Update to Yearlong Sweeps #2 & APU Results
Here’s the second update to the yearlong sweeps. It reflects the changes discussed since the last update, but should in no way be taken to be the final version of our rules. For example, we have no definite rounds/tournaments standards for qualifications. The results from last weekend are up on forensicstournament.net, but for convenience I’ll post them here as well.
2009 Concordia Invitational – LD Results
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
So just to clarify in case someone hasn’t read the previous post and to double check with Mike:
For the Lincoln Division & top debater award:
The Adjusted wins column count each prelim win + each elim win right? Adjusted ballots includes all prelim ballots + 3 ballots per elimination round debate win or loss (or is it only win?).
For the Douglas Division:
Each Prelim win = 1 ballot, each elim win = 3 ballots (or is it count losses too?)
Thanks for your hard work Mike! this is no easy task.
I’m also thinking we need to clarify what will be the minimum number of adjusted ballots a school and debater must have in order to count for the sweepstakes. I’m thinking at least 33% of the great number possible. So, as of right now, the greatest # of adjusted ballots for the Lincoln division is 47 which means a school would have to have at least 15 (rounded down) adjusted ballots to count for the division.
For the top debater the maximum is 14 so a debater would have had to debate 4 rounds (rounded down) to count for the sweepstakes.
This is to avoid having someone have a high percentage due to a low number of total ballots.
Uh, that’s not only arbitrary, it also punishes small teams with only one or two LD debaters. UCLA, currently in third place due to my performance last weekend, would be ineligible under this standard. Why should my school be excluded just because some teams just happen to field 8 or more debaters at every tournament? Even if I consistently clear to elimination rounds I can’t keep up with that.
the idea is that with a small number on the bottom of the equation it skews the results. Without a minimum 1 debater going 4-0 at one tournament could win the top LD school award in the lincoln division and top debater award. Rather than rewarding the results of 1 tournament (which we do with awards at the tournament) this award is supposed to measure performance all season – as such, there should be a minimum number for the bottom of the equation. I threw out 33% but am willing to hear arguments about a different minimum percentage being more fair.
In all honesty, I was thinking more like 50% but wanted to be more inclusive. Please also understand that this award is in its first year, and we’re willing to adjust. I’m thinking that it may be wise to establish a committee to decide these things rather than just me and Mike next year…
Rather than a percentage of total ballots by the biggest school, I think a percentage of total SoCal tournaments attended (regardless of a school’s contingent size) would be a better indicator of competitive consistency. I agree that there needs to be some minimum, but basing it on team size is just a dumb formula.
I don’t expect to qualify for any sweepstakes anyway because UCLA’s budget is too limited for me to attend very many tournaments, but I just want to make sure that good schools like CSULA aren’t excluded.
thank you Nick, I was about to start saying how excluding UCLA would be wrong when I saw you were sticking up for me, lol.
I am not knocking on coaching styles but some schools do not have the amount of students to flood events. UCLA/CSULA just happen to be 2 of these schools. UNR is another (shout out to Trav! W00T). We are not RCC, Cal Bap or Biola who have tons of students that we can drive up the amount of ballots simply by showing up.
Nick made it to quarters and I went to sems and you just said we could go 4-0 and be competitive for the award… Ouch
I do disagree with Nick on one thing. I believe that we can both get some form of sweeps just by winning at the very least in the best speaker realm. There are only a couple more tournaments left, honestly. IVC (4 rounds only – no outrounds. If you wana go Nick I will pick up your commitment I will be there anyways lol), PCC (which shouldn’t be counted because it excludes open competitors), Spring/Fall champs, Loma, and maybe 1 more tournament next year. I assume UCLA will go to all/most of these.
Some tournaments have CC/4yr divisions and some have small schools vs large school divisions. I think something like the small v large wouldn’t be to bad of a thing to have, but what do I know? I am only trying to compete against schools with 10-20 LD’ers where Nick and I are “goin’ it alone”
I’m not sure there’s substantial disagreement here.
Obviously, the Douglas division is designed to reward schools for dedicating themselves to the activity. A school that has resources (money, coaching, copy budget, etc.), and spends them on L/D competition are rewarded in this division.
The Lincoln Division is designed to reward schools for excellence. This division would be much easier for a school like UCLA or CSULA to win, because they wouldn’t have herds of novice debaters at their first tournament very often. 3 of the 5 LDers I’ve sent this year have never been to a forensics tournament before, and their records reflect that. I’m also not sure 5 LDers qualifies CBU as a “big” school, but I’ll stipulate the point.
Finally, the individual award is designed to reward competitors who might be a team that doesn’t have the resources to compete for the Douglas division, or too large a team to compete for the Lincoln division.
To clarify, adjusted wins = 3 wins for each elim (win or loss). If the competitor wins the elim, they would get the 3 wins for the next elim. This does make records the same for winning or losing the final round. The theory is again that the competitor should not be able to lose win percentage points for breaking to the final round and winning 2-1, over someone who did not break but went 4-0.
I am open a tournament-participation minimum. With the points the way they are, the don’t accurately reflect how many tournaments a competitor has been to since you get more points for two elims then one set of prelims. Given our current schedule, could we say at least 50% of the eligible tournaments? That might solve our problem in all three awards.
Also, I would not advocate excluding tournaments for their own restrictions. There are lots of Tournaments that are restricted to various schools and divisions, and lots of tournaments that exclude implicitly by placing themselves on the schedule alternate another tournament. I agree that any and all tournaments before the SoCal LD Championships, and taking place in SoCal should count.
Perhaps the next step for us would be to form a sub-organization under PSCFA? We could come up with some rough outline of some rules we would like to follow, and maybe collect some very very light dues at the SoCal LD champs to pay for the yearlong trophies.
Perhaps (jokingly) we could be the Southern California Association of Lincoln Douglas Debaters or S.C.A.L.D.D. Sounds like an evil organization from a James Bond film. 
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
does this include the RCC tournament? I ask because some USAFA peeps have the same ballots I do and they went to 1 less tourney. That or I don’t understand the system. Either way, whatevs lol.