[GFCA] Speech Tab Proposal - Open for Comments

[Jeffrey Miller]

Mario and others reading along -

I'm still torn on why consistency among all rounds matters in finals* but
not* quarterfinals or semifinals.   The current proposal makes it feel like
someone has changed the rules mid-stream...because we create three tab
methods (prelims, elims, and finals methods) rather than just tab method
for prelims and tab method for elims.

I can see the value in using similar tab methods as NSDA and again think
this is 97% better than what we have now - I'm just concerned about the
final 3%.   There is a stark difference between our State tournament and
the NSDA National Tournament - the main being is that they have more
competitors, better entry limits and more elimination rounds than we do.
However, the NSDA still gives out a Final Round Championship trophy in many
speech events.  I think since our event is smaller than Nationals - it may
be okay to slightly modify ourselves for their tab method.

Additionally, preliminary rounds are never power matched.  This can create
a false sense of consistency.  For instance, larger speech schools will
always tend to have an "easier" draw because the tab software can only make
a certain amount of different combinations of people in sections.  Whereas
small speech schools can move around from section to section because they
have less conflicts and restrictions.   Using un-powered preliminary data
is not the fairest way to determine a State Champion.  As Mario says,
competition grows with every elimination round - therefore we should honor
the students who are the best of the best, not the best of whoever they
were randomly paired against in prelims.

Although a student who receives a 1,1,6 can be effected by one judge, I do
not know why we should discount that judge's vote.  Assuming if this kid is
in a section - I am not sure why they deserve 1st place over a student in
the same section who received a 2,2,1.  Putting a value on consistency, the
other student was more consistent among all three judges - therefore should
be State Champion.   Bottomline -- if the tab room put that person on the
panel, they have made the decision that that judge is qualified to judge
the final round.  Lyndsey's new judge recommendation system is a step
forward for speech event judging and can resolve this issue.

Would love to hear what others think - discussions I had at Grovetown with
coaches about speech tab were different from this proposal, which is why I
wanted to bring this all up - Mario and I may just approach this from
different perspectives (wouldn't be the first time ;-) )

-Jeff

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 3:07 PM Mario Herrera <rioherrera at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi, everyone!
>
> So the reason that David and I fully support the proposal is that it
> mirrors how Speech events are tabbed at the National Speech and Debate
> National Tournament. The philosophy centers around the idea of consistency.
> All rounds do, in fact, matter. As competition grows tougher with each
> elimination round, the level of necessary consistency grows. It is the
> total performance for the event, not to be dictated by a large crowd in the
> room for finals or, conversely, one bad round because of topic choice or
> other factors. It looks at the student's performance holistically. This
> philosophy is unique to speech events. It is not a better philosophy than
> any other, but unique to this type of competition.
>
> The problem with making the final round the only factor for placement is
> that you have changed the rules mid-stream. Before the final round,
> consistency for the totality of competition is valued. In finals, previous
> performance is discounted. Additionally, it would be possible for an
> individual entry to receive scores of "1,1,6" in finals, effectively giving
> undue weight to one judge and directly impacting that entry.. By looking at
> all judge ranks, this possibility is limited. It rewards consistency of
> performance.
>
> Finally, until the guidelines for judges become the actual rules, they are
> just guidelines. While I know that every effort will be given to assure the
> guideline is met, if it becomes impossible to make happen the assurances
> dissipate. There is currently no rule to determine who can or cannot judge
> IE's. I'm not sure there is even an agreement among IE coaches as we really
> have not had that conversation. I would love to have such a conversation,
> but until it occurs, the rule should be consistent. There is not, and
> should not be, a strike system for judges. Speech events should not be
> treated as debate events. Judging in speech events the state remains
> random. This system, addresses that randomness while valuing competitors
> and judges.
>
> Thanks, and feel free to reach out to either David or myself should you
> have any questions.
>
> Mario
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:34 PM Jeffrey Miller <jmill126 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> So this doesn't get lost in our inboxes, I will start the discussion.
> Although I think this proposal is a significant improvement to our current
> tabulation process, one by law still stands out to me.
>
> Currently, our tabulation process puts a lot of value on preliminary
> rounds.  Currently, final rankings are based off finals rankings + prelim
> rankings (drop low).  This is not a normal tab process for any tournament
> outside the state I've ever been to.
>
> However, I think the proposal fixes a lot of this.   For instance, in
> order to advance from Quarters or Semis to the next elimination round, the
> top three in each section advances RATHER than prelim rounds + elim round
> rankings - lowest ranking total.   The proposed method of top 3 in each
> section makes a lot of sense and places value on the elimination round
> rather than on preliminary rounds (something that exists in debate and ALL
> OTHER activities/sports - for instance, the top seed in football doesn't
> get anything besides homefield advantage in the playoffs to help them).
>
> The problem I see though is that the final rankings *still include* preliminary
> rankings in the final rankings.  I do not think *all* rounds matter.  I
> think only finals matters.  To compare to debate, if the top seed gets a W
> in every round, but loses on a 2-1 in finals - they still lose.  In speech,
> if you get all 1's in preliminary rounds, but a 3,2,1 in finals and places
> 2nd in finals - they should place 2nd in finals.  I could use other sports
> or academic activities as an analogy - but debate was the easiest.
>
> I'm interested to see where other coaches stand on the issue of "do all
> rounds matter" in final rankings or do just "final rounds matter"?
>
> I will preempt one response that I thought of to my question and that
> response is "final round judging is unpredictable in speech events."  I
> think Lyndsey's addition to the "Final Round Speech Judge Recommendations
> <http://www.gaspeechanddebate.org/speechfinalsjudge>" solve this - for
> those who are not aware or haven't read the checklists - Lyndsey created an
> additional step for Speech schools at State.  Every speech school is now
> required to recommend at least one judge for a final round based on their
> experience and expertise.   This solves "unpredictable/unqualified judging
> in elims at state".
> --
> Jeffrey Miller
> Marist School
> Director of Speech & Debate
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the Georgia
> Forensic Coaches' Association Mailing List. To unsubscribe or change your
> delivery settings, visit
> http://lists.gradyspeaks.org/listinfo.cgi/thegfca-gradyspeaks.org and
> type your email address into the "Unsubscribe or edit options" box at the
> bottom of the page.
>
> --
Jeffrey Miller
Marist School
Director of Speech & Debate
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gradyspeaks.org/pipermail/thegfca-gradyspeaks.org/attachments/20170118/c3301744/attachment-0001.htm>