Re: MP/Forbes 50/Big schools v little schools

["Mark R. Whitney" <mrwhitne@mailbox.syr.edu>]

> 	Many of the arguments that seem to appear on the list lately argue that
> the nature of a "Big School's" reputation makes it necessary to "level the
> playing field" and thus necessitates either random judging, or a system that
> gives the "small schools" their choice of judges in the Forbes 50 system.
> 	There are several reasons why I think that this is a bad idea.
> 
> 1) It really seems as though you wish to punish the "Big Schools" for working
> hard.  There is more to a national circuit reputation than just money to
> travel.  I'M NOT SAYING THAT A SCHOOL SHOULD WIN ROUNDS BASED ON REPUTATION.
> But why should we actively seek out "Big Schools" to restrict the advantage
> that they've spent a year trying to build?  This makes little to no sense to
> me.  Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm sure you will 8-)

   I am not advocating punishing big schools. I certainly wouldn`t want 
to imply that they don't deserve the reputations many of them hold.  All 
I am trying to point out is that regional schools would be at a 
significant disadvantage the way the proposal is phrased now.  Is there 
any reason to punish regional schools?  I like mutually preferred 
judging. If a proposal can be worked out (and I'm confident that it can) 
to the benefit of all, I would support it in a second.

> 
> 2)  If you really wish to make the playing field level, there is no better way
> to do it than with MP.  Everyone is working under the false assumption that
> when a "small scholl" debates a "Big School" that the "Big School" gets to
> choose the judge.  The key term is MUTUALLY PREFERRED.  This means that it is a
> judge that both sides have agreed on, and marked at the same rank.  If you do
> random judging, unless you waste your insuffient number of strikes, a "small
> school is much more likely to get hosed by a judge that votes on reputation,
> because you were unable to mark that person as a "C."
> 

   This would be true except for one thing.  The main issue I've been 
trying to get across is that the national programs KNOW the judges, 
whereas the regional ones often do not.  So you are basing your "A" 
ranking on personal knowledge and experience, but we might be basing our 
"A" ranking of the same judge on reputation, rumor, or an invalid judging 
philosophy book. (Just as an aside, how about letting OTHER people write 
our philosophies next year :} ?).  You know what you're getting, but we 
don't.  THIS is where the inequities occur!

   As to your other arguments, please see previous postings.

                      Sincerely,

                          Mark Whitney
                          Syracuse Debate

---

References:

• MP/Forbes 50/Big schools v little schools
• From: DGENCO@VAX1.UMKC.EDU

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Hooray for the East
• Next by Date: Agreement w/Broda-Bahm
• Prev by thread: MP/Forbes 50/Big schools v little schools
• Next by thread: In defense of Todd
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page