Where to go on the flip

[NoGraveButTheSea]

Hey Folks,
In the canned case thread Keith made an assertion that he prefers Gov. on the flip. I say opp. for one reason; numbers. If you look to tourney results take three or four good ones and do the math you'll find opp. winning about 60 percent and near as I can tell from personal experience opp. wins alot of out rounds. Now I am certain that there are individual differences (like the fact that Keith and Paul run damn good cases) but my perspective is stats alone. I always take opp. on the flip I just like it better it is less of a pressure cooker and allows me to go off case which is my pet advocacy to beat permed plans that loose link a res. Anyway your thoughts peeps?

[Gavin499]

Which seems valid, but I would argue that for the most part the statistic is skewed. I think you are right, it is easier for poor teams to win on opposition, since a DA might slip through, or whatever, leaving aside presumption. However, without the actual numbers, I would be willing to venture that in many of the top rounds, gov wins much closer to 50%. Assuming an unbiased resolution, the "tight cases" or "RCC's" or "canned cases" all tend to give huge advantages to gov teams, especially if the community shuns most of the valid arguments against them... There are reasons to go either way, and frankly I decide what side on a case by case basis (what judges I'm in front of often plays a part) but gov definately is not as bad as that evil statistic would have us believe...

Gavin

[Western Amy]

Dan and I were fond of choosing gov, and having the debate on our turf. (Not only because of researched cases, either). This can backfire when the res doesn't go your way or prep time goes poorly. It is incredibly hard to dig yourself out of the hole of a bad PMC, especially with an opp team that is skilled enough to hold you to it.

All in all though, I still would advocate picking gov. It puts the debate so much mroe in your hands.

[twistedism]

A few thoughts from a sleep deprived coach:
1) I always tell my kids that the better team you are, the more comfortable you are on the GOV. I think you have to get the debate on your turf as often as possible.
2) I still think there are a few judges who give some back-of-the-mind bonus points to teams that call GOV.
3) There is nothing worse than having to debate down to the level of another team. Calling GOV usually ensures that you control the quality of the round, in addition to the content (see my first point). If you are GOV and the LO is poor, you look smart in comparison. If you are OPP and the PM looks poor, then you risk being percieved as too cocky or abusive in comparison. This is unfortunate, but we've all been there...
Shaun Read
University of Portland
...back to my Blackwatch Cream Porter...

[truthisjust]

Here is what I tell me students:

1. If you are hitting a very very poor team who tends to muddle rounds, choose gov and run a very straight forward case. Nothing tricky. The advantage is that you can set up a clear case and have the last word to clear everything up.

2. If you are hitting an okay team, choose opp for the reasons others have said.

3. If you are hitting a very good team, it depends. If we know the team has many canned cases we will probably go gov. so they can't use them. If not, we go opp.

4. If the topics at the tournament have been mostly metaphors or very broad, go gov.