Danny DeBois Wins the 2013 Minneapple; Lake Highland and Valley win JV and novice titles

Screen Shot 2013-11-03 at 12.24.04 PM

A

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations to Harrison’s Danny Debois for defeating La Jolla’s Ram Prasad (Holguin, McClung, Stuttgen).  Danny is coached by Chetan Hertzig and Henry Zhang. Ram is coached by Jeff Liu, Tom Evnen, and Zack Parker.

Congratulations also go out to Lake Highland Prep’s Navya Potthamsetty, who defeated Prince Hyeamang of Apple Valley for the JV division championship. Navya is coached by George Clemens, Martin Sigalow, Bryan Wilder, Fred Ditzian, and Terrence Lonam. Prince is coached by Chris Theis and Colin Goodson.

Finally, props to Valley High School’s Brian Gu, who won the novice championship in a final-round face-off against Kiley Eichelberger of Chanhassen High School. Brian is coached by Dave McGinnis, Alex Kramer, Adam Hoffman and Lucy Korsakov. Monica is coached by Zach Prax.

Full varsity results follow the finalist photos.

Navya and Prince 2

Prince Hyeamang (left) of Apple Valley placed second in JVLD to  Navya Potthamsetty of Lake Highland Prep.

Minneapple NLD Finalist Photo

Brian Gu (left) of Valley High School defeated Kiley Eichelberger of Chanhassen HS to win the NLD division.

 

Varsity Doubles

Loyola MG def. Trinity Prep MP (Matthew Pregasen) (Zhang, *Horowitz, Woods)

Woodlands AC def. Strake JS (John Sasso) (Rutter, Eastlund, Ave)

Lake Highland SA def. St. Thomas SD (Sean Doherty-Powell) (Tripathy, *Rankin, Agrawal)

Hopkins CK def. Robbinsdale AU (Andrew Urevig) (Stuttgen, Ahlstrom, Magyar)

La Jolla RP def. Walt Whitman SP (Sophie Palim) (Shmikler, Scoggin, Lonam)

Walt Whitman JL def. Harrison AG (Korsakov, Melin, *Le)

Greenhill VA def. Lakeville South DA (Dylan Adelman) (Hertzig, Nelson, Nunley)

SLP LS def. Katy Taylor JY (Jason Yang) (Holguin, Woodhouse, Kramer)

Harrison DD def. Evanston EW (Eric Weine) (McClung, Parthasarthy, Crist)

Northland SH def. SLP DC (Dana Councilman) (*Chen, Noble, Keohane)

WDM Valley JS def. Isidore Newman MM (Matthew Meyer) (Evnen, McElwain, Lamothe)

Greenhill BE def. Strake J (J Stuckert) (Hendrickson, *Beane, Legried)

Scarsdale RG def. Northland DL (Davis Labarre) (Castillo, *Harris, Cox)

Katy Taylor NY def. Loyola CK (Chris  Kymn) (Meyers, *Yi, Kuang)

Strake AT def. WDM Valley GS (Gina Scorpiniti)(Baker, *Hom, Tierney)

Walt Whitman DM def. Des Moines Roosevelt EW (Emma Weddle) (Lawrence, *Ditzian, Traub)

 

Octas

Harrison DD def. Hopkins CK (Claire Kueffner) (McClung, Korsakokv, Stuttgen)

Loyola MG def. Greenhill BE (Bennett Eckert) (Woods, Rutter, Horowitz)

WDM Valley JS def. Greenhill VA (Varad Agarwala) (McElwain, Zhang, *Baker)

SLP LS def. Scarsdale RG (Rahul Gosain) (Ditzian, Lonam, Noble)

Walt Whitman JL def. Northland SH (Shania Hunt) (Woodhouse, Castillo, *Scoggin)

La Jolla RP def. Woodlands AC (Abigail Chapman) (Yi, Tierney, Harris)

Strake AT def. Walt Whitman DM (Daisy Massey) (Chen, Holguin, *Hom)

Katy Taylor NY def. Lake Highland SA (Sam Azbel) (Kramer, Tripathy, Lawrence)

 

Quarters:

Harrison DD def. Loyola MG (McKay Giller) (Woodhouse, Woods, Parthasarathy)

SLP LS def. WDM Valley JS (Jason Smith) (Lonam, Ditzian, Zhang)

La Jolla RP def. Katy Taylor NY (Neel Yerneni) (Tripathy, Tierney, Kramer)

Walt Whitman JL def. Strake AT (Alberto Tohme) (Chen, Lawrence, Holguin)

 

Semifinals

Harrison DD def. SLP LS (Leah Shapiro) (Keohane, Holguin, Woodhouse)

La Jolla RP def. Walt Whitman JL (Zhang, Korsakov, Hom)

 

Finals

Harrison DD def. La Jolla RP (Ram Prasad) (Stuttgen, Holguin, McClung)

 

Speakers

1) Jessica Levy- Walt Whitman

2) Ram Prasad- La Jolla

3) Jason Smith- WDM VAlley

4) McKay Giller- Loyola

5) Leah Shapiro- SLP

6) Danny DeBois- Harrison

7) Chris Kymn- Loyola

8) Daisy Massey- Walt Whitman

9) Alberto Tohme- Strake Jesuit

10) The Azbel- Lake Highland

11) Claire Kueffner- Hopkins

12) J Stuckert- Strake Jesuit

13) John Sasso- Strake Jesuit

14) Rahul Gosain- Scarsdale

15) Dana Councilman- SLP

16) Davis Labarre- Northland Christian

17) Varad Agarwala- Greenhill

18) Shania Hunt- Northland Christian

19) Gina Scorpiniti- WDM VAlley

20) Neel Yerneni (Katy Taylor)

 

 

  • Gina Scorpiniti

    My name still isn’t changed under top speakers lol

  • ZP: Challenge Danny to a winner-take-all LARP at Glenbrooks.

  • John Scoggin

    I am generally of the opinion that a 4-3 debater probably should not clear, but I’m sure many talented debaters went 4-3 at the tournament and I by no means want to take away from their success. One thing that concerns me a lot is how this changes how judges are assigned. Generally judges are first assigned to debaters who are down 2, then down 1, then all up. One of two things happened at this tournament:

    Scenario 1: AV used the default of the tab software and critical bubble rounds for 3-3 debaters were judged by those who may not have been the most highly preferred. It is pretty obvious why that would be a problem.

    Scenario 2: AV changed the settings and assigned judges to down 3 debates first. The problem in this scenario is that after 6 rounds a gigantic amount of the pool is down 3 or better, much more than if they were being assigned from down 2 debates up. This means that some debaters who were down 2 receive poor judging and as a result could not clear. Because there are so many down 3 debaters, the down 3 pool is generally easier, and you get judges first it almost seems like some people would be better off being down 3 at that point. At the very least having so many high priority rounds makes judging very thin.

    This is on top of the fact that when doing prefs teams had to give nearly 70% of the pool 1s or 2s. These factors combined I think make for some legitimate concerns regarding judging. As a disclaimer in general I think AV does a good job of making sure a lot of good judges are present at the tournament, but I would prefer if some changes were made to ensure that this tournament is on the same level as others in terms of judge pref practices.

    • BenjaminKoh

      I agree with the entirety of this post. A quick addition, that especially in the context of Apple Valley which single flights its prelims, this a) lack of clarity and b) further thinning of the judging pool only heightens disadvantages not found in a simpler down 2 system.

      • alex smith

        There is eminent clarity about what is required to break: be in the top 32. Also, if you are concerned that the preliminary judging pool does a poor job of sorting and accurately seeding debaters, it seems like you should be less inclined to reward debaters for their preliminary round performance by giving them a bye through elimination rounds.

  • Jonathan Horowitz

    There is something missing in this discussion of 4-3s breaking which is that down 3 debaters break at tournaments all the time.

    NDT always has 5-3s break and it is considered one of the best, if not the best tournament in the country. When TOC had it’s misguided (is that fair to say?) 8 round experiment in 2011 all 5-3s broke as well. The difference between 5-3 and 4-3 is one round. Moreover, in 5 round tournaments 3-2s almost always break and I do not think there is much of a difference between a 3-2 debater and a 4-3 debater (Maybe that 3-2 debater wins 2 straight rounds but past performance would indicate an approximate 1-1 performance or 4-3).

    Beyond that, the real discussion here is about cut off for breaking. Smitty is arguing that the cut off should be some number and whether that number is 16, 32, 64, etc. that is the most fair system. Ben and co. are arguing that record should be the cut off, the magical “down 2” and all people with that record or better get to break regardless of number.

    I would say that all things being equal the best system would be a winning record as the cut off point. It’s least arbitrary system because a winning record means that any debater did something right to get that winning record. One does not luck into 4 wins. Or, debaters with winning records may break to elimination rounds. This, by the way, includes both proposals as one could say “a winning record to this number will break” (the dreaded 4-2 or 5-2 screw) or “all of those with this specific record will break.” (partials galore!)

    With a 6 round tournament then all 4-2s and above will clear as anybody below that number will not have a winning record.

    At a 7 round tournament one can clear all 4-3s but does not have to or even can clear no 4-3s if that makes sense. Looking at two of the other 7 round tournaments of national significance; Glenbrooks follows the first system (which means for their case that only 32 break and due to numbers that never gets close to a 4-3) and TOC clears all those with a specific record (5-2). Both of those methods are totally fine. Apple Valley chooses the first route and this year due to circumstances that meant clearing 4-3 debaters. While this can be remedied in future years it’s not a big deal.

    On the other hand, when 3-3s clear then we have a problem.

    • Jacob Nails

      “On the other hand, when 3-3s clear then we have a problem.”
      Even this isn’t set in stone. A number of smaller college tournaments have 6 rounds and clear half the pool, which means about half of 3-3s clear. I can’t say that I’ve seen any substantial problem with this system. The main hurdle is logistical, not competitive, and there are plenty of tournaments which can manage it.

      I’m definitely nor saying that tournaments *need* to clear 3-3s/4-3s, but I don’t understand the backlash against tournaments which are willing to give more kids a chance at elims.

  • bailey

    The girl next to Gu is not Monica Synstelien. I don’t know who that is, but it’s no Monica.

    • Josh You

      It’s Kiley Eichelberger

  • mcgin029

    Scoobydooby?

  • BenjaminKoh

    I’m very confused about why this tournament is breaking multiple downs 3s. This was an issue raised previously at Emory and it still remains true. It’s more likely than not that the speaker points (generally an indicator of skill in round) and skill (independent of the speaker point calculus) will be higher for the top 4-3s than the bottom 5-2s. (This is not to discount debaters who did go 5-2s, the point of this post is that they did deserve to break). That means that in a world where a tournament breaks down 3s, it completely ruins the entire purpose of power protection. It could be reasonable to conclude that going 5-2 in prelims would be more strategic than going 6-1.

    When somebody goes 6-1 or something similar in prelims, there should be some right to not have to debate if there are less than 32 people that went or did better than 5-2. Breaking 4-3s at a tournament (especially a competitive octas bid) destroys the entire purpose of ordered seeding in the first place. Imagine if TOC broke to a full double octas including 4-3s? Additionally, if that’s the case that 4-3s should break, why not go bigger? What’s to stop a tournament from going into a Quadruple-Octafinal and also break 3-4s. There’s at least a norm in debate for tournaments to only break 5-2s. For sake of consistency (and the other reasons mentioned), AV should do the same.

    There are so many better alternatives than breaking 4-3s. Firstly, Apple Valley could cut r7 and have a Triple-Octas- (which would include most people that would’ve gone 4-3). Secondly, the tournament could also conceivably just allow higher seeds to walk to Octas (as to what the TOC rules are on this- I’m unsure, but even if there is a rule it seems arbitrary for it to be there in the first place).

    Edited for grammar

    • alex smith

      4-3 v. 5-2 is a largely arbitrary distinction. If we generally believe that it’s appropriate to clear the top 32 teams at a major national tournament that has an octos bid, why does it matter what their records are? It seems like your arguments on this front are “slippery slope” and “there’s a tradition of only breaking 5-2s”, which don’t strike me as very compelling args about why this is a good tradition or an appropriate place to draw the line?

      • Paras Kumar

        How is 4-3 vs 5-2 an arbitrary distinction? I find a huge difference between the two records…one has an extra loss, and the other doesn’t. Clearing 4-3’s also allows debaters to go 0-3 and then submarine up and pray they get decent enough speaks to clear.

        I think the larger question a) why weren’t there 6 prelims instead of 7 and b) why is AV an octos bid given that only 100 kids came. The quality of competition on paper at this tournament has steadily decreased since my freshman year in high school when Ben Houlguin won the minneapple.

        • mcgin029

          Historically Apple Valley’s attendance has been much higher. This was a down year for them in terms of numbers due to several factors, most of which will be temporary. Bid assignment happens at the TOC every year. In 2012 the Minneapple was at 120 or so, which is a very common number range for an octos bid. Moreover, the density of this weekend’s Minneapple field was incredible. 10% of the field had already attended the TOC. Something like 20% of the field is qualled this year. This is historically one of the most solid debate tournaments of the season.

          I agree that there are problems with clearing 4-3s — the fact that the top 4-3 is quite possibly better than the bottom 5-2, and that this potentially negatively impacts power protection, is a problem. I’m biased on this point though because we cleared a 4-3 this year and I was really happy about it. I thought that kid deserved an elim round.

          The question about reducing from 7 rounds to 6 is potentially a good one. The reason AV moved to 7 prelims, I think, was to filter the pool further in seasons when the pool was very large. Glenbrooks does the same. I completely understand why they didn’t make a change this year given that their pool numbers were only known to them in the month or so before the tournament. They advertise as a 7-round competition — switching to a 6-rounder right before the event might have seemed like a bait-and-switch. People would have complained. Perhaps a standard that says a tournament will go to 7 prelims after reaching a certain number of entries would be wise. In our case, our 4-3 student was 4-2 after 6 and would have cleared easily on points.

          • Jacob Pritt

            Coach Kumar, Smitty, Ben, Mr. McGinnis, Fritz (you’re still around? I thought you were an artist now, dude), and “freebump” (whatever on earth that means), imma let y’all finish.

            Just wanted to go ahead and say right now we should just go ahead and make the #NSD2k13 finalists picture the TOC results page.

            This year’s hegemony levels are incredible.

      • BenjaminKoh

        Alex,

        There are a couple problems with your post. Firstly, you say “If we generally believe that it’s appropriate to clear the top 32 teams at a major national tournament that has an octos bid, why does it matter what their records are?” This seems to bite into the criticism you send my way which is the argument about the “tradition of breaking 5-2s.”

        I think you’re missing the point of when I mention the “norm of 5-2s breaking.” The argument is not how I like the classics, but rather that it provides a reasonable expectation for tournaments to align with- a) an expectation to an extent that if you go 5-2 you will break and b) a place where tournaments cut off who breaks and when. This is especially relevant via that not drawing the line somewhere justifies most any possible amalgamation of weird outround scenarios (Finals bids with triple octafinal rounds where everybody breaks- it’s intuitively strange due to it’s inconsistency.) It seems that claiming how “arbitrary” the line is is self-defeating, tournaments clearly can choose whatever line and level of break they want- the typical 5-2/ 4-2 break is likely the most “non-arbitrary” line to draw due to how common it is.

        As pointed out before though, a situation where a tournament decides to break 4-3s instead of the down 2 cut off mark makes a doubles round harder for a higher seed that should not have to deal with such a fate. The purpose of organized seeding via win count and high low is to advantage those who did better in prelims. Just looking at the packet though- it’s clearly that those who hit 4-3s seemed get a shorter end of the stick. Given that speaker points are the best or at least a quality approximation of the actual skills of debaters-it seems by the packet that the higher seeds who hit the 4-3s drew short. Examining the high lows for the seven 4-3s that broke, the median H/L was143.5. Meanwhile, for the bottom 5-2s, the median was 142.5. When the median of H/L for all those that broke was 144.2- that entire speaker point difference between the median of the bottom 5-2s and the median of the top 4-3s is incredibly significant.

        This means that the top 7 potentially could have had harder rounds than the 8-14 seeds. To clarify, I’m not making a claim about literal skill (I’ve not seen most of the debaters in outs, it just so happens that speaker points are the only available data based approximation). This does prove, however, that there’s a disadvantage to higher seeds that should not exist. To quote myself from the last post- that means that in a world where a tournament breaks down 3s, it completely ruins the entire purpose of power protection. It could be reasonable to conclude that going 5-2 in prelims would be more strategic than going 6-1.

        Lastly, it still seems that a 6 round tournament (where the entry list isn’t that big) and a partial triples round would solve for all the problems. I think the fact that it’s so hard to determine whether or not 4-3s breaking is permissible or not is just further testament to how that the 7 round prelim should not happen with this entry count. Regardless of how arbitrary the 4-3/ 5-2 line may seem to be, it does seem that this alternative is much more optimal.

        Edited because I can’t spell.

        • alex smith

          I don’t think I’m missing the point of anything. My argument is very simple: (1) preliminary rounds are there only to create a seed order for the elimination rounds, and (2) breaking a fixed number of debaters is an equally if not more “objective” breaking point than breaking people with a certain record. The distinction between 4-3 and 5-2 debaters is largely arbitrary. Here are two thought experiments that illustrate this point:

          (a) Suppose that you created a doubles bracket after 6 rounds at AV – it would include 32 debaters, and no one would have a problem with this. Why is it suddenly less legitimate to clear the top 32 debaters simply because there is another preliminary debate? The only effect of this debate is to make seeding a bit more granular, but the top 32 competitors are still the top 32 competitors whether you have 6, 7, or 100 rounds.

          (b) Speaking of 100 rounds, suppose you had 100 prelim rounds at AV. Would anyone really argue that there is a “huge difference” between a debater who was 61-39 and one who has 60-40?

          All of these arguments like “down 3s now have a bubble round” or “one debater has one more win than another” just begs the question of whether the number of wins really matter – no one seems to be making an argument why the number of wins has some magical significance that should make the difference between clearing and not clearing. I suppose you could argue that it’s unfair to clear any 4-3s unless you clear all 4-3s, but no one has made this argument and I think it’s at odds with our instincts about speaker points (e.g. Ben’s arguments that the highest speaking 4-3s are harder match-ups than the worst speaking 5-2s)

          Now, Ben’s argument is admittedly a bit more sophisticated – namely, that debaters at the top of the bracket have artificially hard rounds in a world where you clear a few of the top 4-3s. I am not persuaded by this argument for a few reasons:

          (a) It’s true in a world of 6 rounds as well – top 4-2s are sometimes tough nuts to crack, and they will often end up at the bottom of the bracket too. No one seems to believe that tournaments shouldn’t clear 4-2s just because some of them will be hard matchups in doubles.
          (b) I disagree with the premise that top speaking 4-win debaters are a harder matchup than bad-speaking 5-win debaters. It’s hard to win 5 debates at a national tournament. It’s also inconsistent with our general intutitions about how we do seeding – why not just clear debaters in order of speaker points if we think that speaker points are more probative of performance/skill than win total?
          (c) I generally don’t think that elim round byes are good – the whole idea behind elim debates is that the tournament starts over and that every debater has a structurally equal chance of winning the tournament. Seeding and power protection are all well and good, but power protection does not justify giving debaters a free elim win, let alone one that results in an automatic bid. (And I don’t know enough about whether AV should or should not be an octos bid, but I don’t think this argument depends on where the bid level is – you should have to win elim debates to win, and you’re not entitled to get protected just because you do better in prelims).

          • Paras Kumar

            Alex–

            I’m persuaded by your number one argument about the top 32 being the top 32, but still am troubled by the huge disparity between being 4-3 and 5-2. Your second thought experiment highlights my concern: i don’t view the difference as 60-40 vs 61-39. Rather, I view the difference as 58-42 and 72-28. If you win 5 out of 7 prelim rounds, then after 100 prelim rounds, you should have won 72/100 rounds, i.e. the equivalent of 5/7 th’s (I rounded up–wolframalpha tells me 5/7 is 71.428). Same logic for winning 4 out of 7 rounds.

            Do you find a big difference between these records? I see a really huge difference–that’s almost 14 wins every 100 rounds! Genuinely curious to get your feedback because your first argument makes a lot of sense.

            I think the way I’d resolve your first hypothetical is by asking whether I’m ok with kids walking through elim rounds. I haven’t thought about it enough but understand why you think elims should have to be won. Another question for you: if elims should have to be won, is there any disad to AV moving to 6 rounds (after incorporating Dave’s suggestion and putting a disclaimer in the invite that this will happen absent 120+ entries or whatever number meets the threshold for a full doubles clearing 5-2’s)? Because then everyone still debates the elim that would have debated it after 7 rounds.

          • alex smith

            I think that win percentage, like number of rounds won, is an artifact of having preliminary rounds and doesn’t have any independent significance. As I said in response to Adam, I don’t think anyone would support clearing everyone who went 1-0 at a tournament with 1 prelim, even if they all had a 100% win record.

            I think this problem is also self-correcting in a world where tournaments use wins as the first tiebreaker. If you only win n rounds, you will have a worse seed than everyone with n+1 or more wins, and you will have a correspondingly worse chance of clearing to elimination rounds. Not sure why we have to draw the line between all debaters with n wins and all debaters with n+1 wins, as opposed to drawing the line between, say, the 32nd and 33rd debater.

          • Adam Bistagne

            I’m going to respond here because I think this post cashes out the conflict between us. I feel much more comfortable drawing the line between n wins and n+1 wins than drawing the line between the 32nd and 33rd debater. I think speaker points are a much harder thing to get accurate for competitors across rounds and between judges than it is to decide who won or lost a round. Given this, drawing the line between n and n+1 wins makes much more sense than drawing the line between the 32nd and 33rd debater.

            The only argument I think you have for clearing only 32 debaters (or a 2^n number) is that each debater than has to win the same number of elimination rounds, so that the tournament truly “starts over”. I’m not sure why the tournament has to truly start over though in doubles, as opposed to starting over after a partial doubles or a partial triples. I think as long as there is a predictable round you have to get to (that is granted, before the bid round) in order to have an equal chance to win the tournament depending on what your record is makes sense.

          • BenjaminKoh

            My apologies if my post had sounded aggressive- no intention (just an element of posting on the internet I guess)

            On the a point you make about how the top 4-2s are hard draws- this is true- but a down 2 parameter at least gives a reasonable restriction on what qualifies for a break round. Again, the fact that this is a norm should make the down 2 restriction a qualification. I would be more comfortable with your suggestion if say several tournaments were going with the initiative that Apple Valley is- but it seems as that’s not the case. This again also harkens the point back to the problem of infinite regression- what stops a finals bid from breaking literally everybody? Doing better than down 2 seems to be the most non-arbitrary way to structure breaks

            On the b: The point of my argument is not that speaker points are the absolute means of measuring skill (unless your thought experiment would be on point). The statistical significance in the median spkr points for the bottom down 2s and the top down 3s should indicate that at that point there is a degree of unfairness for the top debaters who in some ways are “entitled to statistically easier draws.” Whereas a win in a close round in some ways can go either way though, having significantly higher high lows is a reasonably good indication that it’s potentially a harder draw than what hte top seeds should be getting. Additionally, I think this only concedes the point that Paras and I are making that the extra loss is entirely significant (I guess this is a double bind? Whatever that term means)

            On the c: I agree with a lot of the sentiment here, and I’d be uncomfortable giving persons a walk to the bid as well.

            To clarify, my central advocacy is that a tournament like this to avoid this problem should be doing 6 rounds and potentially have a runoff/ triples depending on what is more appropriate. This did happen last year after all, and I don’t think people would have as much of an issue with dropping the 7th round as they would breaking 4-3s. I think Dave’s suggestion is a really good one, that there should be some entry limit that must be hit for a 7th prelim.

            Back to the response though, I don’t think your suggesting that for instances “Partial Doubles” rounds are unjustified, I imagine that your post has to do more specifically with the “free bid” (do tell me if I’m interpreting your post incorrectly). I think that this would then depend on a certain metric of what it means to “deserve a bid.’ I’m not entirely against the idea of the top seeds in this situation getting to walk to the bid because there is at least some indication of “desert” there. A proper seeding structure in theory makes it easier for the top seeds, because they “deserve it”- something it seems we both agree upon. If a tournament is faced with the situation where they don’t have enough down 2s to break to a full doubles, I don’t think that this is sufficient to a) penalize the top seeds b) force them to have to win an extra round where in all other situations they would not have to.

          • mcgin029

            Top 4-2 debaters are rarely at the bottom of the bracket. If that happens at all it’s at tournaments like Cal where there are 8,347 people in the pool. Even at Harvard 2013, which has a huge pool, the top 4-2 was 42nd seed clearing to triples, which puts them near the middle of the bracket. At most tournaments, the top 4-2 will be in the top 1/2 of the bracket. At the MAC this year, the top 4-2 was 22nd seed (and we bad bigger than usual numbers.)

            I don’t necessarily think that this is a decisive point, and as I said I’m glad Apple Valley cleared 4-3s this year, but I think you have to admit that when you do that there is some unique loss of power protection for those at the top of the bracket. It’s probably a small loss, though. And no one is guaranteed an easy doubles or triples round — sometimes even when only 2-downs are cleared, really good debaters go down 2.

      • Fritz Pielstick

        The fact that a 2-3 round can still a bubble round at this tournament seems like a very, very not arbitrary distinction. That’s all.

    • freebump

      Don’t hate my 4-3 bruthers. My guy Bump was sufferin the bast attack, but main props to the tournament for compensatin and breakin him. Its ok dat DeBoogie got the ballots, cuz bump got da heart. We hungry, we come back strong, we SEE YOU AT GLENBROOKS!!! #freebump

    • Jacob Nails

      I am incredibly unsympathetic to the high-seed protection argument.

      The 7th seed deserves to hit an opponent very slightly worse than the 8th seed. A 1 seed difference in a 100 person tournament (with a large margin of error in seeding) means that seeds 7 and 8 should expect roughly equal opponents. You’re probably right that a 4-3 with 144 DHL speaks is on balance a harder draw than a 5-2 with 141 DHL speaks, and that’s a bit of a problem. But your solution has the 8th seed facing a 5-2 with 141 DHL and the 7th seed facing… no one. Not only that, but now the 7th seed has an extra hour to go scout their potential octos opponent. How is that closer to the ideal?

      If the goal is rough equality for high seeds in doubles, then your solution is incredibly counter-productive, especially given how slim the difference between seed 7 and seed 8 is.

      And what about the 4-3s? By your own standards, they debated *better* at AV than the bottom 5-2s and don’t even make it to elims. 0% chance of bidding. That seems like a much larger and more significant inequity than anything perpetrated on the 7th seed.

      There’s no link or impact to the norms argument. Tons of tournaments, in fact the vast majority if you include locals, clear a set number of debaters. Even if that weren’t true, as long as the tournament has an explicit pre-written policy for who will clear, I don’t see why it matters.

      • boopritt

        Your scouting argument is non unique man, have u ever heard of ld leaks?

        • Jacob Nails

          Interesting choice of handle, Jake Steirn.

          The problem is not the amount of scouting. It’s that only 7 people would get an extra hour to prep out their octos opponents, while the other 25 debate.

          However, I suppose you have a point that LD Leaks does mitigate structural inequities in scouting.

          • boopritt

            Ya i completely agree with ur point

      • Adam Bistagne

        The argument is simple. It’s that if you went 4-3, there’s a huge difference between that and going 5-2, and a 6-1 shouldn’t have to hit a 4-3 in dubs of an octos bid. For that matter, the 7-0 shouldn’t have to hit a 4-3. Even when Berkley had 8 rounds, only 6-2’s cleared.

        Ben’s argument is further justified because AV could have cut R7 and broke to trips, or just allowed the 6-1’s and 7-0’s to go straight to Octos. Even if a tournament has a pre-written policy, that doesn’t mean the policy is good. Tournament’s should probably think harder about these pre-written policies and set them accordingly.

        4-3 is basically a little bit better than 50% and less than a 60% win percentage. The win percentage is low enough to where those debaters shouldn’t be allowed to clear, and this seems to have intuitive strength. It’s the reason 4-3’s don’t clear at the TOC and it’s the reason 3-3’s don’t clear in a six round tournament. It’s the reason Dave McGinnis think’s it’s a little weird that his kid that went 4-3 broke. It’s the reason (I think) why 25 people upvoted Ben’s post.

        • alex smith

          Every argument you have made in this post is answered by me and Jacob. There is no disad to clearing a fixed number of debaters. None. This fixation upon number of rounds won (or, alternatively, win percentage) is silly, because it’s just an artifact of having preliminary rounds to determine elim seeding. If Apple Valley only had one prelim round, would you support clearing everyone who won that debate? They all had a 100% record, after all.

          The argument we are making is not simply that having a written policy is good. It is that clearing to a fixed and appropriate number of teams is good. It’s good for predictability (because debaters will know exactly what percentage of the pool is clearing), it’s good for competitive equity (debaters are rewarded for better prelim seeding, but have to win the same number of elimination debates in order to win the tournament or get a bid), and it’s consistent with our intuitions about how to determine the size of the elimination round pool.

          As to this idea of requiring a certain number of entries to hold 7 or 8 rounds: I’m not sure why this is a good idea. I like the idea of having more debates at more tournaments, both because more debates are generally good (and more prelim debates are particularly good because everyone gets to participate in them no matter their record – this is an argument that John Meany has made a lot in the past) and because it enables more granular and accurae seeding. We shouldn’t have to abandon having more preliminary debates simply because some people have an irrational hangup about 4-3s or 5-3s clearing.