In which we provide a manifesto

 Executive Summary:

            Bid events meaningfully capped

                        With single flights (LD/PF)

            Create additional JV and Novice events

                        Double-flighted

                        Meaningfully capped and, if numbers warrant, multiplied (i.e., possibly 2 JV divisions)

            Create Open Non-Bid events

                        Provide rounds for students shut out of bid divisions

                                    This is an alternative to getting simply shut out, period

            Eliminate trophies and lower fees

            

Details:

 

Debate has evolved over many years into what it became the last few decades. The events evolved, the tournaments evolved, and the system pretty much worked. There were plenty of debaters, and plenty of good tournaments to choose from. There were different paths to take for different teams, different ages, different styles, different needs, different budgets. Never perfect, but often striving to do its best.

 

We are now, however, in the middle of a pandemic. We need to adjust accordingly. 

 

And someday we won’t be in the middle of a pandemic. We need to prepare accordingly.

 

Covid has rendered virtually all 2020-21 tournaments virtual. Virtuality eliminates geography, to a degree. It cannot eliminate time zones, but those who are willing to adjust might be willing to ignore them. Virtuality also eliminates travel and lodging expenses. On the other hand, virtuality has its own demands, primarily technological, but also social: adequate access to equipment and adequate space to perform. In other words, although virtuality eliminates some issues, it creates others. These others are still new to us, and we will learn about them along the way; with luck, we’ll figure out ways to solve some of them. 

 

One thing we have definitely seen already in the Covid Era is exponentially increased demand for slots at tournaments. Varsity PF waitlists at roughly 600. VLD waitlists at 360ish. Yes, some of this is hot air, but even at half the number, PF at 300 is problematic. And honestly, it is unlikely that people are signing up nonexistent team members. That is, if you have 6, you sign up 6; if you have 3, you sign up 3, not 6. So, most likely, these numbers indicate strong demand, enabled by the elimination of geography.  

 

Competition, to achieve its desired effects, has to be meaningful and responsible. It evolved that way pre-covid. We need to keep it that way during the pandemic. And when we finally sound the all-clear, we need our debaters to be prepared to jump back into the real world. Let’s assume that 2021-2022 is that moment; 2020-2021 needs to be the bridge to get us there. The onus is on those who run tournaments, especially those popular tournaments that offer TOC bids. Suddenly access to those tournaments is, in a sense, universal. Early numbers demonstrate this dramatically. These tournaments must rise to the occasion. Changes must be made. We must get through this year, and be ready for next year. 

 

We must do the following.

 

Bid Events: Since it is unlikely (and not recommended) that TOC will change its qualification structure for this season, tournaments with TOC bids need to manage their divisions in such a way that access to bids is fair and meaningful. A division of PF with 600, or 300, offering 8 or 16 bids, would be neither. 

 

1)    Bid events need to be 6 rounds. 

a.     I’m sure someone could parse out breaking to sextuples or something to break all 10-2s or whatever, but there are only so many hours in the day, not to mention the aggro generated among the 9-3s.

2)    Bid events need to break all or most 4-2s. Assuming large numbers of potential entrants, this means breaking to triples. To achieve this, division caps need to be set.

a.     There is a tossup here. A 180 cap = c. 62 4-2s. A 220 cap = c. 76 4-2s. There are some who are willing to say that not all 4-2s should break, and that breaking some of them but not all is acceptable. That is an option, but I don’t recommend it, because it is not necessary. There are other options, discussed below. 

3)    Bid events need to be single-flighted. (CX, of course, needs to be reined in tighter; I won’t belabor how—just fit it in with your LD/PF)

a.     There is really no way around this. The first round of the day is at 9:00, then 11:30, 2:00, 4:30, 7:00.

                                               i.     Rounds starting later than 7:00 PM impose an impossible burden on many students finding access at home difficult. 

                                             ii.     Rounds starting before 9:00 AM impose a difficult burden on coaches organizing students for the day (presumably on their virtual bus)

4)    Bid events need to stretch over 3 days.

a.     2 rounds on Friday, 5 on Saturday, 5 on Sunday. (Again, adjust down for CX.)

b.     Eliminate for PF from the below example the half-hour prep time (i.e., 15 minutes from round posted to everyone in room)

 

 

5)    Bid events should be sorted roughly 80% regular attendees, 20% new to tournament. (You can grab previous years’ attendees out of tabroom and port into Excel to figure who’s who.)

a.     You owe it to your regulars to favor them, as they’ve supported you year after year

b.     You owe it to the community at large to let in newcomers previously prohibited (probably financially) from attending

 

Non-bid events, traditional: This year should see a lot of new JV divisions. This will absorb some of the demand out of the bid divisions. 

 

1)    If you don’t have a JV division in every debate event you offer, create one. Division is limited to students in their absolute first or second year of debate.

2)    Double-flight. The judge burden of single flights on teams is high. Imposing this burden on your bid events is one thing; imposing it elsewhere is asking perhaps too much of most teams. This means a judge ratio of 1-3.

 

 

3)    Here’s where things get interesting. Cap at 90. This breaks the top half of the 3-2s. 

4)    Create multiple divisions at the same level. Let’s say you have, oh, 270 JV entrants on the waitlist. In that case, break them down to 3 divisions, JV1, JV2, JV3. Keep schools together in a division to minimize judge burden.

a.     This means that ALL your JVers have a reasonable chance of good competition and breaking to elims. 

b.     This requires some manipulation on the tabbing end, but nothing too strenuous. Registrants simply choose JV when they sign up; you sort on the back end. 

c.     If numbers dwindle over time, you can always combine divisions later.

5)    HS graduates and up as judges. The idea of seniors judging folks who may be juniors is rife with potential shenanigans.

 

Novice events should be handled the same as JV. Open registration to absolute first-years, double-flight, 1-3 judge ratio, caps at 90 and multiple divisions if necessary.

1)    Seniors with a minimum of 200 NSDA points are eligible to judge in the novice divisions

 

It might appear that all these multiple divisions would be something of a headache to manage, but not really. They’re all of the push-button variety requiring little on the tabbing end to pair. Getting them up and running will take peoplepower, but two divisions of 90 is no more onerous to start than one division of 180. This might be a little cavalier, but then again, these are not bid divisions, and are intended to give the most people the most rounds, a seriously important goal. A cavalier attitude makes sense.

 

 

Non-bid events, non-traditional: Here’s where we get into the fun part. What about the juniors and seniors who don’t fit into JV, and are shut out of the varsity bid division? This, I imagine, will be a sizeable number at many tournaments. 

1)    Create an Open, non-bid division.

a.     Lots of conversation has ensued, and lots of possibilities offered, on what to name such a division. It has, to be sure, the odor of not being the really top event. But here’s the thing. The top event, the TOC bid event, is limited. You have two choices if you don’t get into it: stay home and stew, or enter the non-bid division. 

                                                        i.     The onus here is on the coaches to reasonably decide who belongs where. Needless to say, limited bid events are going to mostly be competitive bloodbaths. Plus, you’re only going to get a couple of teams into them in any case. Coaches can manage their teams in the era of CV, or not. Tournaments offering non-bid varsity are doing their best for the community. Coaches need to do what is best for their students. 

b.    The Open NB division is, literally, open to anyone. 

c.     Single flight, 1-2 judging, prefs. Same as the bid events, in other words, without the bids. 

d.     No cap. It is what it is. (If the numbers prove outrageous, however, splitting divisions as with JV might make sense. Time, and intelligent tournament management, will tell.)

e.     This division is not created until after the registration opens. If the numbers aren’t crazy, i.e., more than twice the cap, it might not be necessary. But you’ll see what’s happening almost immediately. Quick action can and should ensue. 

f.      Allow waitlist entries. Clear this waitlist after clearing the bid events. Allow TBAs until after this division is cleared. 

                                                        i.     This way coaches can see how the almost literal lottery of the bid divisions has gone, and sort teams accordingly. 

g.     Publicize the possibility of an OPEN NB event in the invitation, and explain why, as outlined here. Tournaments should openly explain themselves, especially in the CV Era.

 

 

And now for some general thoughts. Some of these are tough. Some of them are heretical. You have never done them this way, you can’t believe it’s even being suggested, everybody panic!!!

 

Forget it, Jake. It’s coronavirus.

 

1)    Offer no hired judges.

a.     This puts the burden on the teams to cover their entries. This will help eliminate some of the flakier entries that are not quite unofficial. (Of course, we are only considering bona fide official entries from high schools.) 

b.     Nevertheless, hire lots of extra judges for each division. Things happen, and you’ll need them. Good judging, CV or no CV, is the hallmark of good tournaments. 

c.     One exception for high schools is that they might want to offer hireds for the novice divisions, using their own surplus upperclassfolk and making a few extra dollars. 

d.     Not offering hireds is based on, first, a tournament’s need to hold back judging resources for its own purposes, and second, the idea that there simply may not be that many extras to go around. If the latter prediction proves wrong, then offering hireds would be fine. (But using them to cover parent-entered singletons and the like would not make sense. This is an extension of the usual general rule that no school can hire to cover its entire burden.)

2)    No trophies.

a.     Yes, you heard that right. No trophies. 

b.     Did we say no trophies?

                                               i.     Trophies are an acceptable hassle in an IRL event. In a virtual event, they are a potential nightmare. Sorting, packing, mailing: the costs, never low, are possibly doubled. 

c.     Forget it, Jake. It’s coronavirus.

d.     If you must, just do medals. They’re cheap and thin, and while they’re still a hassle, you might feel obligated to provide them. 

e.     Because of “3”, below, people will understand and, perhaps, applaud you.

3)    Lower your fees substantially. (You can read the rest of this after they’ve picked you up from the floor.)

a.     Forget it, Jake. It’s coronavirus.

b.     If you eliminate (or minimize) trophies, your only expenses are judges and rooms. 

c.     You have two options. Pass along your savings during the greatest educational crisis any of us have ever faced, or sock it to ‘em. 

                                               i.     If you really read that as a choice, you need to adjust your sarcasometer.

d.     Tournaments do deserve to make a profit, of course. You’re doing a lot of work, and providing an important service.    

                                               i.     Do your homework and estimate your costs per student as best you can. 

                                             ii.     Charge that cost, plus, say, 25%. 

1.     Remember, if it’s a team event, with no trophies, two students cost the price of one!

e.     This may not be the year you make enough money to send your team around the country to prestigious tournaments. Then again, there are no prestigious tournaments around the country to send your team to anyhow.

f.      Forget it, Jake. It’s coronavirus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In which we count the numbers

I, for one, do not believe half of the entries on tabroom for some of the upcoming tournaments. On the other hand, I do believe the other half, literally, which in many cases is way more than the norm. Way more. It is going to be one of a tournament’s greatest responsibilities this season to manage entries in an era when there are no travel or lodging fees. 

 

Of course, the first option is to let everybody in and devil take the hindmost. Needless to see, I find this option odious at best. 

 

In the case of bid tournaments, there needs to be a reasonable expectation on the part of entrants that the bids are achievable. The IRL rule of thumb has always been that the best situation is that all down-2s break. This requires a balancing of event caps and the number of prelims and elims. Quite doable. This season, sadly, it will leave a lot of entrants on the cutting room floor, but it’s probably better not to get in than to win 5 out of 7 rounds, and maybe pay a goodly fee, and not break.

 

When there are no bids at stake, there is still a responsibility on the part of a tournament to create a meaningful competition. 340 entrants debating 6 rounds = 117 4-2s. 240 entrants debating 6 rounds = 83 4-2s. Those are tough odds if you're breaking to a triple. Breaking to a double? Fuhgeddaboudit. I would prefer creating more events. If I have a bid division capped at 170, say, and 300 leftover registrants, maybe I’d begin by creating a new division for JV. That would alleviate a lot of the pressure on the bid division. There aren’t a lot of JV divisions in the wild around here these days. There’s Yale, which is early in the year when former novices are just cutting their teeth on sophomoring, that toughest of all debate seasons, and that makes good sense. Putting second-years into a fierce bid battle their first time out is a recipe for gloom with a side order of doom. They will sink to the bottom in the presets, and will never be heard from again. Putting them against other sophomores? That’s their peers, and it’s where they belong. There will be time enough later in the season to dash their dreams in the demolition derby of varsity debate. Then there’s Harvard’s JVing, but they’re only in it for the money and they’ll do whatever they can for whatever numbers they can reach, so I don’t really count them. There used to be other JV divisions later than Yale in the season, but as a general rule these were in lieu of novice divisions and were, in fact, lousy with novices. I always pushed to change them to literal novice. But now, when we know that there are a lot of second-years looking for rounds, and that they’re simply otherwise not going to be able to get them, I think we’ll see—and I will push for—JV events at all big tournaments. (And for that matter, novice events where they do not already exist. Why not? We’ve got the [virtual] space.)

 

Early in the pandemic we talked about some kind of off-bid division, and I see some tournaments taking to this idea. “Rising Stars,” say, or something like that. I think the jury has yet to deliberate on these. I was gung-ho early on for this idea, but others have been disdainful, worried that these divisions will simply become the Not Good Enough For Prime Time divisions. They do need to be in the mix of possibilities though going into the season. 

 

The one thing virtual tournaments can do is expand to meet the demand. Expanding into new divisions has to be the way to go. But schools are going to have to come to grips with the fact that expansion will be only so big. Nobody is going to get a dozen entries in a bid event this year. Not even close. 

 

Which brings us to the other problem. Who do you let in? Again, we’ve talked about this. Once the barriers to participation are lowered, there will probably be more potential participants. A tournament with a history will need to evaluate its past to determine its regular customers, and give them priority, while at the same time evaluating the new customers and ensuring that as many people as possible get a shot at entry at popular events. That’s going to be a killer. 

 

If nothing else, tournament directors are going to earn their whoppingly high salaries this season sorting all of this stuff out. 

In which I am reminded that I occasionally set reminders for myself

I set a reminder for myself, long ago, to update the registration procedures in the Toolkit. It popped up this morning, just in time for me to delay it for a week and to realize that, yes indeed, registration procedures will be, oh, 100% different this season. Just like everything else. I’ll get on it shortly. Today, instead, it’s golf, which is practically the only thing I do these days out in the world. Helps keep me sane, as much as golf can keep anyone sane.

 

Absent a vaccine/cure, I realize that it’s going to be a particularly long haul of social distancing for me during the season, as it makes no sense for me to rub elbows with anyone who has been in a classroom. Needless to say, I have fears for those who might have no choice but to be in a classroom, namely all my teacher friends. Of course, some may be lucky enough to work in acceptably sterile situations, but certainly not all of them, because that paradigm does not and will not exist. Throw the dice, see what happens? That, I’m afraid, does not sound like a plan. But there isn’t much point in me bloviating about it. That’s a job for other people, many of them in decision-making positions. The only decision I have to make is to tab everything from home no matter what happens. I’ve always felt I could do that anyhow, given how at some tournaments we are so far flung from the action that we might as well be in Neverland. If it wasn’t for the social side of tab rooms, there would be no point whatsoever in being there, at least for me, being teamless. 

 

So it goes.

 

I have noticed a few things. The UKy tournament, for instance, has more people signed up than Goya has beans, and they haven’t even enlisted Ivanka as their spokesperson. 500 VPF entries alone, most of them TBAs, of course. I didn’t bother to count how many were waitlisted, but it seems to be only those over a specific team cap. I gather they simply opened enrollment and let the multitudes flow in. We’ve been recommending event caps that advance all 4-2s (or 5-2s, in some cases) in the most competitive (read TOC-bid) events, and management of entries around 80-20 good regular customers and new worthies (especially those who might have previously been unable to afford the cost of travel to a national event). In other words, some tournaments we’re involved in will not have an open-door policy. Then again, some will. In the early days of discussion, everybody felt that virtual tournaments offered opportunities that eliminated geography. But those opportunities have not eliminated common sense. (Not that I’m accusing UKy of lacking same; I wouldn’t know them if I found them huddled in my basement going through the box of orphaned power cords. Still…) For that matter, the Logan tournament in January—JANUARY—is open and has 81 VPFers rarin’ to go, some of them noted even by name. Schools know today who they will send to a tournament on MLK weekend? I mean, not just a team with one lone wolf for a full battalion? Formidable, as they say on the French barricades. 

 

So, yeah, it’s going to be a crazy season. It already is. 

 

 

In which we pay various pipers, or not, as the case may be

I feel that this is the calm before the storm. 

 

NSDA has clarified its virtual room situation. The bottom line is a cost of $6 per room, per day. That’s reasonable; after all, data access isn’t free, plus they get to make a dollar or two along the way (and they should). Having already used the jitsi software, I know that it works. It’s no-frills, but in a way that eliminates a lot of problems: for instance, no one other than the participants can be in a room, and there’s no recording. What will make things interesting is paying for it. A college will have an outlay of a few thousand bucks in advance, and I have a feeling that their admins are not going to like that. Some of them are already ham-fisted in their treatment of tournaments in general and money in particular. For me, the good news is that it’s not my problem. I’m simply the messenger. Six bucks a room, read ‘em and weep. End of story. 

 

To fill the empty hours I’ve created a spreadsheet for estimating expenses and determining cost per entry. It really only works when you’re relatively sure of your numbers. The point of it is to help you decide how much you should be charging. We’ll see what people make of it, if anything. I have a feeling most folks will charge what they always charge, and most people will pay it. Everyone will be so happy not paying for planes, trains, automobiles and EconoLodges that they won’t even notice. But honestly, if my spreadsheet is accurate, what it costs is what it costs, with a reasonable percentage of profit. No one’s going to be digging any goldmines over it.

 

I’ve also been collecting data on attendees, so far just for Da Bronx. I looked at the last 3 years to see who the regulars are. They get first crack when slots are distributed, minus an estimated 20% of the slots going to new people, primarily those who in the past were unable to attend because of expense. There is a thought abroad that a lot of programs are local not by choice but because of financial restraints, that is, they can’t afford all the auxiliary expenses like travel and lodging, both of which are now removed. One needs to create a thoughtful balance of regulars and newbies, especially if those newbies are especially deserving. Mixing that with caps is going to be…fun? Oh, well. That’s why I earn the big bucks. (Which I’m sure will be coming any day now. I mean, 25 years in, I know it’s just been a question of the banks finding a place to drop off the ingots. Even though I’ve been in the same place all those 25 years. Maybe I was misinformed?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In which we tackle sex

Sometimes one finds oneself in a curious confluence of ideas that starts the brain fluids flowing, although not necessarily to any conclusion. To wit, in this last week I happened to listen to a podcast about James Triptree Jr., one of the pioneering women in SF, I’m in the middle of listening to The Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. LeGuin, and on my Kindle I am finishing up reading The City in the Middle of the Night by Charlie Jane Anders (a juror of the Otherwise Award, originally named after Triptree). There’s no rhyme or reason to this confluence. It’s just happenstance. 

 

One interesting thing is the difference 50 years makes in SF writing in general. I’ve remarked before about LeGuin worriting (I love that word) a theme to death, and while her content is anything but stodgy, her writing is definitely of another time. Anders, on the other hand, is as modern as today: the book just won the 2020 Locus for best SF novel. I’ve always been fascinated by the styles in art that define a moment in culture. The 1960s simply are not the 2020s. I’m not talking about the content so much as approach. Storytelling is both faster and more elliptical. Literary brushstrokes are shorter, looking one way close up and another way from a distance. Stories are told differently. My favorite way to explain the stylistic differences is to reference comics (or, if you prefer, graphic novels), which have a similar continuum. Take a look at 1950s Batman, and then take a look at 2020 Batman. Faster, more elliptical, shorter brushstrokes, a completely different gestalt. Art—all art—is moving that same way (at the moment).

 

As readers, we can enjoy the past and the present. It keeps us on our toes. As critics, we can try to explore it all in depth, to figure out what makes it tick. And as students of life, cogitating on a woman writer with a feminist slant whose success had to come with a male pseudonym, a feminist writer slicing and dicing ambisexuality in what has become an SF classic, and a prominent present-day trans writer creating a story where men barely play a role and the key to the story is another species entirely? 

 

As I said, it keeps the juices flowing. 

 

In which we pace the floor, waiting for the obstetrician to deliver 2020-21

Anyone who is paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that things are going to be totally nuts for the schools when summer is over. What is not in question is that learning in person is an extremely good thing, and that learning remotely is not a perfect substitute. This seems to be especially true for younger kids, but it holds up through college as well. For that matter, the premise holds for life in general. Online is no substitute for being there; I can easily speak to that as the grandparent of a three-year-old living in London. As for the schools, while some people seem to want definitive answers now, others—perhaps more wisely given the current situation—are hesitant to say much of anything if it can all be overturned in a matter of a week or two. Then again, if kids do go back to schools, much planning will be needed. So there’s some wisdom there too.

 

Thank God we have such strong leadership from our national government. (Oops. Wrong universe.)

 

Meanwhile, we’re coming up to mid-July. I haven’t posted much lately because there isn’t much to say that I haven’t already said. But it won’t be long before we have to fish or get off the pot on the early tournaments. If you have an event in October (think Bronx and Byram Hills in my circle, and Yale for my closely connected circle), the clock is ticking. Decisions have to be made. Fortunately some awfully smart people have been thinking hard about all of this, and are providing direction. One thing that has to be kept in mind is that I, personally, have no horses in the race. I don’t know what it’s like coaching a team virtually. Others do, and I rely on them for those insights that I can just imagine. Then again, even on their end they’re not sure what’s going to be what next season. But one certainty is that online tournaments are it for the foreseeable future. And foreseeability is limited. 

 

May you live in interesting times. 

 

 

In which we declare, this is how we're doing big tournaments

It’s not easy planning something in great detail when, for all practical purposes, you have nothing to go on. I mean, yes, we’ve been to and even run a few virtual tournaments, but nobody’s actually got it knocked yet. By knocked I mean an attainable vision of a competition successful on all counts: fair, reasonable, predictable, satisfying—a tournament teams want to go to year after year, that judges can’t wait to judge because of the great treatment they receive, that even the tab room looks forward to the fun of making it all happen yet again. We don’t have anything close to that with virtual tournaments. We have all of our experience with IRL tournaments, and a tad of experience with e-tournaments. And we’re trying to assemble from that a top-to-bottom plan for 2020-21. I will add that the "we" here is a group of individuals with differing opinions, whose teams and the needs of those teams sometimes vary from one another dramatically. Fortunately, the "we" here is a group of professionals with mutual respect who also happen to be friends. We can disagree, but we can also come to a decision, sometimes concurring with a decision that goes against our personal opinions. 

 

Just as an aside, I have never believed that the best solution to a disagreement is a compromise. Sometimes, yes, of course, but other times, no. Sometimes there really is a correct or more desirable path that has to be taken where perhaps one party to the group isn’t happy but the group as a whole is better off. This is preferable to no one in the group being happy, and pretty much no one being better off. I have known business managers who were so fearful of disagreement that they could never pick a side (much less have their own) and inevitably proposed the worst possible solution where not only no one was happy, but the true goal that was being sought was rendered unachievable. Fortunately for the debate community, our Traveling Tab Room is not like that.

 

Anyhow, we have endless discussions about handling tournaments next season. I don’t think anyone believes anymore that there will be any IRL events. The Times today discussed how college teachers think the last place they should be next season is in a room with college students. Can’t say as I blame them. The high schools are kicking around all sorts of solutions for the School Year in the Time of Coronavirus, some of which sound to me like cake in the sky; I’d say pie in the sky, but that’s giving them too much credit. In any case, e-tournaments are going to be it, and we’ve come up with what we think is workable. There are some ifs, which could cause changes as things evolve, but so far, we’re set. 

 

Big three-day tournaments with TOC bids will look like this, until something better comes along: single flights, 6 rounds, cap at 180, judge ratio 1-2 (not partial obs), MJP in VLD for Quarters bids and above (or wherever the precedent has been established) otherwise strikes, break to triples. This applies to PF and LD both. At tournaments where we’re predicting a big overflow in varsity divisions, add a JV division; my idea for Community/Open was a non-starter, not being able to get past the looks-like-a-loser-division problem.

 

Skeds look like this:

 

LD
	Start time	Duration	Finish time
Day 1
RD	4:30 PM	1:30	6:00 PM
RD	6:30 PM	1:30	8:00 PM
RD
RD
RD
RD
Day 2
RD	9:00 AM	1:30	10:30 AM
RD	11:15 AM	1:30	12:45 PM
RD	1:30 PM	1:30	3:00 PM
RD	3:45 PM	1:30	5:15 PM
Trips	6:00 PM	1:30	7:30 PM
Day 3
Double	8:30 AM	1:30	10:00 AM
Oct	11:00 AM	1:30	12:30 PM
Qs	1:30 PM	1:30	3:00 PM
Semi	3:30 PM	1:30	5:00 PM
Final	5:30 PM	1:30	7:00 PM

 

 

PF
	Start time	Duration	Finish time
Day 1
RD	4:30 PM	1:30	6:00 PM
RD	7:00 PM	1:30	8:30 PM
RD
RD
RD
RD
Day 2
RD	9:00 AM	1:30	10:30 AM
RD	11:00 AM	1:30	12:30 PM
RD	1:30 PM	1:30	3:00 PM
RD	3:30 PM	1:30	5:00 PM
Trips	5:30 PM	1:30	7:00 PM
Day 3
Doubles	8:30 AM	1:30	10:00 AM
Octs	11:00 AM	1:30	12:30 PM
Qs	1:30 PM	1:30	3:00 PM
S	3:30 PM	1:30	5:00 PM
F	5:30 PM	1:30	7:00 PM

 

CX
	Start time	Duration	Finish time
Friday
RD 1	4:30 PM	2:30	7:00 PM
RD 2	7:00 PM	2:00	9:00 PM
Saturday
RD 3	9:00 AM	2:00	11:00 AM
RD 4	11:45 AM	2:00	1:45 PM
RD 5	2:45 PM	2:00	4:45 PM
RD 6	5:30 PM	2:00	7:30 PM
Sunday
Elim 1	9:00 AM	2:00	11:00 AM
Elim 2	11:45 AM	2:00	1:45 PM
Elim 3	2:45 PM	2:00	4:45 PM
Elim 4	5:30 PM	2:00	7:30 PM

 

 

The extra time in LD is for Varsity teams prepping. Otherwise, LD would go by the PF sked. There is serious consideration that CX might break the biggest reasonable number and forgo a final. There might be a little seasoning to taste for some of this, but overall it’s the fairest, and it’s certainly the closest we’ll get to decent results vis-à-vis TOC bids. 

 

The single flighting is, of course, the biggest issue. One can argue it till the cows come home, but when push comes to shove, it’s the only way a big machine—a tournament with hundreds of entrants in multiple divisions—can operate. Smaller tournaments, e.g., HS tournaments without bids or with a finals or even semis bid, running on two days, would take different approaches. I’m leaning toward two-dayers being Sat-Sun if at all possible, which allows for a lot of variations, and, more to the point, more leeway for double flights. 

 

As for speech, all events live, including DUO on separate cams. Double-entry okay except in extemp.

 

And that’s about it.