2010 Sunset Cliffs Classic Results thread

[DEADMONEY]

Originally Posted by GiantsFan

1. Both teams in finals were NOT in finals of the Round Robin.
2. Will you apply the same idea to swing tournaments?

I've had this discussion elsewhere. I think that RR's are becoming a thing of the past. And yes, I also am against the proliferation of tournaments. While I understand the argument for increasing participation, I think that swings are poor for the health of students and inflate NPTE points by having 2 tournaments where 6/8 teams are the same on both sides.

[Pattybar]

You may have a point about point inflation.

I think the health objection to swing weekends is a bit off -- Think about it this way, if a debater is going to compete in 6 tournaments per semester, isn't it better for them to be home three extra weekends... i.e. travel to 3 swings (two tournaments per swing) -- than to make 6 individual trips out and back?

Swing weekends are longer than "single" tournaments -- but, a) they aren't any longer than traditional "full-service" tournaments, and b) if the debater has had a couple of weekends off, most can handle a long weekend.

Healthy food options can help swings be more tolerable -- and if the tournament doesn't provide good food, I've never been to a tournament location without a grocery store .

A swing schedule that starts Friday afternoon and ends Sunday evening should provide a well-run tournament plenty of time to start and end at a reasonable time. Also, planning a swing with a good number of close rooms will help keep things on-schedule -- so, swings shouldn't permit themselves to be larger than the facilities can reasonably handle. Plus, actually going to bed instead of socializing does actually help reduce fatigue -- although, it isn't nearly as fun... .

[andrewthepirate]

I understand your point about decreasing the number of weekends students are traveling, in theory. In practice, however, I think a lot of teams still go to the same amount of tournament weekends (or at least close to that). It just ends of adding more stress to weekends they would have been competing at anyway. I may be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

[dseltzer]

Originally Posted by andrewthepirate

I understand your point about decreasing the number of weekends students are traveling, in theory. In practice, however, I think a lot of teams still go to the same amount of tournament weekends (or at least close to that). It just ends of adding more stress to weekends they would have been competing at anyway. I may be wrong, but that's what it looks like to me.

Based upon discussions over the past few years, this is entirely geographic. For isolated schools like UNR and NAU, who also have very limited travel funds, swings are literally the only thing that can keep them in the running nationally. Seriously.

For schools who are in parli-intensive areas and/or who have plenty of travel funding, then I agree that they really do travel just as much anyway, rather than staying home on some weekends.

[wchamberlain]

Originally Posted by dseltzer

Based upon discussions over the past few years, this is entirely geographic. For isolated schools like UNR and NAU, who also have very limited travel funds, swings are literally the only thing that can keep them in the running nationally. Seriously.

For schools who are in parli-intensive areas and/or who have plenty of travel funding, then I agree that they really do travel just as much anyway, rather than staying home on some weekends.

seems like the problem isn't swings, so much as it is that the NPTE is overvaluing quantity of tournaments attended, as opposed to quality.

for example, in any sane power rankings system, washburn ak would be the top team in the country. in our system, they probably won't even get a second-round bid.

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by wchamberlain

for example, in any sane power rankings system, washburn ak would be the top team in the country.

Why is that true?

[richmindseed]

Originally Posted by GiantsFan

Why is that true?

Because if you show up to two of the biggest tournaments in the country and win both of them, you've got a pretty good argument for being #1?

That said, I can't think of an adjustment to the algorithm that solves this problem Will identifies. The five tournament cap is a pretty good compromise on the quantity issue, and any solution like "average their points out if they have fewer than 5 tournaments" creates a disincentive to compete. Like, if you win the first tournament you go to, why bother showing up again until NPTE? This, of course, begs the question of whether someone serious about doing well at NPTE would really let six months of rust build up like that...not sure where I stand on this issue and the way the incentive scheme would affect schools in general. Thoughts? Other alternatives? And please, for the love of all that is holy and some things that aren't, use the "search" function before you rehash the ELO conversation for the millionth time...

Also, our experience matches exactly with what Debbie says re: UNR and NAU and swings. Swings are the only reason we get to compete nationally. Hopefully, the national community loves us as much as we love you, and thus decide on the course of action that keeps us around. =)

[Pattybar]

Also -- Swings make more sense when the tournament location is more isolated -- enticing a good tournout to a remote place is much easier if the squads get two shots at winning .

I suppose there are ways NPTE could change the formula to discourage heavy travel -- maybe counting 5 tournaments OR 4 tournaments + the average points for all tournaments past the top 4.

I suppose only counting one set of points per weekend would limit the number of swings -- but, I'm not abbout to propose that -- or support it -- because I think the swing is what keeps things competitive for poor/isolated teams.

I also have a long history of not supporting measures that would mean NPTE is involved in making decisions programs/coaches should be making for themselves. I had enough of that crap trying to compete in some Minnesota "tournaments".

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by richmindseed

Because if you show up to two of the biggest tournaments in the country and win both of them, you've got a pretty good argument for being #1?)

A pretty good argument, but the issue is small sample size. In this case, AK, basically, had a good week. Could this be representative of how talented they are - very likely yes, and I have no reason to believe that Joe and Lauren are NOT the #1 team. But the reason, at least in my mind, to have 5 tournaments is to reward excellence over an extended period of time.

We both agree that an average creates DISincentives to compete, and for that, I'm not at all supportive.

[Pattybar]

The problem I have always seen with the 'top 5 tournaments count' formula is simply that a team/squad with a lot of funds can play the system -- because, if they have 5 "good" weekends, at reasonable tournaments -- or one kind of tournament -- then they're pretty highly ranked.

What isn't counted into the formulation is all the "bad" weekends they might have in order to get 5 good results. It's kind of like letting students re-take exams an infinite number of times (different questions, same subject) and then only recording the best score.

This is the same problem I have with tournament sweeps -- a squad can bring 20 teams and the 4 that happen to be "good" that weekend are the ones that are counted. I've alwas thought that NPDA sweeps should require squads over 4 teams to designate which ones will count toward sweeps -- but, that's a fight I've stopped really caring about .

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by Pattybar

The problem I have always seen with the 'top 5 tournaments count' formula is simply that a team/squad with a lot of funds can play the system -- because, if they have 5 "good" weekends, at reasonable tournaments -- or one kind of tournament -- then they're pretty highly ranked.

I agree. I have a 45 minute commute, so I have time to think.

What if the system required a minimum number of tournaments (say 4 or 5) and then the NPTE points reported would be an average of all the tournaments?

[richmindseed]

Originally Posted by GiantsFan

What if the system required a minimum number of tournaments (say 4 or 5) and then the NPTE points reported would be an average of all the tournaments?

Minimum requirement in a world where we also have swings, etc to keep costs down is actually not as bad an idea as I originally thought - you have to clear at around 4 decent-size tournaments to ensure have NPTE-qualifying points anyhow, so there's no real uniqueness as long as those 4 tournaments don't increase costs.

Not sure that averaging is a good idea - it actually creates an edge for schools with a higher operating budget, as one bad weekend => they can go to more tournaments to minimize the effect it has on their points, while small budget teams cannot similarly cope. This seems far worse in terms of the disproportionate harm than the current system...

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by richmindseed

Not sure that averaging is a good idea - it actually creates an edge for schools with a higher operating budget, as one bad weekend => they can go to more tournaments to minimize the effect it has on their points, while small budget teams cannot similarly cope. This seems far worse in terms of the disproportionate harm than the current system...

I'm really just thinking this through out loud, so I may completely contradict what I'm saying now...

I think you're right, Ankur, but it seems that the average is less of a benefit to the big budget program. Consider these two scenarios:

Tournament A: 11.5 points
Tournament B: 10 points
Tournament C: 8.5 points
Tournament D: 11 Points
Tournament E: 2 points
Average of Points: 8.6 points

Now take the same first five tournaments and add the following:
Tournament F: 10.5 points
Tournament G: 11 points
Tournament H: 10 points
Tournament I: 12 points
Average of Points: 9.6 points

The current system allows this hypothetical team to replace Tournament E with tournament I. The average points in this scenario jumps to 10.6.

My thought (and again, I'm just thinking out loud here) is that the one bad tournament is more of a weight around the ankle with an average rather than as a replacement.

[wchamberlain]

does anyone know how policy does their rankings?

http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbrusch...keResults.aspx

[Danz]

Does anyone know if speaker awards/cumes for Loma will be posted on forensistournament.net? Also, is there a way to request ballots if they weren't picked up?

[richmindseed]

Originally Posted by GiantsFan

My thought (and again, I'm just thinking out loud here) is that the one bad tournament is more of a weight around the ankle with an average rather than as a replacement.

Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, this makes a ton of sense. Replacement means that the bad tournament has zero effect on your points. Average means it has a marginal, at least, effect on your points. Since marginal means "more than zero," your point is entirely correct - good catch!

The question then is whether the difference in raw points in your example (43 to 53) has a bigger or smaller effect than the difference in average points (8.6 vs 9.6) on the rankings overall. That, to me, seems the best way to evaluate the efficacy of this potential change, as the rankings are ultimately what determine NPTE eligibility, etc.

Will - Briefly, they have a bunch of voters who input team rankings that are then aggregated (think coach's poll for college sports). Many of them have released the systems they use to determine their rankings - I would google "edebate rankings method" or something like that to see the posts from edebate that answer this more directly.

[bmerrell]

Originally Posted by wchamberlain

does anyone know how policy does their rankings?

http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbrusch...keResults.aspx

I haven't read it, but this is a link explaining the process:

http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbrusch...planation.aspx


Also, congrats to Pacific for this weekend and huge thanks to everyone who helped run the tournament and make sure it was a success. It's always a great experience and this year was no different (although I'd personally hoped to improve from 2nd place to 1st ).


Second, on the issue of NPTE points: My major complaint with the current system is that tournaments that differ substantially in size can achieve the same or similar points-values.

For example, a tournament with 35-40 entries that breaks to partial doubles will yield 13 points (assuming a sufficient number of teams attend from outside the region), even if it only has a few partials rounds.

At Pt. Loma, on the other hand, there were more than 100 entries and the tournament broke to a full doubles bracket. Nevertheless, the tournament winner would still have scored only 13 points with a 100% prelim record. Even if the tournament had cleared all winning records to partial-triples, it would still have been worth only 14 points.

There are those who will disagree, but in my opinion the cap on bonus points should adjusted to reward teams for strong results at particularly large tournaments or ones that are attended by more teams from outside of their geographic region.

I'm just throwing out numbers here, but maybe tournaments should award an extra .025 points for every entry beyond the first 30 or so. I'm not Ankur, but if my math is accurate that would make a tournament with 90 entries worth 1.5 points more than one with 30 even if they have the same number of elimination rounds. It would also afford some compensation to teams that didn't quite advance to elimination rounds but still achieved a winning record.

I'm not sure how this would affect small schools or those with limited budgets, but it seems as if there wouldn't be a significant difference. There would be a small incentive to attend specific tournaments that typically draw large attendance, but I'm not sure that would be substantial enough to affect travel plans in a measurable way.


Finally, I would support the idea of having a minimum number of required tournaments (probably 4-5, as per the current system), but averaging the points each team scored at all tournaments attended.

I've obviously never directed a program, but I doubt it would create a disincentive to compete. Teams will spend whatever they are capable of spending. Given the ability to attend more tournaments, teams that achieve a high ranking early in the season will continue to do so in hopes of extending their success, staying sharp, and gaining experience against a variety of opponents and in front of a variety of judges. Moreover, I think people recognize that rankings are only relevant in terms of qualifying to NPTE (which with 64 entries can now occasionally happen without any points at all =D) and for determining your first-round draw. After that, they're little more than pretty numbers.

With this in mind, the only teams that may not travel are those which are within the range of likely qualifiers but fear they could bring down their chances with a bad result.

In my opinion, this behavior is fairly unlikely, because most debaters would prefer to compete than sit out and most coaches would rather their students participate and continue to learn than wait on the sidelines. Moreover, most teams have regional/state tournaments that they attend toward the end of the year and would be forced to continue competing through the end of the season anyways.

If you do think this would be a problem, though, we could probably solve it by giving each team a mulligan, so to speak, where one of their tournaments wouldn't count against them.

[RSwanson]

Originally Posted by wchamberlain

does anyone know how policy does their rankings?

http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbrusch...keResults.aspx

hey will, click on the link on that page

http://commweb.fullerton.edu/jbrusch...planation.aspx

it's great. it's something like a combination of what we have now for npte, plus an inclusion of your best wins and worst losses (win quality)

[RSwanson]

darn, brandon beat me to it.

[RSwanson]

Originally Posted by richmindseed

Will - Briefly, they have a bunch of voters who input team rankings that are then aggregated (think coach's poll for college sports). Many of them have released the systems they use to determine their rankings - I would google "edebate rankings method" or something like that to see the posts from edebate that answer this more directly.

the coach's poll is often fairly ridiculous from what i hear

(sorry to triple post)

[laneg]

Hi --

I would like to thank Skip for a wonderful tournament -- everything seemed to go quite smoothly and the tab room staff were excellent.

One request -- I keep looking for cume sheets, and I can't find them. Forensictournaments.net has results for IEs and LD, but not parli.

Second (in the wishful thinking category) - I wish that critics who prefer a certain style of debate but who find themselves in the minority on a panel would try to be more understanding of debaters who aren't adapting as well to their needs. You should expect adaptation if you are the only critic in the room, but if you are on a panel, it is a totally different story. We should all show some grace in those situations.

Gina

[zapcaz]

Originally Posted by laneg

Second (in the wishful thinking category) - I wish that critics who prefer a certain style of debate but who find themselves in the minority on a panel would try to be more understanding of debaters who aren't adapting as well to their needs. You should expect adaptation if you are the only critic in the room, but if you are on a panel, it is a totally different story. We should all show some grace in those situations.

Gina

Word!

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by laneg

One request -- I keep looking for cume sheets, and I can't find them. Forensictournaments.net has results for IEs and LD, but not parli.

That's my fault, Gina. I have uploaded all the NPDA debate files now. Sorry about the delay...

[laneg]

thanks Konrad -- great to see you again!!!

[SoCalian]

Originally Posted by GiantsFan

That's my fault, Gina. I have uploaded all the NPDA debate files now. Sorry about the delay...

For the Double Octofianl found, you have Pacific HS advancing over Point Loma LuNa. It was the other way around.

Also, I'm curious what the process was for determining which of the 4-2s did or did not break.

[andrewthepirate]

Typically the first tie breaker is speaker points, but I don't know the specifics on that.

[SoCalian]

High/Low or total?

[andrewthepirate]

I think high/low, but I don't know for sure. Konrad would know.

[dseltzer]

You might be able to figure it out from looking at the cumes and the elim seeds that Konrad posted.

[GiantsFan]

Originally Posted by SoCalian

For the Double Octofianl found, you have Pacific HS advancing over Point Loma LuNa. It was the other way around.

Also, I'm curious what the process was for determining which of the 4-2s did or did not break.

High/Low points, then total, then opp record. Just as the NPDA bylaws specify.