College Policy Debate Forums
December 12, 2018, 06:24:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Eliminate 8 rounds  (Read 6894 times)
jarman
Administrator
Full Member
*****
Posts: 115


« on: October 21, 2009, 12:28:27 PM »

I'm leading with subject line that is controversial.  But, hear me out:

After six rounds, all teams with 5 & 6 wins:  qualified to NDT.  All teams with 0, 1 or 2 wins:  eliminated.
All remaining teams debate for the remaining spots.  Might need to add the top 2-4 team (based on ballots, then points) if there is an odd number (though this could be based on how ever we normally would pull a team up if we needed to).

Benefits:  (1) using a F/S/S model, we have the entire day on Sunday for run-offs and we can begin those debates at 8am, (2) better judging, since we can eliminate the need for judges at the top and the bottom of the bracket.

Based on last year, we would have had 11 teams debating on the final day, instead of 22.

I'm willing to admit this is a preliminary suggestion and it might not be perfect.  But, don't we have to come up with a better system than run-off rounds in the middle of the night?

One caveat:  two teams were 2-4 last year that eventually earned a 4-4 record.  They would be excluded from this process.  Yet, even last year, both had to apply for a second round.

Jeff
Logged
Vega
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #1 on: October 21, 2009, 12:45:21 PM »

For context, here are the results after round 6 (eventual qualifiers in bold, alternates in italics):

***Qualified***
6-0: Trinity (16)
5-1: UTD BR (13), WSU BR (13)
***Still in***
4-2: Baylor CM (13), UCO CH (12), UCO SS (11), UTSA (10), MoState FW (10)
3-3: Trinity BH (12), Texas CM (10), Baylor LR (10), Kansas KQ (9), ESU FL (Cool
***Out***
2-4: UTD LR (Cool, UNT (Cool, KSU MZ (7), OU KT (6), UMKC AB (6), MoState GK (5)
1-5: KSU AF (5), KCKCC (3)
0-6: UMKC JS (1)

We would then be having debates for 7 slots between 10 teams.  How do you do that? 
Logged
Jolie
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 56


« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2009, 01:03:23 PM »

I'd be more in favor of eliminating run-off rounds than I would be of going to this Alternative.
Logged
Ermo
Full Member
***
Posts: 243


« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2009, 01:17:35 PM »

I'm intrigued by this, but I think getting consensus on the question Vega asks would be vital. It should probably be in one's interest to enter the runoffs with 4 wins instead of 3.

One option is Double elimination.

Those with 4 wins get two losses; those with 3 are treated as already having one. If after a particular round the break is clean, the tournament is over. If there are more teams eliminate than needed to be, as many as twice that many teams compete for the final slot(s) in a single runoff round based on normal bracketing (and breaking brackets so schools don't hit, I assume).

So, from the 10 teams remaining, one of the 3's will get a pull up. After that round, there will be either 7 or 8 teams remaining (2 or 3 eliminated)
If 7 (the pull up loses), we have our field and go home early.

If 8, (the pull up wins) then you would have 2 teams with no downs (hopefully they can hit!) and 6 with 1 down. Assuming the two without downs can hit, you will have those 2 teams and 3 others qualified (3 "eliminated").

So, 3 remaining teams for 2 slots. One could give the 9th seed to the one with the most ballots, and let 10/11 debate for the final slot. That way, we end after 9 rounds. Or, you could let 9 and 10 debate, and the loser gets one more chance against 11. That makes the day run a bit longer.

VARIATION
A minor variant on the above would be to have the two 4-2 teams that won get into the 4/5 slots automatically (Mathematically, neither would have been eliminated with a loss in the 2nd runoff). Now you are down to 5 slots for 6 teams. In the 2nd runoff (round Cool, 3 qualify and 3 lose. The remaining 3 compete for the final 2 slots.

PROBLEMS
1. If we had to bring a 2-4 into the mix, both UTD LR & UNT are tied on ballots, so speaker points are back in play. On the other hand, neither had really "earned the right" to be there anyway, so it's more of a bonus than a denial.
2. 3 teams for 2 slots means 2 debates using our current system, so we still get 4 rounds of runoff.
3. If more affirmative than negative teams are eliminated in the 1st runoff, someone will be on the same side in the 2nd runoff. We can use traditional side equalization principles to resolve the question.
4. If we are treating this as a sort of elim bracket, we have to decide if (a) brackets can be broken to protect schools from hitting themselves - technically, this could happen now, and (b) if teams that hit in rounds 1-6 should hit again and reverse sides if that's what normal power matching would require. Technically, that can also happen now, but with more runoffs it might happen more often.

CONCLUSION
I like the idea (narrowing down the teams to improve judge prefs), although I assure you that we start with bubble teams for judge prefs now. As the tab director, I'm concerned about people not liking what happens - particularly as relates to #3 & #4 above. It is important that those issues are well understood by everyone going into it.
Logged
Ermo
Full Member
***
Posts: 243


« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2009, 01:23:30 PM »

A much simpler alternative....

Rank order the teams after 8 (or 6). The next two teams out get a runoff against the last two teams in.

Last year, 1-8 qualify automatically. 9 hits 12 and 10 hits 11, and the winners go. Although it is possible that 8/9 or 12/13 were tied on ballots, it is less likely that they were part of the same tie that 10/11 had.

Or, you could just do the same thing and bring in however many teams were part of the tie. This year, the tie was 9/10/11/12/13, so you have a runoff with 8v13, 9v12, 10v11. This isn't quite as nice to #8, but it does ensure that we have the qualifiers after ONLY one runoff round, instead of potentially several.
Logged
Vega
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 75


« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2009, 02:48:58 PM »

Ermo says: Rank order the teams after 8 (or 6). The next two teams out get a runoff against the last two teams in.

Wouldn't this mean that someone with more wins could debate a fewer-win team, lose and be out?

It seems like this over-emphasizes one round, instead of the tournament, but I guess that may be inevitable.
Logged
Ermo
Full Member
***
Posts: 243


« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2009, 05:22:05 PM »

True - that's the trade off for reducing the number of runoffs. The current system is pretty good except for the potential for many runoffs.
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!