In which we reminisce, ruminate, and prognosticate

Just for the record, the Sept-Oct 2020 PF topic is pretty much a rerun of the 1962 debate topic that I argued back in my freshman year of high school with my partner, Duncan. No doubt my great-grandchildren, if any, will be debating it sixty years from now. Once a chestnut, always a chestnut. Not a bad topic, but also sadly a sorry commentary on medical care in our country. Just for the record, the goal of for-profit medicine is the highest number of patients spending the most money; the goal of government-funded medicine is the smallest number of patients costing the least money. Although the topic is not really about that, it’s something to keep in mind. 

 

As for the LD topic, I’ve always liked this idea, and certainly I like the resolution. In the US, where the number of voters is somewhere between pathetic and anemic, I wonder what it would result in vis-à-vis the President. Especially if voting in primaries was mandatory. You would never have seen either Trump or Clinton in 2016, I would imagine. The biggest horse’s ass in America versus the most hated woman? What are they odds either would survive the common folk? 

 

Meanwhile, I love reading the papers every day for the [sarcasm] clarity [/sarcasm] on the school reopening issue. I have to admit that I’m glad I’m not the one having to decide anything on this. There’s no winning side. Kids suffer from not being in school, unquestionably. The dangers of kids in schools spreading the virus are manifest. Crocodiles to the left, alligators to the right. A lot of folks seem to be of the let’s-open-the-schools-and-let-nature-take-its-course persuasion, that is, open them for two weeks until you have no choice but to close them. Creating successful virtual education? One doesn’t hear much about that particular puppy. Like anyone reading this blog, I’ve been to an awful lot of high schools in my day, and the idea that these are somehow safe environments does tickle the old funny bone. Seriously? And colleges are no better. 

 

Life is going to continue to suck for a long, long time. 

 

In which we don't believe a word of it

I’ve been working regularly with the Usual Suspects on just about every aspect of virtual tournaments. As the season draws near, the reality of staffing e-vents has helped concentrate the hive mind. It isn’t all just push a button and take a nap. Not even close.

 

I, for one, think that the ridiculous number of people signing up for just about everything does not, in fact, represent real registrations. Most schools still have no real idea what they’ll be doing this year in terms of classes, much less what they’ll be doing in terms of tournaments. Still, one does sign up optimistically; I can understand that. And independents are sliming down the cliff walls, presumably in the hopes that no one will notice or care, and I know that there are tournaments that indeed don’t care. IRL, as I always say, independent minors running around your hallways puts the responsibility for their safety squarely in your hands (you’re the one driving them to the emergency room when they start bleeding from every portal), and virtual tournaments relieve at least that, but I’ve already seen at the one little e-tournament we had back in June that—SURPRISE—independents don’t necessarily feel a responsibility to show up, or let you know that they aren’t showing up, which you find out about 15 minutes after start time. Sigh. Oh, well, the VCA knows well my feelings about independents: the poor dears go to a school without debate? Then teach ‘em to play football, which the school also doesn't have, and then have them sign up as independent football players at high school events. The logic is the same. 

 

In any case, my guess is that despite big numbers early on, events will eventually boil down to the neighborhood of the caps. (You’re going to a tournament without caps? Seriously? Why don’t you just send them a check and be done with it?) Reality will set in, probably relatively soon. Schools will open one way or the other, craziness will happen, people will settle down and realize that there’s still a pandemic raging that kills people, and tournaments will be what they will be. We all just have to hang in there. 

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.