I want to bring IE’s back to Georgia tournaments

Posted by Jeffrey Miller
October 15, 2009    

We’ve had about five or six weeks of the 2009-2010 Georgia debate season.  A couple things are sticking out.  The main thing is the lack of individual events participants at the first tournaments.  The two largest debate tournaments this year have had to cancel certain IE divisions because of the lack of numbers.

I want to know why. I want to bring back these Individual Event divisions to Georgia tournaments.

So I’m asking three things:

- As the Director of Operations at Georgia Forensics Daily, I want to know what I can do to increase numbers in the state of Georgia in IE’s.

-As the Treasurer of the Georgia Forensic Coaches Association, I want to know what I can do to increase numbers in the state of Georgia in IE’s.

- As the Tournament Director at the lone TOC bid for IE’s in Georgia, I want to know what I can do to increase IE numbers for the Fayette Classic and make it the best possible tournament for Speech students.

Be as honest as you want. That’s what this blog is intended for.  Post anonymously, email me, anything… I want your opinions. Are tournaments charging too much for IEs?  Are IE tournaments not running on time?  Do you feel like competition is down? Are Extemp Questions bad? Are Impromptu Questions bad? What do you seek in questions?

Tags:
Catergories: Uncategorized

If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment, refer to this on your own blog with our permalink, subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.


  • Jeffrey Miller
    I know one problem with money that creates a whole other issue is what I call "Tournament Director Responsibility." And maybe it's just me, but I treat my tournament as my child for the months preceding it. This means I check and double check after teams have entered to do everything possible. One thing I've noticed is over-charging judge fees. If Leslie is taking 1 person to tournaments, I guarantee there are tournament directors who have set it up to charge her for an ENTIRE IE Judge. That's a lot of wasted money for Griffin HS, and a lot of Bank for the Tournament. This is a horrible policy. I see it more so with Policy.
    REAL EXAMPLE: If a coach has 5 policy teams (3 in varsity, 2 in jv, 1 in novice), and brings 3 judges (2 varsity and 1 novice) - they should not have to pay fees. I witnessed a team paying $ 300 (I think) in judging fees because the program showed up they owed more judges. This is ridiculous. I understand that the program can be tricky sometimes, but programs are dying for financial reasons - tournament directors need to stand up for programs and stop STEALING money away from them.
  • jeremyspiegel
    Jeff,

    The reason many tournament directors, including myself, have seperated the different levels of CX judges is that too many schools attempt to cover their varsity commitment by providing only novice judges. I think I speak for most tournament directors when I say that I would be happy to not collect a single dollar in judges fees if everyone covered their commitment. In your above example, if that school emailed the tournament saying that they are overcovering their Varsity commmitment and could they have that cover their half commitment in JV, I highly doubt any tournament would say no. While the JOT system makes life a lot easier, it also takes away subjectivity.

    --Jeremy Spiegel
  • Jeffrey Miller
    Totally understand, the Fayette tournament does the same thing.

    The problem is coaches are not aware they can email tournament directors - so if they don't email them, the director will simply charge them the judging fee. That's the problem... the tournament director should be doing work for teams going to their tournament, not the opposite way around.
  • Also, We need to see both sides of the coin here. One thing I'm personally tired of is the lack of IE education in GA. CX cannot be sustainable as the default event in GA, and it's taken three years for me to reach the point where I can admit that..

    I've seen the debate over debate in GA, and I've gotta say, I'm happy I'm exiting this year. The community is quietly devolving into a split along resource and event lines, and that'll destroy the activity.
  • That is precisely why the Grady tournament is so cheap. We've done everything we could to make sure that costs are low. I'm not speaking from knowing their situation, but the costs of the Homewood tournament (which is the same weekend as ours) are exorbitant for coaches from GA that want to go to Alabama, but are just getting started.
  • Leslie Fagin
    Brandon, I was not speaking for the whole debate community. I was only speaking of my school and our particular situation. We are in our second year of competition. I have no background in debate, nor does my assistant. When we began this program last year, we went to the training at Westminster. We learned about policy debate. That worked for them, and they did well. My lone individual event student competes in those events primarily because we did not have a partner for him to do Novice debate, and he did not want to do LD. We did some additional research and discovered that he could do any of the indiviual events. My students prefer to do policy and/or LD debate because that is what they learned first. We do not compete at overnight tournaments because our budget does not allow for the additional cost of hotel rooms. There is no additional cost for having the tubs since we are on a school bus. Yes, there is the initial cost of copying and printing, but once we copied the negs for the arguments that schools are running, we have no more costs.

    Again, I am not speaking for everyone, just our school. Jeffrey asked why we didn't do more IE's, and I answered why my school did not. Your plan may work for other schools- just not my school. You are free to disagree with the money argument; however, that is our argument and the reason that we do policy only.
  • Leslie, I completely understand the hard choices that programs have to make. I'm just noting a common example of what some coaches have had to deal with this, and what they've done.
  • lesliefagin
    Brandon,

    I had a new student today who was registered for LD and decided to try OO. I was hesitant at first, but I let him. I think he will do well. Thanks for your post about the lack of IE education here in Georgia. I know very little, but I realize that I have to expand my knowledge for the betterment of my students.
  • lesliefagin
    I have one student who competes in IE's. He competed last year and this year as well. When new students come to the team, I do not really give them a choice. They can do policy or LD. IE's are not an option for my new students. The reason is simple - money. My school has very little money, and we cannot afford to hire judges for too many events. At two tournaments, we have had to pay for policy and/or LD judges. We simply cannot afford to pay for any more judges, and we are unable to recruit more adults to travel with the team. As a result, my lone IE student will not have any teammates unless we get some money. I see the value in IE's, we just can't afford it.
  • I'd disagree with the money argument - some schools don't even look at policy for political and financial reasons. When you add up the costs in gas from adding the weight of tubs to vehicles, to copy and print costs, and the costs of being at tournaments over two days as opposed to two, you're coming more out of pocket. It's more advantageous for a smaller school, from what I've seen, to switch from CX to a LD/PF/IE hybrid or just IE. At tournaments, you can increase the number of competitors per judge (2-4 CX vs 5-7 IE), include judges that don't need to be more specialized (nor will they run away at the sight of CX), and you'd lower costs on travel since more tournaments (in GA at least) are one day for everything but CX and you're not concerned with as much gas/hotel/time driving to and from home over two days.
blog comments powered by Disqus