Harvard vs. NFL Nationals

[HIGhost]

Alright. I'm going to come out and do this once and for all. I'm creating a poll to determine which tourney you all think is better/more prestigious. I've been pretty blatant in other postings that I think Nationals is ten-thousand times the more prestigious tourney, and that I think this site must change it's rankings of the top ten tourneys, putting NFL nationals in the number one spot.

[Ryan]

The rankings are not just based on which is more prestigous, but overall how it goes as a tournament. If you look at the numerical rankings for why Harvard was placed 1st instead of NFL Nats, you'd notice that they were seperated by a meager single point. Basically the judging quality is what pushed Harvard into the top spot. It's a bit late to change the rankings for this season, but after it comes to a close and students/coaches are once again polled, there may be a change.

[HIGhost]

Ok, Harvard is ranked higher than nationals in judges and "value." I don't know who the **** thinks a harvard trophy is more valuable than a nationals one, but i say that person is crazy. and the judges aren't two points better.... they aren't necessarily better at all. in fact, the fact that nationals is cumilative MAKES its judges better, as 3 stupid judges in one round can't completely screw a competitor, while at Harvard, because it isn't cumilative, if there are dumb judges in a round, the competitor has nothing to save him. the whole thing's crazy.

[Ryan]

I've always made the claim that cum'ing is worse because since prelims will usually only be judged by one judge, a bad prelims judge can adversely effect your whole record. A panel of three judges in a round can offset the idiocy of single much easier.

[HIGhost]

whoever told you that is wrong. prelims aren't scored in the final cumilative scores of nationals anyways. it's only cumulative from the break rounds, where they try to have judges who are great. the only place where the judges can be bad is in the final round itself. about half of the judges are very prestigious, but some of the others have never seen a speech round in their life, as they are just sponsors. somebody please explain the value thing too

[Ryan]

I was talking about cum'ing in general, not specifically at NFL Nats. I didn't come up with the rankings, Jason Mehta did in conjunction with very extensive polling. Contact him for that. Once again, it is too late to change the rankings for this season but next year's rankings will roll around soon enough.

[Assistant Coach]

I've always made the claim that cum'ing is worse because since prelims will usually only be judged by one judge, a bad prelims judge can adversely effect your whole record. A panel of three judges in a round can offset the idiocy of single much easier.

I agree. I have never liked cum' because of that reason. One judge or an extremely easy/competitive panel of speakers in prelims can make this whole process highly illegitimate. However, I do feel that at state and national circuit tourneys, because USUALLY, the quality of judging and competition is at the same standard for everyone, cum' is safer than cut-throat.

[chrispac]

I like tournaments that have cum. better, its from many more points of views.

I like the thrill of a no strings attatched finals round. It forces everyone to pull out their best preformance to do well.

[HSTDeb8erGrl]

I like tournaments that have cum. better, its from many more points of views.

I think it's better when the ranks aren't cum, b/c one bad pre-lim round can screw you up in an out round if others have had better pre-lim ranks than you.

[jewis]

I agree fully that Harvard is a better tournament that NFL Nats. NFL nationals is quite poor for several reasons.

Poor judge of talent
NFL nats final rounds I have found to be of lesser quality than Harvard final rounds. I think this is a direct result of lesser quality judges.

If there are any here who would like to argue that Buddy Heart is a better HI performer than Paul Kite, Jordan Newman, Trey Hunt, or Lisa Campbell, I am prepared to announce that you are a moron.

The sole fact that several years ago that Paul Davis(Harvard 1) and Max Friend (Harvard 3), two widely acclaimed amazing HIs, did not even break ONCE at nationals, sorta dampens the quality of nats.

When Buddy Heart double finals, and people like Lisa Campbell and Sami Krigstein do not final, you know a tournament sucks.

District System is flawed
Milton Academy. They have a brilliant speech team. However, they are so brilliant that last year they had three incredible DIs. Sophie Kargman, Sami Kriegstein, and Jon Magaziner. Their district sends two DIs. Sophie and Sami qualed, and went to Nats. Sami got 7th and Sophie quartered.
However Jon was CERTAINLY a competent performer. Jon won CFLs and finaled at Harvard that year.

They should have ALL attended nationals, but because the district system does not forsee that there could possibly be three really good people in a small district, Nats greatly limits its talent pool. A system more similar to that used for TOC in debate would be more appropriate.

There are other reasons as well, but those are the top two. Nationals for me, while clearly the second best tournament (though glenbrooks was close), is not anywhere near as good as Harvard.

Harvard has class. Nats....not so much.

[chrispac]

yoo, paul davis was one of my lab leaders.

Well anyways, you have pretty good analysis, (i've never been to any of those 2 tournaments) but i just want to say

buddy heart's DI kicks ***

[xxLusciousZechxx]

True, Buddy Haardt's HI was nothing special (somehow he won State in TX, too...), but his DI was amazing.

He should have placed MUCH higher.

[HSTDeb8erGrl]

District System is flawed
Milton Academy. They have a brilliant speech team. However, they are so brilliant that last year they had three incredible DIs. Sophie Kargman, Sami Kriegstein, and Jon Magaziner. Their district sends two DIs. Sophie and Sami qualed, and went to Nats. Sami got 7th and Sophie quartered.
However Jon was CERTAINLY a competent performer. Jon won CFLs and finaled at Harvard that year.

They should have ALL attended nationals, but because the district system does not forsee that there could possibly be three really good people in a small district, Nats greatly limits its talent pool. A system more similar to that used for TOC in debate would be more appropriate.

I completely disagre with you. Each district sends the two best people because they are THE BEST. It is quite stupid of you to conclude that since they had 3 DI that were good all three should have qualed. A system similar to that of the TOC would not work, seeing as how large NFL's are already. As I said before it is the best of the best, unlike Harvard, which anyone can attend. Which brings me to my next point which is that, not everyone has the opportunity to attend Harvard. For example this is the first year that my school has had that opportunity, and its because our parents paid for it, but not everyone has that type of money. But schools are more willing to reward their students by paying for a national tournament.

Oh and winning CFL doesn't mean ****. As much as I love being a member of that league, people who win first aren't usually the best. Take for example a CX team from my archdiocese, Brian Linder and Louis Wang from Pennsbury HS, they won CFLs last year, but didn't break at NFLs.

[the durango kid]

At harvard, anyone can enter, unlike the NFL upon whihc you need to qualify. That is why someone can make it far in Harvard, there are still people who aren't very goo there. Nationals is the best of the best froma round the nation (around the nation! not just those who can afford to go to Harvard or are fourntante enough to live in its backyard!). Harvard is a good test of the who's who on the east coast, but don't forget the other half here, we got game!

[dmcordon9]

I think that one of the problems with NFL Nats is judging. I'm not sure if you're all aware, but this year NFL decided to put more judges in Finals and drop the two highest and two lowest ranks in finals. That seems a bit wierd to me. The one thing I'm glad they did is limit the number of corporate sponsor judges. In my opinion, the finals judges should consist of the best coaches of that event from across the nation. That's how it was until only a couple of years ago. As for prelims, judging is difficult because of so many regional differences and preferrences. It's tough to cater to everyone. At nats this summer I judged a DI round and one contestant did Jeckyl and Hyde, the musical. It was basically ten minutes of singing and shouting. Even though he had a lot of energy, I put him dead last. In my opinion interp is not about singing, dancing and shouting. However, the other judge in the panel gave him the two, over Latoyia Johnson from James Logan (my one). I was floored. But that's what regional differences are all about. It's tough to overcome them.

[HSTDeb8erGrl]

I see your viewpoint and I definately do not believe in having corporate judges. However, I feel that dropping the highest and lowest ranks in a round just might be the best thing to do. Alot of times what I have seen happen is that some screwy ******* will give someone who does not deserve first, an first place win or the reciprocal, when someone who does well suddenly gets a randomly bad rank. And I'm certain that the NFL exective members had reason enough to make this change.

[DCdisco]

i know its not the same tournaments, but it is the same situation (the judging, and the dropping of scores, people getting screwed)

Last year at the MN state tourney, in discussion in both classes (A and AA), the same judge screwed the would-be champion....In class A, she gave the previous years champ an 8, while everyone else gave him ones. that gave him 2nd place. the next day, in AA, she gave one guy an 8, who also had straight one's, and it gave him second, in comparison to a girl who didn't get a SINGLE ONE in the entire state meet.....

So I am definitely in favor of dropping those may-off-the-mark scores......its the way that is the most fair to all. :lol:

[jewis]

I completely disagre with you. Each district sends the two best people because they are THE BEST. It is quite stupid of you to conclude that since they had 3 DI that were good all three should have qualed.



As I said before it is the best of the best, unlike Harvard, which anyone can attend.

But thats not true. It is not the best of the best. What if all the Best people live in one region? Then some of the best cannot go. It is my opinion, and of many others, that Jon Magaziner, Sophie Kargman, and Sami Kriegstien were ALL some of the best. The good thing about harvard is that it does not try to determine the best until everybody gets there. Is not that the point of a tournmanet? To determine the best competitors? There are some districts that just plain suck some years. And there are some that shine. But no matter what only two from each. The rule makes nationals so that it is NOT the best of the best.





A system similar to that of the TOC would not work, seeing as how large NFL's are already.

TOC has less CX teams competing that NFLs. What are talking about?



Which brings me to my next point which is that, not everyone has the opportunity to attend Harvard. For example this is the first year that my school has had that opportunity, and its because our parents paid for it, but not everyone has that type of money. But schools are more willing to reward their students by paying for a national tournament.

Well, that is your school, but please speak for yourself. At my school to attend NFL last year was $500, due to the expense of the hotels for so long a period of time. Harvard at my school is only $200.



Oh and winning CFL doesn't mean ****. As much as I love being a member of that league, people who win first aren't usually the best. Take for example a CX team from my archdiocese, Brian Linder and Louis Wang from Pennsbury HS, they won CFLs last year, but didn't break at NFLs.

1. NFL purposely screens good CX judges and only allows judges that have not debated before, so bringing in CX is a bad example.
2. I recogize aswell that CFLs is not a particuarly prestigous tournament. I have never even bothered to attend. Regardless of your opinion of CFLs Jon magaziner was AMAZING. It is obvious you did not see Harvard DI finals, or you would think otherwise. Jon's DI was hands down my favorite DI of 2002-2003. He was, as you put it, one of "the best". But so was sami and sophie. He deserved to be at nationals just as much as they did.

[the durango kid]

The NFL is not perfect. I am truly sorry that you feel your district had three top notch perfomers. But I will remind you that that is an exception and not the rule. What about the people who cannot come to Harvard? What about the people that come from small, rural towns in Colorado (such as Durango High School which last year produced a semi-finalist and a quater-finalist). They don't go to Harvard. It is insulting to think that you can have a tournment that is better than nationals just because in you opinon someone got screwed once, wehen Haravard (by its nature) screws people who can't afford to fly to the east coast in the middle of the school year (which is why nats is when it is).

[jewis]

The NFL is not perfect. I am truly sorry that you feel your district had three top notch perfomers. But I will remind you that that is an exception and not the rule. What about the people who cannot come to Harvard? What about the people that come from small, rural towns in Colorado (such as Durango High School which last year produced a semi-finalist and a quater-finalist). They don't go to Harvard. It is insulting to think that you can have a tournment that is better than nationals just because in you opinon someone got screwed once, wehen Haravard (by its nature) screws people who can't afford to fly to the east coast in the middle of the school year (which is why nats is when it is).

First of all, I did not have any problems qualifying for Nats. My district is quite easy. In fact I got straight 1s through the entire tournament. It would be awful hard for me to compare the tournaments if I had not attended both, would it not? :-P

I also do not claim Harvard to be perfect. But the flaws in the NFL district system, and their abundance of lay judges, in my mind our two errors that are too egregious to ignore.

Harvard is not a perfect tournament. NFL is not a perfect tournament. There is no way to make a tournament that will truly find the best of best.

I have no ill will toward the NFL, and I had TONS of fun at NFL natinals last year. But I was not asked wheather I thought NFLs was a good tournament. I was asked if I thought it was the best. And I think Harvard is better.

[chrispac]

1) example like the district Logan is in, they should be able to qual MORE competitors (they only can qual 2 or 3) some of theyre 4th or 5th best in the distrcit can EASILY beat the top spots in certain other districts, therefore "sending the best" sometimes doesn't work out.
2) Judging from different points of view is what makes this event very challenging, flexible, and fun. You learn to adapt to many differentstyles, and learn what some people like and what others dislike. Don't complain about judging that experienced judges have on one certain style, because it's their own opinion about it. If there was only one certain criteria judges judged on, EVERY HI/DUO would look dangerously similar, tech/blockgin styles and story styles similar, it wouldn't give the "open to interpretation" effect on the event.
3) the best always stand out. you may think you get "SCREWED" cuz one judge gives you a 3, when you think you deserve to picket fence everything, but if your the best, you will prevail, only stupid *** retarded judges in every single one of your rounds will screw you over.

[HSTDeb8erGrl]

Jewis: I was only speaking from my perspective about schools paying for national tournaments. The schools in my area have fairly large forensics budgets and most of us don't have to pay for nats. But that's not to say its the same way for everyone.

Chrispac: It should'nt matter whether whether numbers 4 and 5 in one district could beat numbers 1 and 2 in another district. Each district sends their best, and the best will prevail at nationals. I don't think that just because there are a few people who are better than average in a district, doesn't mean that they all deserve to qual.

[the durango kid]

I think that the poll results speak more than these posts. And any tourny that Thomas Finley wins is a true judge of HI at least :)

[HSTDeb8erGrl]

Amen. Enough said.