National Qualifiers

["Norah E. Dunbar" <nedunbar@ecst.csuchico.edu>]

	Recent postings have illustrated a need to reduce the number of 
teams at nationals but I think doing this by a a series of qualifying 
tournaments is a bad idea.  Doug Dennis articulated a series of arguments 
in a recent post regarding problems some teams have qualifying for the 
Jesuit Round Robin.  I think the same arguments exist for nationals 
qualifiers--many good teams are poorly financed, as we are hearing about 
on the elitism thread.
	Reducing the number of teams at Nationals by percentage of 
rounds won sounds like a good idea but is it really pragmatic?  Who will 
check on it? Or is it simply on the honor system?  What about a Novice team 
that only debates in Novice for a couple of tournaments?  Is their 50% win 
record worth the same as an Open team that had some tough tournaments and 
only finished with a 45% record?  If a CEDA member school has no teams 
with a 50% record, does that mean they forfeit their chance to be 
represented at nationals that year?  I think the best plan I heard was 
from Will Baker who suggested we allow schools to take two teams to 
nationals and impose  qualifications on the rest.  Schools with large 
squads of high caliber wouldn't be hurt but we could still limit the 
number of teams at nationals.  
	I agree with Tim Mahoney that sending Novices with no experience to 
nats isn't a great idea.  It probably only discourages them, but they 
might gain something by watching rounds with someone who can help them 
figure out whats going on.  

	Norah Dunbar
	California State University Chico

---

• Prev by Date: UMSL RESULTS??
• Next by Date: Elitism
• Prev by thread: UMSL RESULTS??
• Next by thread: Limiting Nationals-Jason Trice, Tim Mahoney
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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