New Jersey 2011-2012

[4Rensic]

Reciprocals and "who-hit-who" would have broken that, it wouldn't have been 8.

Okay...Thanks...Whitney Olofinjana would have broken to finals then... She is listed first with all those with the rank of 7....

[Crazy50128]

Okay...Thanks...Whitney Olofinjana would have broken to finals then... She is listed first with all those with the rank of 7....

That's not necessarily how it works either. On Tabroom it usually lists names by scores/ranks when tournaments break to finals, but in the case of this tournament, it is just listed by school. The only real way to know who would have broken is to know exactly who hit who and the amount of people that were in each room, which is something that Tabroom usually calculates automatically when figuring out breaks.

[NJFL4n6!]

Newark CFL #2 Breaks
(An * designates # of times a competitor has been mentioned previously in the event's results on this thread)

Dramatic Performance
1. Lauren Marazzi
2. Ami Park** (Yale, CFL 1)
3. Whitney Olofinjana* (CFL 1)
4. Joshua Feldman** (CFL 1, Phillipsburg)
5. Samantha Goldberg
6. Sophia Laurenzi

Duo Interpretation
1. Ferman/Goldsmith* (CFL 1)
2. Bennett/Heinicke
3. Rappaport/Scharff* (Bronx)
4. Myers/Schuette
5. Rotondo/Lynskey* (CFL 1)
6. Hansen/Titus

Extemporaneous Speaking
1. Caitlin Murphy*** (Yale, Bronx, CFL 1)
2. Chase Harrison*** (Yale, CFL 1, Phillipsburg)
3. Nick Hansen*** (Yale, Bronx, CFL 1)
4. Chuck Richardson*** (Yale, Bronx, Phillipsburg)
5. Claire Yao
6. Gia Farooqi* (CFL 1)

Oral Interpretation
1. Michael Chang*** (Yale, Bronx, CFL 1)
2. Tim Leach
3. Aditi Pai*** (Yale, CFL 1, Phillipsburg)
4. Kiara Fudge
5. Ananya Badrish*** (Bronx, CFL 1, Phillipsburg)
6. Rebecca Pankove** (Bronx, CFL 1)

Original Oratory
1. Michelle Smyk** (Yale, CFL 1)
2. Alina Razak
3. Logan McGowan*** (Yale, Bronx, Phillipsburg)
4. Annie Cierpal* (CFL 1)
5. Molly Smith
6. Maulin Hemani

[NJFL4n6!]

Current CFL Standings (as of CFL 2)

Dramatic Performance
1. Ami Park - 10 points, 2 finals
2. Joshua Feldman - 9 points, 2 finals
3. Whitney Olofinjana - 8 points, 2 finals
4. Lauren Marazzi - 6 points, 1 final
5. Sam Hoffman - 3 points, 1 final
6. Max Sauberman - 2 points, 1 final
6. Samantha Goldberg - 2 points, 1 final
8. Melissa Albert - 1 point, 1 final
8. Sophia Laurenzi - 1 point, 1 final

Comments: Top three to four in DP remain fairly consistent, with approximately nine different finalists out of a total of twelve possible. Should level out as season progresses.

Duo Interpretation
1. Rotondo/Lynskey - 8 points, 2 finals
2. Ferman/Goldsmith - 6 points, 2 finals
3. Weinflash/Tuckman - 5 points, 1 final
3. Bennett/Heineck - 5 points, 1 final
5. Palermo/Qiao - 4 points, 1 final
5. Rappaport/Scharff - 4 points, 1 final
7. Myers/Schuette - 3 points, 1 final
7. Ojo/McDonald - 2 points, 1 final
9. Rabideau/Ward - 1 point, 1 final
9. Hansen/Titus - 1 point, 1 final

Comments: Surprisingly inconsistent, as of current standings, with approximately ten different finalists out of a total of twelve possible. CFL 2 had many wild cards in the finals. Should level out as season progresses, but will be more competitive than originally predicted.

Extemporaneous Speaking
1. Caitlin Murphy - 11 points, 2 finals
2. Chase Harrison - 8 points, 2 finals
2. Nick Hansen - 8 points, 2 finals
4. Zach Klein - 6 points, 1 final
5. Gia Farooqi - 3 points, 2 finals
6. Chuck Richardson - 3 points, 1 final
7. Claire Yao - 2 points, 1 final
8. Alin Haruvay - 1 point, 1 final

Comments: Top three are consistent contenders, so far there have been 8 different finalists out of a total of twelve possible. Should remain steady for rest of the season, with a little bit of turbulence, assuming no competitors switch in/out.

Oral Interpretation
1. Michael Chang - 11 points, 2 finals
2. Aditi Pai - 8 points, 2 finals
3. Michelle Bennett - 6 points, 1 final
4. Ananya Badrish - 5 points, 2 finals
5. Tim Leach - 5 points, 1 final
6. Kiara Fudge - 3 points, 1 final
7. Rebecca Pankove - 2 points, 2 finals
8. Nicole Howell - 2 points, 1 final

Comments: Top four are consistent contenders, so far there have been 8 different finalists out of a total of twelve possible. CFL 2 had a couple wild cards in the finals. Should remain steady for rest of the season, with a little bit of turbulence, assuming no competitors switch in/out.

Original Oratory
1. Michelle Smyk - 9 points, 2 finals
2. Sarah Weinflash - 6 points, 1 final
3. Alina Razak - 5 points, 1 final
3. Divya Krishnan - 5 points, 1 final
5. Logan McGowan - 4 points, 1 final
5. Alex Leicht - 4 points, 1 final
7. Annie Cierpal - 3.5 points, 2 finals
8. Molly Smith - 2 points, 1 final
8. Fallon Schlossman - 2 points, 1 final
10. Maulin Hemani - 1 point, 1 final
10. Giancarlo Carnevale - 1 points, 1 final

Comments: Very inconsistent, as of current standings, with approximately eleven different finalists out of a total of twelve possible. CFL 2 had many wild cards in the finals. Should level out as season progresses, but will be more competitive than originally predicted, assuming no competitors join or leave.

Overall Reflections: Extemporaneous Speaking and Oral Interpretation's top four are essentially locked in for nationals, assuming no one else joins the events. The bottom two spots for EXT and OI are up for grabs. Original Oratory and Duo Interpretation are the most inconsistent and will likely be that way until the last CFL. Dramatic Performance is caught somewhere in the middle.

[4n68]

I usually just check out these threads every once and a while, specifically this one, and never really post, but I'm finding this little star* system very frustrating. I'm not sure of the aim of it but I really think it's an unfair representation of the league, given that not every NJFL school goes to CFL's or larger national tournaments, nor does it matter in the long-run how many stars a person racks up. I think everyone is able to pick out frontrunners without putting it in writing like this. I don't know, it just seems damaging to the self esteem of those with less stars, and that's not what forensics is about.

[Crazy50128]

I usually just check out these threads every once and a while, specifically this one, and never really post, but I'm finding this little star* system very frustrating. I'm not sure of the aim of it but I really think it's an unfair representation of the league, given that not every NJFL school goes to CFL's or larger national tournaments, nor does it matter in the long-run how many stars a person racks up. I think everyone is able to pick out frontrunners without putting it in writing like this. I don't know, it just seems damaging to the self esteem of those with less stars, and that's not what forensics is about.

I don't think it's meant to be "rewarding" certain people or anything in that nature. I'm pretty sure it's just to keep track of an individuals success throughout the year. This is just a simple thread on a forensics post, it has no real meaning when it comes to measuring anyone's talent level or "front runners". Obviously certain people attend more tournaments, and obviously certain schools don't attend CFLs. The asterisk system is not a competition, so who-attends-what tournaments shouldn't even matter, because the actual stars don't even matter. It's goal is obviously not to damage one's self-esteem, because those with less stars should know that they didn't attend some of the tournaments, and thus know that the "system" doesn't compare fairly with others.

All the system does is lets people know who has had success and where. That's essentially forensics. You can't cover up someone's success, and you can't blame someone for attending more tournaments. If someone was curious about a certain person and where they broke (such as at how many CFLs, how many national tournaments, ect.) it just makes it easier for them to know. With or without the * system though, they could sill find out the answer. It just facilitates. Listing it in order on each new post just saves time and summarizes instead of going back a few pages to look at an old post.

Now all this being said, I really don't care too much about it, I just wanted to show the other viewpoint and what I feel the point of the system is. If it is really bothering people, then I'm all for taking it down. I don't think it's a big deal.

[4n68]

I don't think it's meant to be "rewarding" certain people or anything in that nature. I'm pretty sure it's just to keep track of an individuals success throughout the year. This is just a simple thread on a forensics post, it has no real meaning when it comes to measuring anyone's talent level or "front runners". Obviously certain people attend more tournaments, and obviously certain schools don't attend CFLs. The asterisk system is not a competition, so who-attends-what tournaments shouldn't even matter, because the actual stars don't even matter. It's goal is obviously not to damage one's self-esteem, because those with less stars should know that they didn't attend some of the tournaments, and thus know that the "system" doesn't compare fairly with others.

All the system does is lets people know who has had success and where. That's essentially forensics. You can't cover up someone's success, and you can't blame someone for attending more tournaments. If someone was curious about a certain person and where they broke (such as at how many CFLs, how many national tournaments, ect.) it just makes it easier for them to know. With or without the * system though, they could sill find out the answer. It just facilitates. Listing it in order on each new post just saves time and summarizes instead of going back a few pages to look at an old post.

Now all this being said, I really don't care too much about it, I just wanted to show the other viewpoint and what I feel the point of the system is. If it is really bothering people, then I'm all for taking it down. I don't think it's a big deal.

Truthfully, I have zero investment in the matter. This is just be my opinion, and who knows, maybe no one agrees with me. I was just trying to throw the idea out there that it's possible this seems like some sort of "look at how many stars/breaks they have" kind of deal, which could potentially be frustrating. But hey, I'm not trying to start anything. Just throwing my opinion out there. If no one minds it, because like I said, I have no specific interest, continue on.

[Pasty]

Fair enough. Having no opinion either way, I'm going to change the topic.

I watched the DP round on Saturday, and here are some thoughts:
Josh Feldman really impressed me. Taking a pretty generic script, he's really done some creative stuff. I saw a lot of elements reminiscent of National Finals HIs.
Ami Park is a boss.
Sophia Laurenzi pulled off a pretty difficult piece. She was definitely the most polished in the round. As she improves throughout the year, expect her to do very well.
Lauren Marazzi was really in the zone. It was also the absolute perfect piece for her, and it showed through her performance.

Overall, really solid round. The field is nowhere near settled. I'm guessing it's going to be pretty volatile for a while. Ami Park and Josh Feldman can be expected to lock within the next few tournaments, and Whitney Olofinjana is a safe bet too, but other than that it's going to be very tough.

[NJ4N68R]

does anyone know any piece titles for interp?

[Pasty]

Lauren Marazzi: "Tea at Five"
Ami Park: "The Only Way I Know How"
Whitney Olofinjana: "Beast of No Nation"
Josh Feldman: "Dracula Rides Again"
Samantha Goldberg: "Here in this House"
Sophia Laurenzi: "Persepolis"