Etymology of "Open"

[USC MissingLink]

Can anyone tell me why forensics calls it "open" instead of "varsity?" I'm sure there's a cool story here, but I've never really thought to ask about it.

jEd

[Dan6814]

Um, because it's open to all competitors, regardless of their experience? I don't think it's any more complex than that.

Dan

[scooter]

Actually, I think that Dan is probably right. I had heard, way back in the days of my youth when we still wore togas while doing rhetorical criticism that some schools did actually call it varsity but they called novice Junior. I know, funky.

S

[truthisjust]

When I did high school wrestling it was called Varsity and Junior Varsity. Then when I did freestyle my first year out of high school it was called Open and Junior. I think a lot of competitve activities call the highest division Open.

[WWUPhil]

I am going to regret telling this story...

When I was young... very young, I gave my debate coach a printed coffee mug. it said the years NFL Policy resolution and on the other side, it said the Novice case limits (A Washington specification that reduces the list of cases to 5 areas.) The cup proudly proclaimed the "Novus case limits."
I guess I had never seen it spelled before.

[ML]

I really like to think of it as, "free of restrictions and able and willing to meet any kind of competition free of hierarchical labeling or patronizing assumptions". You know, "open" to the experience, regardless of how it measures up to your expectations.

Here's a thought. One thing I like about the non-qualification nature of NPDA Nationals is that everyone is eligible to compete. That means "little novice teams" at the end of their first year can meet teams that were top seeded at the tournament the year before. Sometimes, those "little novices teams" beat those "big open teams" and it is the subject of much cursing and bitter tearing of sackcloth and such. Those teams that didn't expect to lose to the unheard-ofs cry out against the judging, the tournament administration, etc. and call for reform that protects their right to advance and claim their rightful glory.

They don't think for a moment that sometimes open teams lose to junior/novice/inexperienced/untravelled teams because they a) get caught up in bad organization, case-shifting, etc. and can't provide the necessary clarity to win the round b) get lazy and don't think this round matters, underestimated what their opposition may finally have gathered the nerve to muster, c) the judge sees either of these two things happening and expects better of them, thus allowing their "rep" to actually work against them.

The point of my ramble, legitimate concerns about judging and administration at NPDA aside, is this: we often code our discussion about divisions with ideas of "protecting" novices and juniors from getting too beaten up upon by more advanced teams, yet no one ever really discusses the fact that "Open" teams can often rather serendipitously end up losing to novice teams if they're not used to debating someone without a command of jargon or strategy or gamesmanship. Are Open teams "protected" as well by the division assignments? Does this do them a disservice?

Just a weird thought. What do others think?
Yay! Lunch!
ML

[USC MissingLink]

oooh, i like it...

basically, novi/jv is set up to <em>protect</em> the "open" system which favors certain things (jargons, theories, structures) from the arguments of those who may come to different conclusions.

i do often tell my students that i want to move them up to open as soon as possible so they don't pick up bad habits in jv. maybe, in the interest of winning, i'm concerned about thrusting them into a winners' mold while they're still "soft"...

wow... now i've gone off on a wierd tangeant...

jEd

[pattybar]

I like to put students in 'open' at a minimum after they have broken in novice.... It seems to me that they are then ready to jump into the big pool and see what happens. I also think a coach knows when one of their new teams is able to start in open, and they should be put there.

I don't know anything about JV, as it is nearly non-existent in both places I've coached extensively.

I think that it is often embarassing for a team to be in novice when they know they should be in open...

As for ML's analysis... when the "good" teams can't beat the 'bad" (inexperienced) teams, who really is better??? A "good" team should be able to clean-up a round AND convince any judge that they are winning by using some basic debate techniques. "Good" teams should not be lazy or take any round for granted...

As for the jab at qualifying national tournaments... there should be place for both. When I joined the parli community, the concept of an open nationals seemed very strange to me and I still think that it is not a good idea to take a team to nationals who has not had some minimal level of experience or success in the regular season.

I do tend to think about it this way... an open tournament decides which team is best at that tournament... a qualifying tournament decides the best team for the season ---

Patty

[USC MissingLink]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>As for ML's analysis... when the "good" teams can't beat the 'bad" (inexperienced) teams, who really is better??? A "good" team should be able to clean-up a round AND convince any judge that they are winning by using some basic debate techniques. "Good" teams should not be lazy or take any round for granted...[/quote]Well, yes and no. A "good" team should be able to defeate a "bad" team in a <em>series</em>. But in any given debate, there are too many factors that can make a difference. The "bad" team could be extremely well versed on a particular subject. The "good" team could be hung over. And, in my experience, the judge could be excessively stupid, uninformed, misinformed or just plain bad.

I have another question. I've heard the psychology argument in favor of Novice and JV divisions - in that new teams don't get beat up. But I'm skeptical. I've always been convinced that these divisions are there to provide more trophies and sweepstakes awards so that new (or less successful) programs can point to success in order to get administrative support (which, by the way is perfectly fine by me). My question is, since a power-matched debate tournament would seed the worser teams against each other anyway, and since debating a few rounds against better teams is pedagogically beneficial, is there something to be said for throwing newbies to the dogs?

I have no experience with this, so I'm hoping that a coach or competitor out there can shed some light on this - if you've tried it. Does it work? Does it discourage future competition?

jEd

[pattybar]

Jed,

First, if the "good" team is hung-over, then perhaps they don't take debate/nat's seriously enough to not party until they are eliminated... thus, perhaps they aren't a good team???

Granted, with a decent judge, the "good" team should win.. but if the 'bad' team's strategy of messing up the round is effective, the "good" team is clearly lacking the skill to win a messy round. There do seem to be some judges whose judging paradigm is "I'll vote for the team who has clearly been beaten-up in this round"... but they will mess-up every debate, thus i the "good" team hits another "good" team they will be equally unable to win... unless they lose.

As for tossing a new team into open, if you have the choice (as we don't up here)... I think it depends on the team. If they are kind of cocky and need a dose of reality, put them in open to see how it goes... if they need encouragement and a lot of hand-holding, put them in novice once or twice so they can see that they don't suck as much as the other novices.

I've seen the former strategy turn out well, when the team makes it to sem's their first time out... but then it turned bad as one of the debaters decided that parli was too easy (or so he says) and left to spend time coaching HS policy...

Patty

[ML]

First off, Patty, I wasn't jabbing qualification tournaments. They have their place just as NPDA does. As a representative of the 2003 NPTE host, I'm hardly in a place to start jabbing, or dissing, or throwing any kind of smack down about it. NPTE good. NPDA good. And while we're at it, NIET good. yay.

I would take issue with the idea that NPDA is a representation of "the best team at that tournament" vs. NPTE which is a "best team in the nation" sort of thing. I don't think the dichotomy can be drawn as clearly as you imply. I think the difference between the formats doesn't lessen the significance of either. You win NPDA, you're a national champ. You win NPTE, you're also a national champ. Case closed.

Maybe we need to start having a special televised end-of-the-year debate in front the Supreme Court between the respective champs of each tournament to figure out who is truly superior. You know, like how they do it in the talkies. (aka Listen to Me....) But I have a feeling the winners of each don't care quite as much as the teams they beat, regardless of which tournament.

Love,
ML

[NoGraveButTheSea]

I joined the team on a tuesday last year with no concept of debate whatsoever. Three days later I was in Novice at L&C Pioneer went 2-4, broke novice at the three following tournaments, Linfield being the last one. First open was PCC Stan Schmidt. Have been open at something in the neighborhood of 12-15 tournaments since then. I never even touched Junior division. My point is that with hard work and perhaps a little natural skill I was able to be competitive in open inside of one college quarter. I do not think I am special it seems to me that two breaks in Novice and as a coach I would move them up. I learn so much from debating teams w/ more skill/polish/experience than me and I have been able to maintain a fair showing in open while also gettin my spankins' to learn lessons (Dugawism "You do not learn by winning.) (In open have gone 4-2 a bunch of times, 5-1 once, 6-0 once,3-3 once,2-4 twice,1-5 once)
My claim here is that the gap between good novice and decent open debater can be closed quickly with good coaching (which of course I recieve from Dugaw) combined with a willingness to obsess that I contend rivals DebateO'bot himself Keith West. However I tell my novice teammates that 8-10 hours a week and in a month they'll compete. I put in 25-30 but I am also a big nerd.
Just my testimony folks.
Will C

[StarDancingGirl]

When I first came in college parli, I really didn't see the purpose of 3 separate divisions, especially since I, having done 2 years of policy in h.s., was thrust directly into junior. I competed at various tourneys last year in "junior" and "open" (i.e., junior & senior), depending on the tourney, and I still think that one should move up into higher divisions as soon as possible.

However, having said that, I've seen debaters who cleaned up in novice in one tourney suddenly thrust into open competition, and it wasn't a helpful experience, because there was simply too much they didn't even understand or know where to start in dealing with it (i.e., until I told one of them how to deal with CPs--after their round--they had no idea how to respond to a CP). On the other hand, novice really wasn't helping them at all, and that's where I think junior comes into play. It would have been a nice place for them for a couple of tourneys, to get adjusted to actual debate terms and concepts, before jumping into open. However, I definitely do agree that it's only by hitting better teams than your team that you get to be a better debater.

[pattybar]

Perhaps I am not clear on what happens in novice divisions, as I rarely encounter them... but the above post implies that novice debaters are being entered without knowing the meanings of debate terms... huh?? That isn't novice, that is "I have not had any significant coaching/peer instruction" and sounds like a terrible experience to me...

Patty