NPDA sweepstakes and divisions....

[erikUF]

I was just taking a look at the NPDA sweepstakes for this year and I was wondering if they include JV and Novice divisions for the season sweeps.

If so, doesn't that REALLY taint the results? Seems to me like there is a small incentive for coaches to keep good teams from moving up into the big leagues so they can get a few more points....

Anyone agree?


Erik

[pattybar]

Erik,

I think this discussion has been had before, and the results are that the sweepstakes do include novice and JV...

Being in an 'open only' region, I am troubled in the other direction... namely that more students have the chance to earn sweepspoints for their schools at any given multi-division tournament than those in smaller regions.

Also, since I have what could be considered all novice teams, I'd like the chance either for those teams to cound in sweeps OR for no other novices' points to count... why should geography matter?

Since one of my teams broke this weekend in open (yea!!, first time for UST debate...) I would not place them in novice, but it would be nice to have the option for the other three teams I have competing to score some points... (of course, UST first has to join NPDA... but that is just a technicality.. :) ).

Patty

[erikUF]

It definitely seems that this is something that would have been discussed in the past. What surprises me is that, after discussion, it was ultimately decided that JV and Novice should be included in season sweeps. Am I missing something altogether? If someone can explain what happened in the prior discussion, that might help. I really think season sweeps is being cheapened by this JV-Novice inclusion.

Patty, our region doesn't have Novice or JV divisions either. Our tournaments are just not that big enough. What I think is a good alternative is have a separate JV-novice sweepstakes. So, maybe the regions with bigger tournaments are almost exclusively going to hold that sweepstakes award, but I can live with that. Why? Now our squad (and yours) have a better shot at winning the most difficult sweepstakes award out there. At the same time, squads with a lot of teams with future potential (which seems to be most of your squad) are still recognized by this separate award.


Erik

[NoGraveButTheSea]

Coming from a 2 year school that is currently seventh in the nation in NPDA rankings I have some strong feelings on this topic.
First and foremost these rankings are reflective of the
entire squad, not just the senior competitors. These rankings are about whole programs not just the "best of the best".
So just because LCC wins alot in novice and junior DOES NOT!! take away from the fact that we are a competitive national level debate institution. And as half of the sole Open division (unless they collapse) debate team at LCC I would argue that we compete in senior division as well.

Second I think that coaches who sandbag in lower divisions are a huge minority. That excuse is too easy for a bigger bitter school that is way down in the rankings to make. We do not sandbag and I know of no other schools that do it consistently. In the NW the coaches tend to conduct themselves professionally and fairly. Basically the sandbag argument in my opinion is just not really prevelant.

Lastly I want to say that when the rankings came out I went to my teammates (yes those pesky novice's) and told them that through their hard work and effort in learning this event they have been able to put Lower Columbia College in the top ten in the nation as of right now. They were all very proud and shocked at these developments. And they all will soon move into open division (right on schedule). In the end I think it is terribly elitist and flat wrong to delegitimize the work of a huge portion of the members in our community by saying that what they do does not count. I would never say that to my teammates and would have words with anyone who would.
Just my perspective...
Will C

P.S. I do not mean to personally attack anyone here. I just think that delegitimizing JV competitors is incredibly misguided, elitist, and bad bad bad.

[ISamuel]

I don't think anyone's trying to delegitimize JV and novice competitors. I think the concerns are as follows:

1) Not every region has JV/novice divisions (that is, small regions tend not to);

and 2) this provides an incentive for coaches to keep teams entered in JV/novice.

The first is maybe more important than the second. Sure, Creighton and the Sunset Cliffs have healthy JV sections. But tournaments in the "upper Midwest" may not have the attendance (yet!) to justify it. Thus this effectively disadvantages schools simply for being members of small regions. Their novice teams must face stiffer competition to earn the same points.

The second is a real concern though. No one's suggesting that coaches are point-driven jerks; but especially in the current financial climate of many states, directors of forensics find themselves increasingly pressured to justify their budgets. High rankings in season-long sweeps are a powerful tool to help convince.

Hmm, maybe that's a good thing then.

Unsure.

Ian
TSU

[erikUF]

Will,

I'm glad you spoke up. I was starting to wonder why it was so quiet here. Maybe the past discussion had already exhausted any more talk on this.

First, sandbagging. I don't think I was trying to illustrate an angry, bitter, point-hungry, coach more so than a school that may, on balance, opt to take a team into JV so they can move their way up the rankings for resume purposes. Are there teams that do this? Would they admit to it? Is it bad? I'm not sure.

Second, your point on elitism. you say:

"I think it is terribly elitist and flat wrong to delegitimize the work of a huge portion of the members in our community by saying that what they do does not count."

(I don't know how to use that nifty quote function, I'll figure it out soon enough)

Why not have a separate JV-Novice award? Your school's work would count and instead of being 9th, you may even be 1st for showing that you have one of the most upstart programs in the nation. Either way, you are being recognized for your hard work and success, which is certainly due to you. I just think that the separation allows us to see how a school is developing.


Finally, the most important point, what does the sweepstakes mean?

Again, my form of quoting you... you say:

"These rankings are about whole programs not just the 'best of the best.'"

Is that the prevailing belief? I certainly thought otherwise... If sweepstakes isn't the guage for the best squads consistently being the best all year long, what is??? We certainly have NPTE for teams, but nothing for schools as a whole.



Erik

[pattybar]

My basic problem with allowing all levels of competition is that it allows schools with large budgets (thus, large teams) to dominate by buying the points. The situaiton is even worse when there are some regions where novice and JV are common..

Think about it this way. A good coach will take a large team to a big tournament and divide it in thirds by ability. If they have nine teams to work with, they put three or so in each division. This is a smart move by the coach, as it increases the potential number of points the squad can win asthey have a shot at 3x the number of points a small squad would have.

The other problem is that including novice and JV in season-long sweeps priviliages teams from areas with the large tournaments, as they can afford to send their novices to tournaments like Loma. Those tournaments end up having more weight in season sweeps than two small tournaments, as their are simply more points to be given out -- and those that are around to win them on a lower budget have a distinct advantage. Ask some midwest debaters if their novices get plane tickets... they'll laugh and say they barely get to ride in the van :) )....

So, if a squad has the cash to take a large number of students to a tournament OR if the squad has several large tournaments in their backyard, then they are at a distinct advantage over the year. If the squad happens to have both, they will be seen as a national powerhouse when they got there by some luck, money and geography.

This isn't about some debaters getting their contributions counted and others not... at any given tournament that is the function of tournament sweeps. This is about an equitable ranking of all teams that tries to control for accidents of big budget and geography.

Have a good day, from the geographically challenged midwest
Patty

[ML]

This is an issue dear to my heart. It's a discussion I've been trying to engage for a long time.

In the NW, we have not only three divisions of parliamentary debate, but also, when warranted, are required or pressured to have three divisions of individual events. This has been presented to me as valid and pedagogically advantageous for the following reasons.

1. Senior/Open division is more competitive: you don't have little novi to pad your rounds for you or rack up easy wins against.

2. There are two kinds of incoming student. One is the "novice", ie someone who never did debate or IE's in high school or had any exposure to public speaking in their life. The other is a "junior" a first/second year competitor who has had "some" experience, but needs some time to adapt to college standards or hasn't had enough experience to feel comfortable in Open.

3. Novices can't make an effective transition from the lowest division to the highest. We need an intermediate step, aka, "junior" to help them make that transition.

Here's what I see in the actual:

1. Tournament administration nightmare. Imagine three divisions of *every* event, and when there are not enough entries to warrant, imagine tracking three classes of competitor within one event. Separate final rounds means more judges needed, more rooms used, more resources expended. This would be a necessary cost were it actually did some good, if it were not for the following:

2. Novice division is assigned the most inexperienced judges, making the experience less educational for them. It's one thing to hear differing philosophies from critics, it's another to be told flat-out wrong things about community standards of debate and speech. They pick up bad habits, and the ones who consistently break never get a chance to self-educate by watching open division rounds. Ditto on that for junior.

3. Because it serves a bizarre dual function (transition for novices and safe harbor for frosh) junior is a frightful place to compete that gives kids completely inconsistent messages. Former national high school/state champions are permitted to enter in junior division, and guess what? Many of them do. Thusly those shaky little self-esteems coming out of novice can often hit a wall at the start of their second year, since people who have far more experience than they do are just showing up and kicking butt. It's very demoralizing to keep getting trounced in junior division when it's ONLY junior division....

4. People pad the divisions for the sake of sweeps. They may not do it intentionally, but it happens. (even in the NW Will, sad as it may be...) And it's virulent; one school does it, other schools think twice about entering their hot shot frosh in open, since A) they'll get just as good competition in junior, and B) they'll have less of a chance to break in open. This often isn't true, but that's the rationale I've heard many people make to themselves...(well, I wouldn't do it, except JV is so damn competitive I feel I have to put my good frosh in there just to stay above water...)

5. This actually has the result of making open division less competitive. At the tournament I was at this weekend, there were 29 teams in junior, half that in open. Statistically, that means jv is more competitive, just in terms of the record it takes to break. Secondly, (and in IE's especially) it means less panels, so you see the same people over and over again and aren't exposed to new blood. Nothing irritates me more than seeing a collapsed IE final with the top finishers also getting top junior awards...except maybe seeing the same thing happen with the same people later on in the year. It also means less senior competitors and less actual chance to generate qualification legs for the NIET. (that's a pretty personal beef, but what the hell) I also sometimes wonder if this doesn't extend somewhat to debate also (see my musings in the "etymology of open" thread).

Last weekend, we had at least three teams (four if we'd done some re-arranging) out of seven entered in open who could have been in junior under the letter of tournament rules. One of those teams, consisting of a novice and a first year with LD/Congress experience, broke to quarters. Go figure. They probably could have won junior, but they wanted to learn.

My position is not the we shouldn't recognize achievement of novices/juniors, but that education should be just be prioritized over competitive achievement when the two come into conflict, as they do so often regarding divisions. If a novice breaks once or twice, move 'em up, even if they complain, even if they whine, even if you know they could win the next tournament and bring home lots o' sweeps, understand they will learn more observing and engaging those who are at the peak of their ability. Communicating that message effectively can be difficult, but it's nothing we communication professionals can't successfully tackle, I'm sure.

Whew. (Do I even have a job anymore?)
ML

[pattybar]

I'd never thought of sacrificing open for the sakes of junior and novice divisions....wow... how odd.

I do think that if you have a good frosh, they learn much faster in open than in other divisins. I also think that coaches actually know (or should know.. if not, why claim to be their coach ??) who should really be in open. If that is the case, it is bad to keep a team in junior or novice when they should be out.

Additionally, it is completely against the basics of novice to keep entering teams that break. Jason's second-ever tournament he broke in novice and was never entered again. Having to play with the big-bad-open debaters made him a much stronger debater.

Additionally, keeping a student in novice/jv too long will either frustrate them for the reasons ML posts above, OR convince them that parli is BS (due to the competition in novice/jv) and they will figrue it isn't a big enough challenge and they'd rather do moc trial or policy...

IF jv and novice were not counted in sweeps, do you think they would be as popular as they are now.

Patty

ps, the philosophy faculty member who helped to start the program at UST asked me today whether my team's break at last weekend's THBT was in novice division... after I stopped laughing enough to answer her question, she was impressed that it was an open only tournament. The point is that rather than impressing administration, novice wins are less impressive than good open showings.

Patty

[NoGraveButTheSea]

Hey,
As a colleaugue who gets the honor of competing against L&C on a regular basis (and finally slaying your giant at greater prtland on the 4th try!!!! lol)
I agree with your arguments about divisions. Your program (and ours I think) are examples of using the divisions as they ought to be used, that being educationally based and not point based.
However I went straight from Novice to Senioror for the reasons you talked about.
Fall of last year was all the time I spent in Novce (Linfield was my last Novi. tourney ) from there Dugaw sat me down and told me the truth about debate. We deconstructed my flows and ballots to give me the kind of education I needed to compete against senior competitiors. And I have been able to do that. As a hopeful future DOF I can say that I would use that similar method. I can't speak to Junior division level as I never once caught a whiff of it but what I can say is that it only took like two tournaments for my partner (James McCullough a PLU debater this year) and I to feel like we could win. And we did. Personally I feel that the clarity and obvious clash we get in senior division is much easier to fight against than shifty nebulous teams in front of inexperienced judges in other divisions. It's unfortunate that we cannot fiat integrity. So alas we deal with it.
Will C

[ML]

Yeah, congrats on taking the boys down. Doesn't happen very often anymore...

My recommendation has always been this: have a novice division or recognize a top novice, and at the first tournament of the year only offer a "rookie" division for first time experienced competitors. From then on, it's novice and open only, or just open in IE's.

I've also advocated in the past for novice division to be more educational, ie more engaged with critic and student. One thing I like is having critics give competitors their comment sheets (not their scores, however) before they leave the round, so they can integrate their feedback into their performances more effectively, and discuss it with their coaches. It also compels the critic to write responsible ballots. We did this in junior high in Minnesota, it was always really helpful. I also like the idea of having alternate resolutions for novice and open, although I guess that would create problems during prep time for coaches. There's also the notion of having only four rounds and using the rest of the time for workshops, briefings, or opportunities to watch open division. Anything though, to help them make that transition into open as smoothly and quickly as they can.

Anyone else have ideas?
ML

[Eagle of Meaux]

Just a thought on a potential compromise: Why not just scale points from novice to open? It seems to make sense that as you progress as a competitor into more competitive divisions your accomplishments might represent greater prestige for your school. This approach certainly doesn’t say novi or Jonior competitors are worthless, but it also generates a disincentive to sandbagging which I think we all agree is bad.

Keith

[pattybar]

I don't think the scaling idea solves.

Look at it this way, if I have a team who will go 3-3 in open, but 5-1 and go to sem's in JV, 66% of the points would be better than O....

Patty

[ML]

The other problem with scaling is that then junior colleges are systematically at a disadvantage, because their students stay at their institutions half as long as four year schools. Therefore, students barely make it into prime point-earning country (Open) before it's time to graduate/transfer. That's the theory/idea that's been thrown up every time I suggested something similar. Of course, you could just award separate sweeps for CC's, which we already do, but it's also nice--and some would say critical--for CC's to say that they can beat the four years at a regular level too.

Besides, that just structurally reifies the existence of sandbagging, and most in this community are in a state of perpetual denial about that.

ML

[NoGraveButTheSea]

Thanks for the CC props ML

[pattybar]

It seems to me that CCs and all others have the chance to compete in open... it isn't as if open is reserved for 3rd and 4th year competitors... I've seen plenty of freshmen/novices do well in open (see Jon Lang in sem's at NPDA 1999 -- sweet, innocent little freshmen... and the same year Syrek was in finals in his first semester debating... ).

CCs love to cry about the disadvantages of being at a CC and doing debate.. well, at least they are likely to have a couple of debaters returning, as someone who is starting from nothing, a couple of debaters to help us teach debate would have been wonderful.

I actually went to the NPDA website to look for season sweeps winners, but couldn't find them. I was wondering how many of the top 20 are from areas in which there are lots of novice and JV tournaments... and actually how many of the points there are from novice and JV rounds? My guess is that it is probably rather significant, as a coach could easily spread teams around, so they can all earn points simultenously instead of beating one another out of points...

I think that instead, any given tournament should be limited in the total number of sweeps points they may award. You get so many points to spread among divisions etc... with some sort of formula as to how they should be awarded in general. If a TD wishes to encourage the novice division, they could put more points up for grabs in that division... if they want to focus on open, put a larger portion (or all of the points) there. IF JV is your baby, then put the most points there and then let the field take care of itself. This will not necessarily help the sandbagging issue, but most TDs will put the majority of the points into open, with lesser amounts for JV and novice.

The way this turns out is that winning the novice portion is about equal to breaking in open. Seems fair, it rewards top novice performances while recognizing the achievement of breaking in open.

Thoughts?
Patty

[ML]

An interesting concept. You're saying turn the distribution system of points over to individual tournament directors, who will decide on their own which division gets assigned the most points? My gut tells me that's a recipe for lots of confusion, as so many people never even bother to read the tournament directions on the invite, much less the specific rules. Plus, I think that if a sweeps-minded DOF knows more points will be allocated to junior when all their teams are in open, they probably won't go. Part of the "attraction" of NPDA sanctioning is the promise of standardization of such things. I'm not sure the benefits will outweigh the cost of alienating specific schools from attending.

I'm sympathetic to your comments about CC's Patty. Lots of CC schools have budgets as big or bigger than ours, and more faculty support and infrastructure (eg actual classes for them to practice events) than we do. Experience has taught me, however, that often truth lies beyond my own observations. I think Will's right about the political perceptions; CC's need to be included and given a chance to compete on the same level as everyone else, and more often than not their novices come in with less experience, less college-prep courses (which I guess is how one becomes a "well-read college student") and less time to focus on the activity because of work/school/family obligations. (I'm wildly essentializing here and admit that, but all the same that's the tendency) Scaling the point system would impede their ability to stay competitive, which is not good from a P.R./Administrative point of view, since forensics is one of the only activities where CC's and Four year schools compete together.....(Of course, this dichotomy between 2/4 year schools does nothing to represent the 4 year schools with a CC-type make-up, or the junior colleges that are better funded than a lot of 4-years....but that's a different story...)

I say just get rid of frickin' junior, and make novice a more educational experience so that by the time novices have cashed their eligibility, they're ready to face open division competition. But I think in the end less points to "lesser divisions" cheapens those victories (however much they might be worth) and might even lead to more restrictive recruiting practices, ("If you can't compete in open, it's not worth having you attend.") And that's not a good situation at all.

ML

[pattybar]

ML,

Granted, some DOFs don't bother to read the invites well enough to even FIND the tournament, say nothing of to understand how sweeps points are allocated... I suppose that would be their problem entirely..

I suppose my largest objection to the current season sweeps is that it is inherently biased toward the big regions. It seems very unfair that a team can be very competitive in their area, attending single-division tournaments and doing well, but since they are unable to travel to the 'land-o-big-tournaments' twice per month to compete, there is little chance of their actually winning season sweeps.

Patty

The source of this problem is the uneven distribution of novice and junior divisions, all of which accumulate sweeps points. Instead of completely discounting the accomplishments of those who win the divisions, let the TD decide the focus by allocation of sweeps points as they see fit.

In essence, the TD would be given a set number of sweeps points for a sanctioned tournament and asked to indicate how many would go to each division. NPDA could say that the points should be awarded for elim round performance and the maximum reported would be 50 (or some other maximum number that works out....)The TD could decide to have them all apply to open, divide them equally among the divisions or let them all go to novice if they wished. So, the maximum a squad could take home from a three division tournament if they won everything possible would be the same as their sweeps points if they broke everyone as far as possible at a single division tournament.

[mdreher]

Patty,
The location on the season sweeps from past years:
www.parlidebate.org/results.html (http://www.parlidebate.org/results.html)

FWIW, the Business Meeting tonight voted to table the proposal to have separate sweepstakes placings until the Spring business meeting.

(Also -- Renea took the meeting minutes; once I get a copy, I'll put 'em up.)

[pattybar]

Michael,

I found them after I posted... and the abundance of CA teams in the last couple of years right at the top seems to support my thoughts on this.

Thanks..

Patty

[ML]

Hey Patty,

I see now what you're speaking to, and I sympathize even more with the idea of a regional bias affecting long-term measures of performance. Witness the NW's recent demise in terms of success at the NIET. We *used* to have national champs and lots of finalists; now we as a *region* (not a separate school) consider it a victory if someone we competed against made it out of quarters. The power has become concentrated in the Midwest and South; with the exception of a few California schools and a girl named Audrey if you're not from those areas, the deck is stacked against you. Little wonder many programs in our region, when faced with budget choices affecting travel, have chosen to de-emphasize national IE competition in favor of NPDA. I have no question that we'll bounce back someday (the ten people on my team I plan to have qualified for NIET this year--five times as many as two years ago--are a heartening sign of that I think), but in the meantime, there's very little I can do to alter the competitive ecosystem other than water the garden in my own backyard. And not focus on performance measures like sweepstakes, because, well, that just gets depressing.

Food for thought from someone who knows,
ML

PS: I think I can remember one of my previous posts on this board, noting that until we cracked the top 30, L&C didn't really care that much about sweepstakes. It's a perceptual thing, mostly for PR spin and puffing up a bit. And there are lots of ways for those not in the top 30 to get around that lack of spin material.