a meaningful impact. ANY idea taken to its logical extreme does result in bad outcomes. For example, I could take Christians’ “merit” argument, and just give all bids to Texas, MN, NE, and CA Invitationals. Seriously- Any tournament outside those regions would fail Christian’s standard. Christian’s not being logically consistent when he’s ok with having finals’ bids outside those regions. :)
I think I’m repeating myself on this thread a lot, so I’m going to just consolidate to new arguments on this thread in the future.
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 15th, 2008 20:41
So why shouldn’t it be a semis bid again?
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 15th, 2008 20:42
Fuck, I just lost a thread. Arvay, playing the double paradox card is a hit below the belt. The internet is not a free-for-all. We have standards and codes of conduct. Thats just a dirty trick.
Posted from: 209.2.214.0
December 15th, 2008 20:51
huh whats a double paradox…
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 15th, 2008 20:52
We’re not quite sure
Posted from: 136.152.156.89
December 15th, 2008 20:58
Why not semis…hmm, promised not to repeat myself.
See posts #33, #39, and #142.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 21:07
Julian: Which one and how?
Jay: Not going to respond to everything, because I have to actually get to work on Blake prep, but to repeat the point I made in my last post that I still don’t see an answer to: What’s the reason that Alta’s bid particularly needs to be at quarters rather than semis for the things you’re talking about to happen? And if your argument is just that more bids mean more competition and more equity, then shouldn’t it be an octas bid? (If you want to bite to bullet and say that it should, go ahead, but I and, I think, most other people would consider that a reductio of your argument.)
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 21:12
Didn’t see that when I posted, but I’m pretty sure 39 (your post) makes no objection to cutting the bid to sems (other than citing Lexy’s post) and actually says that that would be a best-of-both-worlds solution. Lexy’s post (33) says that only quarters bids can draw national competition but (a) Alta only draws regional competition with maybe one exception per year anyway and (b) Dowling, Harker, and VBT/Bronx prior to this year all refute the claim that sems bids can’t have national draws. 142 is just the “the more bids the better” argument.
Posted from: 136.152.149.236
December 15th, 2008 22:24
142 explicitly argues that round quality/judging/competition are key. I think the quarters bid promotes this. Even if 142 were the “the more bids the better” argument, isn’t that a reason to prefer quarters to semi’s?
39 argued that any advantages would be split both ways if we compromise to sems. BUT it concludes that there are virtually no advantages to cutting it down. Seriously, what is the advocacy? Cut the bid at Alta, and put 4 more in Cali, Midwest, TX, or NE? We’ve debated the (dis)advantages of enough, I think.
Now, on the a) in 173
Define regional. If Norcal/SoCal/AZ/CO/NV/NM/ID/WY is a region, then tournaments in New York are in the midwest.
on B) in 173
Sems bids in regions that are underserved cannot have good draws. Proof of this is Federal Way, and to a somewhat lesser extent Vestavia (which only had allure as a last chance shot). The examples you cite (Dowling, Harker, VBT/Bronx) all have the advantage have having strong local bases. If you have 25 “good” (Read: Well Known) nearby debaters and bring in 6-7 more from outside via a round-robin (made possible by friendships made on the circuit) you have a good semi’s bid. Alta can do none of that, and therefore, would wilt as a semi’s bid (as Federal Way and others prove). The key is the relevance of the examples.
Define regional
Posted from: 136.152.149.236
December 15th, 2008 22:35
haha I just noticed that
San Francisco-Salt Lake City= New York to Chicago.
LOL regional
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 23:05
Pretty please will you answer my question? Should Alta get an octos bid?
Posted from: 69.105.30.19
December 15th, 2008 23:15
i agree with tim, this conversation should be somewhere else. if you’re worried about seeming to insult the competitors at the tournament, don’t hold this debate in a forum that the competitors read to get congratulations from their peers. i don’t personally mind, but it really doesn’t make sense to keep adding that aside and simultaneously keep posting on the thread that the alta field is most likely to read.
it is not alta’s fault that not many teams travel there. something that i don’t think anyone has pointed out is that the field usually corresponds to the number of bids, not the other way around.
example: meadows. my freshman and sophomore year, meadows was a very small tournament. loyola was one of the few schools that attended. in fact, a loyola debater (patrick elyas) made it to finals when he was a junior. he was a decent debater, but never went on to earn any bids and was never very successful on the national circuit. it was just a pretty small, fun, easy tournament. suddenly, it got a finals bid. the next year, great debaters suddenly showed up. south eugene was there, brophy entered, brentwood, etc. this year, it was upped to a semis bid. even more teams came, including millburn, esperanza, upper st. clair, apple valley, etc.
so. what’s really confusing isn’t that alta has a quarters bid but rather that tons more people aren’t showing up to get that bid. kids from the south and northeast and midwest fly all the way to LA for VBT — why not fly a shorter distance to alta? the competition is slowly going up, which i’m sure is the goal of the bid allocation — but people that don’t attend need to stop pointing fingers and just get their asses to utah.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 15th, 2008 23:58
You would be right that this is the wrong forum if there were a better alternative forum.
Again, I agree, not Alta’s fault that more debaters don’t come, more debaters should come, it’s a well-run tournament. (Incidentally, I think part of the reason the tournament has such a hard time getting a draw is its weekend–it’s opposite several other tournaments around the country, e.g. Dowling which is a better option for anyone east of about Nebraska, as well as finals for a lot of both college and high school students and only a week before a lot of teams start debating the new topic.) But bid distribution ought to be based on where debaters *do* go, not where they should go.
Citing another tournament where getting a bid caused the level of competition to go up doesn’t change the empirical fact that Alta’s quarters bid has not caused *its* level of competition to go up to anything like the level of other quarters bids. Meadows had some things going for it that Alta didn’t (e.g. a giant belt, and much more effective word-of-mouth promotion). You say that “something that i don’t think anyone has pointed out is that the field usually corresponds to the number of bids, not the other way around.”, but I’ve pointed out several times that this is not always true and that Alta serves as a counter-example. You can’t say “just give it a chance as a quarters bid and the competition will show up” when it’s already had a quarters bid for at least the better part of a decade without the competition doing anything of the sort. “If you build it, they will come” works for Kevin Costner, but unfortunately it doesn’t always work for debate tournaments.
Posted from: 69.105.30.19
December 16th, 2008 00:23
we would need a better alternative forum if it were necessary to complain about alta’s bid level.
dude that’s my point — bids aren’t allocated by where debaters *do* go, they are allocated based on areas that JW and the committee think should have more competition. if bids were only based on where debaters travel in the status quo, nothing would change because people would keep going to glenbrooks, berkeley, st marks, etc — it wouldn’t make sense to go anywhere else. at some point the bid level has to change and then competition has to catch up. i agree that meadows had a faster response due to the belt and the word-of-mouf (and probably the rep of the team and dan meyers) but that doesn’t mean that alta doesn’t deserve its bids too.
in fact, my team can be cited as a new attendee of the tournament. we’ve never been to alta before, but this year we noticed the relatively noncompetitive quarters bid and sent 3 debaters — hey, we got a bid. that’s what st. louis park did when you debated for them and closed out in quarters. it’s just weird that the trend doesn’t continue; either way, i think the solution is to either change the date of the tourney or for more people to just suck it up and make it out to utah (TOC is during AP’s… debaters can handle it). not to take the bids.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 16th, 2008 11:21
We wouldn’t need to complain about Alta’s bid level if Alta’s bid level weren’t quarters.
And I really don’t get this notion that the primary purpose of the TOC shouldn’t be to qualify the 70 best debaters in the country. If there are other, secondary objectives to balance against that, fine. But in order for the qualification process to be fair, the difficulty of qualifying has to be more or less uniform at every bidded tournament across the country (or at least has to all reach the same minimum threshold, which some tournaments might excede) meaning that the average level of competition per bid has to be uniform. If that’s not the case, at a certain point it doesn’t matter why it’s not. You talk about Alta “deserving” its bids like bids are something that belong to the tournament and not the debaters, but bids aren’t designed as a way of giving well-run tournaments a pat on the back–they’re designed as a way of deciding who gets to go to TOC.
Also, I don’t think the TOC committee should be in the business of telling debaters that their reasons for not going to a given tournament aren’t good enough. Debaters don’t intentionally pick bad tournaments to attend just to piss the good tournaments off. If they’re not going to Alta because of finals or new topic prep or other tournaments opposite it, just telling people to “suck it up” and leaving the bid in place doesn’t make any sense. If someone ran a really tremendously good tournament on a Tuesday-through-Thursday schedule, we wouldn’t ignore the fact that no one was going and give them a bid anyway. Date choice matters. If anything, Alta should “suck it up” and either change its dates or do more to self-promote (e.g. a round robin, hiring and bringing in more good judges, etc–all the things that other successful tournaments have been doing).
Finally, you’re self-evidently and mind-blowingly wrong in asserting that if bids were based on where debaters chose to go (which they mostly are), bid allocations would never change. Just about every bid change in the last couple of years has been based on level of competition changing independent of the bid level and being out of sync with it–Wake and Blue Key dropping to sems, Westside from quarters to sems to finals (excessive, IMO, but level of competition was the reason), Bronx from finals to sems to quarters, ditto VBT, Harker to sems, Dowling to sems, Apple Valley to octos, Blake to quarters…I could go on. The point is that all of those changes happened because far more or less debaters chose to go to a tournament that the bid level would have predicted.
And why will no one answer my question??
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 16th, 2008 12:28
No Christian, you seem to be wrong on one point. The advocates of Alta bid distribution argue that the only way to get the best 70 people at the TOC is to have a fair geographic distribution. This is because, apparently, the only way to have get the best is to help give all an equal opportunity to qualify. Rawlsian ethics, essentially.
This is an interesting debate guys! Sounds like it could make a good LD resolution, haha!
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 16th, 2008 14:34
there seems to be a lot of confusion on this issue so i’ll just clarify: a double paradox is fundamentally two times as bad as a single paradox (sometimes referred to as just ‘paradox.’)
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 16th, 2008 17:49
Would a riddle wrapped in an enigma count as a double paradox? Also, if Rawls were alive today, I think he’d point out that people don’t have an equal opportunity of qualifying to the TOC at Alta and at Greenhill, and agree with me that Alta should be a semis bid. Also, WHY WILL NO ONE ANSWER MY FREAKIN’ QUESTION?????
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 16th, 2008 19:04
What’s your question, Christian?
And thanks John. I may have been using it out of context.
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 16th, 2008 19:11
Why shouldn’t Alta be octas?
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 16th, 2008 19:33
Should Alta have an octos bid? Adam apparently says yes. If that’s people’s position, I’m content to leave it at that–I think forcing the person you’re arguing with into the position of defending Alta getting an octos bid counts as winning the argument.
Also, we should all be grateful to John for shedding some light on the complex and thorny question of double paradoxes (though perhaps accidentally obscuring the notion of sarcasm somewhat in the process).
Posted from: 71.104.147.161
December 16th, 2008 20:00
Arvay wins at sarcasm.
Posted from: 24.7.92.133
December 16th, 2008 23:02
I have an exam tomorrow, so I’ll keep it brief.
The competing concerns are bid dilution (qualified people should get bids) and regional diversity. I’ve made a few arguments about how Semi’s bids have generally died when they are in underserved regions (see above posts about Federal Way, etc). The only semis bids that have succeeded have strong tie-ins to the circuit, and can have RR’s etc.
So now, having for some reason abandoned that debate, you push in the other direction (why not octos). You now get to be bidrectional- this is what happens when you don’t actually defend anything. Is your advocacy cut Alta’s bids to sems, and give them to XXXX? If you argued something, it’d make this a lot more symmetric.
Now, why not octos? Well, unlike debate rounds, bid allocations are a product of compromises. I’ve provided arguments why quarters is good, and has proven to sustain growth at Alta (it gets better every year). There’s no reason to up to Octos, because 1. There’s no indication it would speed growth, and 2. It would be significantly overbidded. I can admit that going too far on that spectrum is a mistake. This is not a fatal concession on the part of those who defend Alta- Every argument in the REAL world is on a gradient. For example, if the US military budget is better at 1 Trillion than at 500 Billion, then why not just go to 2 Trillion. Or, if doubling education spending is good, why not quadruple it? Reductio ad absurdum doesn’t really work when arguing a tradeoff- the whole point of a tradeoff is that you have to come down somewhere in the middle, and yes, people can always question where you come down.
I’m not answering any more mocking, sarcastic questions. Give me an advocacy…I’d like to generate offense against your ideas. Post 140 is the only time you advocated something, and I had some thoughts about it in 143…that was fun.
Posted from: 75.73.64.159
December 17th, 2008 00:32
If you want a concrete advocacy, fine: Give four of Alta’s bids to either Dowling or Harker. Both of those tournaments serve regions where it is presently very difficult to qualify to the TOC (I can name at least a dozen very talented debaters in the Midwest who’ve been competing at tournaments all year and still don’t have a bid, including one who recently took down the defending TOC champion in front of a good panel), are at least as well run as Alta (more so, because they make an active effort to bring in great hired judges), and would be far more competitive.
If the only argument you’re pushing is that sems bids die without “strong tie-ins to the circuit”, as evidenced by Federal Way, then (a) it’s worth pointing out that Federal Way is not in fact dead and (b) Alta should just develop “tie-ins to the circuit”–marketing and self-promotion is part of running a tournament, and a round robin is not that hard to put together. If Alta doesn’t want to do those things, it should accept the consequences in terms of attracting competition and retaining its bids.
Finally, if you’re conceding that we need to balance equity against bid dilution and that that’s a good reason not to bump the bid up to octos, I don’t get why it’s not an equally good reason not to keep it at quarters. The bids are about as diluted as they can get at the moment (as far as I’m aware, there were a total of zero prior bids in the outrounds pool; I might not know about one or two, but I’d be shocked if there were many more than that. By comparison, Dowling, which is a sems bid, had over a dozen prior bids in quarters alone. And I don’t think that’s just because bids are so much easier to get in the Midwest.). If we care about bid dilution at all, that’s well past the point where we should draw the line. You can’t just say “it’s a tradeoff” when you’re willing to accept a tremendous amount of bid dilution for what’s at best a relatively small benefit in terms of equity that comes from locating four bids at Alta instead of another more competitive tournament.
Posted from: 24.7.92.133
December 17th, 2008 05:42
will respond in about a day…
Posted from: 76.113.213.176
January 2nd, 2009 21:40
Sometimes silence is the best response.