I think that the prime question here is how to best serve students – those already involved and those whom we know would benefit from involvement. I trust that we all do Forensics because we believe in the life-long value of students’ participation and we have their best interests at heart, not because we like to rise before the sun on Saturday mornings! Recruitment and retention are difficult these days, but all schools face the same cultural challenges and distractions. It seems that one of our biggest jobs is representing the advantages of participation which include intellectual, professional, AND social. Internal team-building and bridge-building among schools are terrific by-products of this organization!

As a judge, I’ve seen how the DE students sometimes visibly discourage the single-entered students: some by their attitude (many DE students exude confidence that crosses the line to arrogance); and some by their absence. A round of seven or eight speakers with just three or four fellow competitors ever in the “audience” is a real energy killer and not a good bridge builder. Ernest, my opinion is that DE should be done away with all together, not just at State.

Logistically, it is disruptive to paperwork when DE students speak out of order, especially when a round is full, and a judge is juggling critiques and codes for multiple students who are in and out. This is prime fodder for error and lost time to sort it out. Judge training is one area to perhaps address with this, but judges are human and these factors are still going to be distracting, to whatever degree. My experience with a growing number of DE students is that their confidence (and understandably, their stress level) causes them to be demanding about their needs for quick accommodation of their busy schedules, also often translating as arrogance.

As a Coach, I wonder why students double enter, initially. To gain points for the team? If so, does this serve the student or the team? If only the team, is this a requirement to impress that school’s administration so that their Forensics program continues? That would seem to be the only legitimate, if sad, reason to press students to double enter, and I don’t see it as serving the student.

I echo the observation of Mike that ill-prepared performances by DE students gives the appearance of team-point manipulation. This doesn’t benefit anyone.

If students double enter for the challenge, please encourage them to expand their co-curricular experiences to include music, drama, debate, community service organizations, etc. But not if it conflicts with Saturday Forensics tournaments! :-) Alternatively, talented students might want to consider changing pieces mid-season to keep themselves challenged. It’s great to have “stars” and show them off in multiple categories, but I don’t believe that double entering best serves the students of our state, as a whole.

In terms of time and transportation of DE students at State, we have had issues at invitationals before with some students missing rounds and judges not waiting for a few. At the same time, as a whole has it really been a problem to the point that we shouldn’t try it at State? My thought is, if this point is that much of a problem, then double entry would have been cancelled a long time ago. What’s good for an invitational, should be OK for State.

The argument that DE at State would lower the amount of students at State lacks any reasoning to me. Just because a small team double enters students doesn’t mean that a large school HAS TO!!!! To me, a smart coach will just bring their 25 best students, practice with those students the day before, and let them focus ALL their energy on ONE category, even if others don’t. I actually think that many students will be overwhelmed and might actually underperform. We see this at invitationals with DE. With State and placement at State on the line, the pressure could be intense. Still, if a few students want to try, we should not deprive them of more education.

If several elite and talented kids do DE at State, that doesn’t mean that they will make it to finals in both categories. It just means that the pool is tougher. I have seen students that power and take 1st at every meet during the season and make it to nationals, not power into semis at State. It happens and it will happen again. DE at State doesn’t guarantee double success.

In terms of coaches not recruiting as much with DE at State, I don’t see the logic here either. Maybe I’m greedy or crazy, BUT I recruit all year round looking for the best that my School has to offer. DE at State wouldn’t change that, and I feel it would be a bad idea to lessen recruiting just because of DE at State. We know that turnover for forensics is medium to high throughout the season, so why would DE at State force some to stop recruiting as much.

Someone also mentioned that leaving the rounds and not watching other students compete is rude and not educational. Then why have double entering at ALL. It’s not rude or educational during the season, but just at State? This makes no sense to me either. Either it’s wrong all around, or it’s good all around.

Finally, I feel that this is something that should be tried at least once. Maybe what I’m saying is true, maybe what the opponents to this proposal will be right, BUT we won’t ever know how it will work unless we try it once. This way if it works or not, we can go back to this moment in time as a reference whenever someone asks in the future, why or why don’t we have DE at State too?

A proposal has been put forth which would change the current WFCA by-laws by permitting students to double enter at the state tournament. This proposal should be voted down, and double entries should continue to be reserved only for the invitational tournaments that want them. Double entry at the state tournament would be detrimental because it will result in a the tournament running behind schedule, fewer students participating at the state level, weaken the quality of competition, devalue the educational experience and diminish participation in forensics teams.

The state tournament typically runs behind schedule, largely due to uncontrollable but understandable factors. Invitational tournaments allowing double entries have shown that more time is needed for their rounds. Judges must wait for double entered students to arrive from their other category, even if the next round is scheduled to start. While some large invitationals that allow double entry run on schedule, they accommodate far fewer schools than the state tournament. With the state tournament requiring many categories to be bussed to off-campus buildings, staying on schedule seems a practical impossibility. Despite assurances that extra transportation could be available, all the extra shuttling back and forth creates a potential nightmare in wasted time and gasoline.

While double entering may increase the total number of entries, it would lower the total number of students present. If small teams are allowed to double enter to increase their entries, larger teams must also be allowed the same. As long as this remains a competition, coaches will feel the need to bring their strongest possible entries, even if this means double entering some students at the expense of cutting other students from the team. For example, a school that consistently brings 25 students could decide that their strongest team would consist of 12 double-entered students. Fewer students on the team means fewer students experiencing a state level tournament. It would also result in fewer visitors to the Ripon campus and decreased sales of food, t-shirts, etc.

Double entry for the purpose of reaching a full team of 25 entries would lower the overall standards of the competition. The perceived advantage to having 25 entries assumes that all of them are exceptionally talented public speakers. Most teams do not consist entirely of outstanding performers. Under a double-entry system, a coach may encourage students to pick up a second entry simply to fill up the team and pad their score. This fills up the sections with mediocre presentations, which does not promote better or more credible competition.

Part of the educational value of the forensics experience is listening to other student presentations from the audience. While there may or may not be sufficient outside audience members in any given section, all competitors deserve to have an audience of their peers. A double entered student simply will not be able to listen to every other student in their rounds. When a student speaks, then leaves the room before hearing any other student, or arrives after everyone else has spoken, it sends the message that there was something more important to do than listen to anyone else. It’s rude to leave early or arrive late. Some students have to listen to everyone, but other students can just leave. Why keep any students in the section, when that is needed is a judge? Is it fair that single-entered students can’t leave to use the restroom or go outside to practice for their next round? Having an audience of fellow forensics students is important and should be guaranteed, and being part of the audience should also be guaranteed.

Gifted and talented students in forensics find many ways to challenge themselves. Finding challenging interp scripts, defining original arguments and novel themes in speeches and pushing the envelope in presentation style are all ways of keeping these students motivated. If double-entered, the elite students would be allowed to dominate two categories. If the competition for these students is already too easy, what is the educational value of having them win twice? If one examines the published results of invitationals with double or triple entries, it is easy to see the same name showing up two or three times as a finalist in several categories. Schools able to double enter such talented students will achieve even higher team scores in the state tournament, and shut the smaller schools’ students out of the finals altogether. Large schools are perceived to have an advantage at recruiting a full team, but they would then also have an advantage at recruiting more of the exceptionally talented students to double-enter. For the majority of our students who are not gifted, they learn that success in forensics is not for them, but only for the “superstars”.

An assertion was made that there has been a 10 fold increase in other activities during the forensics season. Double entering could actually make recruiting for forensics more difficult and end up losing more students to these other activities. If a coach decides to take only their top 15 students to state with the majority double entered, this leaves other students out. This could diminish a program if the other students have no way of being a part of the state tournament. Students will not return to forensics year after year if they believe they will get bumped aside so someone else can double-enter.

If there were an obvious advantage to schools with a large student population in fielding a full team, one would expect to see more than six out of 22 Division 1 schools with full teams. One would also expect no full teams at all from the Division 2 and 3 schools, yet three schools from these divisions did bring 25 entries. The ability to recruit and retain a full team is hard work, but not impossible. The hard work and dedication it takes to maintain a full team should be acknowledged in team scores and awards. If a coach only needs 13 students to make a full team of 25 entries, there is no longer an incentive to work toward recruiting more students.

Coaches can and should make decisions for their team and no others. The WFCA can and should make decisions for the greater good of the association and the state tournament. The double entry proposal is short-sighted and focused on the immediate return of more points for more entries. The long term effects of such a change to the state tournament will be disastrous to the association and to individual teams. The proposal must be voted down. Double and triple enter at Saturday invitationals throughout the season, then bring nothing but your best individual entries to state.

Since we have an arbitrary limit on the amount of entries we are allowed to enter in the state tournament, it is not my philosophy to have a system where an even more elite squad does all the heavy lifting for a team at state. I believe that the net effect of this proposal is as such: Small teams would have more entries. This is a good thing. Large teams would have the same number of entries and less students competing. This is a not good thing.

In the current situation, with a team larger than 25 entries, coaches have to cut students based on estimations of their success and ability to deliver points to the team. It’s a system I already have big problems with. If I could bring my entire team to state and only have 25 entries count, I’d support this. If my students all had a shot at qualifying to state, I’d support this.

The state of our organization is that the vast majority of teams do not have a full complement of 25 entries at the state tournament. The desire to give these teams a full roster is one of the driving forces behind this idea. And I sympathize and support that intention. I’m just not sure this is the best path. To paraphrase John (via Nick), this proposal won’t create more student competition, but a more concentrated pool of competitors.

You asked about my philosophy. On our team, we love to see our students win awards, but ultimately, our task is not to bring home the most metal, but to strive for human and academic excellence in the context of a competitive environment. In that way, we are an extension of the classroom. And in an educational setting, my philosophy is to strive for inclusion.

Part of the rationale for allowing double-entry at state seems to be to deal with declining interest in forensics among high school students (in terms of the number of students participating). If that’s true, double-entry is not going to fix the root of the problem – recruiting more students to the activity.

Double-entering current students does not bring more students to the activity. At best we would have the same students we do now participate in more events and at worst, we have less and less students participate in forensics – just in more events than they did before. While that may be a good thing for those students, the problem identified is that we need to include more people in our activity. Allowing double entry only puts a band-aid on the real problem.

Given the relatively dire situation that debate is in, I think its important to think about how to reach out to other people who are not a part of the activity currently and to find ways to include them.

Several years ago, I tried experimenting with offering speech/forensic events during the debate season, and merely once suggested the notion of having a fourth preliminary round before final rounds (as many other states do). The speech community in Wisconsin values less time so much so, that it may explain the pressure judges feel to get to their next rounds. Perhaps if tournaments like having cross-entry, the rounds should be cushioned for a little more time. The problem is that schools who predominantly participate in festivals are not going to like spending any more time than they have to — particularly when they’re used to finishing around 1 p.m.

Your arguments seem to not only discourage double entry for the State Tournament, but altogether. Coming from the school that had the most cross-entries at the Alverno Tournament, I’m just curious as to what Whitefish Bay’s coaching philosophy is insofar as supporting student cross-entry. I’m trying to reconcile your views here with the big picture.

If coaches are more accurate with who they drop and add the morning of tournaments — and we let judges know that they must WAIT until all students for that round show up, they will. That’s how college tournaments work, and there’s double-entry in both flights.

I think there’s a greater issue of judge education here that goes beyond the State Tournament, but we’ll save that discussion for another time, lest we spark a totally different tangent here.

The drawback is obviously time because you’d need to have Round 1A, then Round 1B, etc. I assume it would push the tournament into a two-day format. Not a perfect solution – but another wrinkle to think about.