bracket sanctity

[Pacedebate@aol.com]

Sure 'there is some reason' to have a bracket. Using win/loss record followed
by speaker points probably makes more sense than an alphabetical or random
pairing. My point was not that we should randomize the bracket just that we
shouldn't act like the bracket is somehow sacrosanct. It's better than
randomly pairing elims but not by much.

John also writes:
>>>
He also claims that if you support not breaking brackets in elims,
you have to support forcing teams to debate in prelims.  I disagree. 
The reason is that teams can create a competitive edge by throwing a
debate.  (I think Wayne State has done this at their district
qualifying tournament.)  Imagine round eight where SMS A is 5-2 and
SMS B is 4-3 and they are debating each other.  Who do you think the
DoF will select to win this debate?
>>>

An interesting argument. A tougher decision than you might think. SMS A is
now 5-3 and might end up debating the number one seed in their first out
round. I digress....
The point I really want to make is....Is the competitive skew John outlines
anymore of a skew than what we already tolerate when we alter power matching
in prelims so teams from the same school don't have to debate each other. A
few years back UMKC was closing out tournaments in semifinals. It was a huge
advantage to be on the UMKC squad because you never had to debate some of the
best teams. It is a hell of a lot easier to go undefeated when you don't have
to debate 4 of the top 8-10 teams at the tournament. 


Tim Mahoney, Pace U.

---

• Prev by Date: Topic paper help.
• Next by Date: Reply to Pat Gehrke re topicality
• Prev by thread: Topic paper help.
• Next by thread: Reply to Pat Gehrke re topicality
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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