Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Cory - I think this is an excellent idea. However, I would to see simply levels rather than three.

This weekend both of my JV and V4 pools were really small. We could have made things a heck of a lot better by combining both of those pools into one larger “experienced” division. I don’t really see the point in a JV division because it takes away from the varsity pools. I can understand that some debaters are afraid of some debate practices (like second year kids being afriaid of critiques or whatever) but I don’t understand why that justifies a second division. Some VSS kids are still learning what these arguments are also. As debate coaches - we know that our students learn the most from losing. Our goal isn’t to give out awards, its to ensure a quality debate education.

I think that if we move in two person division direction - competitive opportunities for true second year debaters and learning debaters will still exist. The Old Pius and JMM challenges always had a larger division of NSS and the AE challenge has a nice and big JVSS division. So long as tournaments like this exist once a month - learning debaters will have competitive opportunties against their peers. And then for the most part - they can lose and learn in the other divisions.

I’d also like to echo that 4-Person tournaments require a heck of a lot more work than the switch sides divisions do. I can’t tell you how many hours Mr. Scheffler and I put into making workable schedules (and then adjusting them as teams dropped and added). At least last weekend, my VSS pool subsidized the V4 pool because we simply didn’t have enough diversity in the V4 division. I’ve heard this has been the case at the State Tournament sometimes as well. I guess from a tournament director/real-life-policy-maker-in-training’s perspective that’s a huge deadweight loss and a very costly program.

One drawback to this idea is the problem that I could have faced this weekend. If Paul was the 2-Person tournament and I was hosting the four person tournament - then I’d have to both direct my tournament and then send my debaters away from my school and pay fees at another. This wouldn’t be beneficial to me - and it creates a lack of incentives to host tournaments.

By Nick Bubb on Nov 5, 2006

Next year, none of the schools in Milwaukee Public Schools will likely have the option of traveling more than 50 miles out of town for invitational tournaments, because of budget issues. If Rufus King wishes to continue participating in national tournaments, it will be entirely through our own fundraising (i.e., our tournaments). As NFL Executive Secretary Scott Wunn argues, it makes much more sense to foster a more localized approach to competition, than trying to create large, statewide “mega-tournaments.” By splitting up the types of tournaments by north and south (totally ignoring the far west, who wants to develop debate, by the way), we are fostering fewer opportunities than ever for some debaters, especially those who want to attempt to qualify for the state tournament.

I talked to Sharon Sharko of Greendale, who had to cut several weekends out of her calendar, because her budget (which has not been increased for several years) can no longer handle the increased costs of busses (with gas surcharges and all). Both Sharon and Mary Wacker of Brookfield East were bemoaning how overcommitted their students are, which also creates conflicts. None of my own students competed the weekend of Oct. 14, because it was homecoming, and half of them had to march in the band - or lose an entire letter grade. These are the real issues facing debate coaches in our state, and trying to force this agenda on coaches who neither have the means nor interest will only discourage growth of the activity of debate.

I acknowledge that numbers have been abysmal. I think as a compromise, we need to “get real” and revisit the issue of carrying capacity in the four person divisions. I don’t think that pits anyone against anyone, and it’s a much better option than pitting the “haves” who can travel vs. the “have-nots” who cannot. The Milwaukee Public Schools has been doing novice and experienced divisions for years, following the decline of debate programs in the city. Now that numbers are starting to grow through the urban debate program, I think a Novice - Experienced - Switch-Sides model could work. The other reason I think this could work beyond Milwaukee is that there are other options for debaters, such as Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum. I do agree with Nick’s “lose and learn” statement: pulling debaters up makes for a good learning experience. Some middle schoolers in novice at Brook Central on Friday gave some 9th and 10th graders a run for their money! (As an aside, the middle school coaches thought it was funny that the high school teams kept coming in and saying to their opposition, “aw, you’re so small and adorable!”).

Large, competitive tournaments would be a nice luxury, but they also take more time. I wonder if there’s really a point beyond qualifying to state, because last year at both Madison Memorial and Appleton East, teams were conceding left and right once break rounds arrived, because they had earned their bid and wanted to go home. The prevailing sentiment I hear from both other coaches and my own debaters is that less is more. Less traveling, less time commitment, etc. The bottom line is that in the 21st century, more responsibilities and commitments are pulling at our students. Under Cory’s proposal, the amount of kids I would have participating would be cut in half. Many of my students cannot stay overnight places because of religious restrictions, and for the same reasons, their parents will not let them come home later than 10 p.m.

What this proposal boils down to is more of a contentious divide between the haves and have-nots in this activity. We spent more than an hour debating that very issue with laptops, which turned out to be inconclusive and only sour several coaches who are new to this activity. I would much rather see our time trying to fix the real problem, rather than a solution that puts the cart before the horse. Let’s try an recruit more schools to this activity, and encourage existing programs to grow. Let’s explore more regional options, because quite frankly, the amount of schools without the means and interest in traveling far exceeds the ones who want to.

By Adam Jacobi on Nov 6, 2006

This is completely non-responsive to what Adam says: but we have a Daily Show/Colbert Report banner on WFD through google ads. That is so sweet. Thank you google.

By Nick Bubb on Nov 6, 2006

To be honest I think 4 person is going to work itself away in the next few years because of the constraints on budget and time etc. It is simply beomcing too hard to get 4 kids to committ 2 people are a whole lot easier to deal with. I think maybe we should consider state given ev packets for novices. Run everyone 2 person siwthcside you can only debate from those packets of evidence for the first 3 weekends. Start the season just a little earlier and then run switch side NSS,JSS,VSS. Have tournaments in the north and south if needed. I think 2 person is becoming practically easier to do. I think the rise of PF is a testiment partly to that fact as well.

I grew up under the McBrides I believe in the style that 4 person in wisconsin teaches. My comments are not about a style or a type of people or ability which is where the 2 person 4 person debate often goes. I am saying just practically App East will be easier for us because I know I can get teams of 2 together.

Yes, yes yes to Adam then when we dont have to keep wrangling 4 people to make teams and we have these easy ev packets lets go sell this to more school districts. Lets use technology like long distance learning and the internet to extend coaches to schools wanting debate programs.

Not to sound strange but I think WI debate is at a very important juncture. I think right now we have a great group of coaches (not that we havent in the past, wow we have seen some fantastic people) who are ready to put WI on the map and put the effort in to make WI both nationally and regionally well known. Debate is an activity we all love. I think that the group that is out coaching now has the passion to make this activity truley great.

By Paul Hager on Nov 6, 2006

I really don’t want the perception to be have v have-not. I was just hoping for more robust divisions. I tabbed a 5 team V4 this weekend and I’ve seen several tournaments that merged JV4 and V4. I also noticed that the V2 was split with under 15 at two tournies. I really would rather see a 30-team V2 division more frequently than STOC.

On a related note, I frequently hear concerns from tournament administrators that it is more hassle than it is worth to host tournaments when divisions are too small (scheduling nightmares) and the tournament is so small that it ends up losing money (limited concessions revenue).

I am cool with merging JV and Varsity, although, I do prefer using JV as a stop on the way to V4. I mean, some students need a warmup before they face the best debaters from schools that don’t do V2. There are a lot of V4 debaters that would do amazingly well in V2!

I think Paul might be right that 4-person will eventually go away due to constraints. Adam rightly points out that conflicts with other activities are a concern. I know I had to drop and shift and shift and drop to make whole 4-person teams for Sheboygan. I think Paul rightly points out that 2-person fixes a lot of that. I just don’t want to have to take a vote that could be “Eliminate 4-person” or “Eliminate all but MS4/N4″ or “Create a Rookie 4 and replace all others with 2-person”. That creates a lot of tension. I’d much prefer something in the middle that supports 4-person and helps foster 2-person.

BTW, we had an 8th grader in the finals of V2 this past weekend, so I had to snicker at the “they are so cute” comment. My MS princpal wants me to do an article for the district newsletter on the accomplishment. I want to get my facts straight. Does anyone know if an 8th grader has ever made it to the finals of V2 division of a WDCA-sanctioned tournament? Thanks in advance!

By Cory Puuri on Nov 6, 2006

Not to sound like a jerk but Alex and I won a V2 in state tourney in 8th grade. It is a great accomplishment no doubt for an 8th grader. The tournament we were at was New London and it only had 6 teams. It was essentially a round robin with finals as I remember.

To the conversation. I understand and agree with Adam’s feelings and I understand where you are coming from Cory. I dont want to polarize the issue which is what often happens. It becomes the V2 teams vs. the 4 person and thats not my intention. I just am looking for what is most educational and practical for teams and thinking out loud about it.

By Paul Hager on Nov 6, 2006

Paul and others,

1) We have to get rid of the 4 novice limited topics: Paul is right to suggest novice evidence packets because novice need to learn structure and not worry about hard core research. Half of the time, coaches try to squeeze a case into one of the four areas and try to catch other teams off guard, what’s the point of this? How much ego does a coach get from stacking up novice trophies? I’d propose we go to 2 cases and have novices switch sides right from the start. When JV came, then we’d have 4 case areas… then unlimited in VSS.
2) From what I’ve seen, the plain truth is that the best V4 debaters are not anywhere near as good as the best VSS. There seems to be no reason at all to keep 4 person. If you run a one day tourney, the kids switch in round 2 so no team has 3 rounds on one side… that’s easy. And before any V4 advocates get too rowdy, ask yourself if the best V4 team out there can beat Marquette BG or Neenah OO.

JK

By Joe klopotek on Nov 6, 2006

BTW, I did neglect comment on the “forgetting about the West” remark. I did not forget the West. I just grouped La Crosse and Eau Claire (do they have a program anymore? they used to debate extensively in MN) in the North. I think that is fair considering I did travel a portion of our team to La Crosse to support La Crosse debate and Jim regularly attends tournaments in the Fox River Valley. In case any of you reading did not know, Jim Sauer runs a sweet tournament. We will be attending for as long as Jim will have us!

By Cory Puuri on Nov 6, 2006

Paul, thanks for the note on the 8th grade thing and you’re not being a jerk because I was looking for the facts. New London actually didn’t do finals (just 4 random presets), so I would be technically correct if I phrased it as the first 8th grader in a V2 finals, but I won’t say he was the first 8th grader to qualify for state because you two were. Thanks again for the info!

By Cory Puuri on Nov 6, 2006

There’s a great deal of proactive and positive thinking going on here. The idea of an evidence packet for novices is grand. It has worked well for the urban debate program in Milwaukee (though we may need a new DA after the election results today), and puts everyone on a level playing field, so it really boils down to learning to debate.

Change that embraces new and struggling programs, while providing them guidance and resources as a support mechanism for that change is the way to go. One of the most humbling aspects of being president of the WDCA is the fact that weekly, and sometimes more often than that, coaches from all interests of debate confide in me their thoughts, observations and dreams for this activity. At the core, we all want the same thing, but we all think our “Plan” is the best, and ironically, many of us aren’t willing to concede anything to the opposing “team.” What I see in this thread is a willingness to see both sides. Rather than making value judgments, ask yourself if attracting flies with honey is less futile than using vinegar.

Finally, regarding the West, WHSFA director Chuck Malone received a communique from some additional coaches at Hudson and surrounding schools who wanted the opportunity to try to qualify for State. So, it would seem Jim may not be alone anymore on his side of the state!

By Adam Jacobi on Nov 7, 2006

I definately have to support Adam here. I think there is a great body of coaches out in WI right now how are willing to look at what is best for the education of these students and the activity. Change is always hard and will require lots of good discussion but I think that WI debate is not on a decline like some might say. I think quite the opposite we are seeing some very positive changes for this activity which ensures that we will be able to coach as long as say, a Bill McBride.

By Paul Hager on Nov 8, 2006

Paul,

Do you plan to coach as long as McBride?

By Joe klopotek on Nov 8, 2006