These Big Question tournaments are like viruses, popping up in random places after having crawled out of their mysterious birthing cave in some remote undeveloped country not yet on any map. I went to one on tabroom to see what they said, and there was virtually no information aside from the fact that you can "earn money for your school" by hosting one yourself. I'm not sure if Ebola is the right metaphor. Tupperware, maybe? I like the idea of an activity we can refer to as Debate Tupperware. Maybe there's a little burp when you shut up the last speaker. Whatever. I can't fault the NSDA for getting into the lucre business; raising money is what non-profits do, after all, in aid of their mission. But on the other hand, it doesn't restore my faith in the organization, which was never terribly strong through all those years when I was the world's worst district chair. I'm pretty sure I'm on the short end in holding this opinion, but so it goes.
A lot more interesting is the subject of non-varsity debate events at major tournaments. It's fairly common around here for major bid-ly tournaments to conduct novice LD and/or novice policy. Novice PF is a little less likely at big tournaments, probably because most tournament directors go back far enough to PF's earliest days when a lot of people saw it as a punk idea that was the ruination of all things forensical. Or maybe people are just so tied to what they're already doing that they can't see a way to do something else. In any case, there is no logic I can imagine that would support the idea of novice LD and novice policy and not support novice PF. (Again, I mean at big tournaments, not local events that, obviously, have plenty of novice divisions.) I wonder when we'll start turning things around. The Bronxwegians suggested it, perhaps a JV division or two, but they really didn't have the real estate to pull if off. They're already packed to the gills with varsity divisions of everything, including speech and congress. It's a big school but it isn't that big. I wouldn't be surprised though if they continue to explore the possibility. Some people think that if you run a JV division it siphons off V entries, but my experience is the opposite. Princeton used to have JV LD, and it was primarily (and usually won by) first-year students. That's why I urged the original change from JV to novice. They were novice already, so why not admit it?
Anyhow, if you're running a tournament (and have read every word of my toolkit) you have to ask yourself if you want novice or JV divisions, and what you want them in. I think we're seeing a shift that will ultimately result in more non-V PF divisions and fewer non-V LD and Policy divisions. As I urge in the toolkit, go where the people are. If everyone in your region is doing PF and you believe Policy is God and PF is the devil, then you should do PF and shake hands with Satan while you're pocketing his entry fees. Seriously, tournaments should serve their communities, not their TDs. (And not the TOC!) Give the people what they need.
So, curiously, Penn is offering JV LD instead of their usual novice, and a new JV PF division. I have no memory of their discussing this with me, but then again, I have no memory of what I was doing five minutes ago. The numbers are solid for all the divisions in the pre-registration. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I'll keep you posted. I'll keep myself posted, for that matter. Has the time come for other tournaments, like the Tiggers, to move out of the two LD divisions and into two PF divisions? Should they be novice or JV?
Interesting questions. Big questions, in fact, the kind I actually like thinking about.
///
No comments:
Post a Comment