Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ORCS Week 1 Results

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • happygolucky
    started a topic ORCS Week 1 Results

    ORCS Week 1 Results

    Starting a thread to discuss reactions to ORCS Week One tab summaries.

    Biggest Surprise: Tie between NYU and UC Irvine not making it out. We all knew that with only 5 bids to be distributed, big teams would fall, but NYU especially comes as a shock. The 5 bid rule is especially brutal to west coast competition, and UC Irvine going 5-3 after a 4-0 day one is a very tough draw.

    Most impressive: Ohio State. Ohio State absolutely dominated Geneva, going 14-2 across the board and snagging two nationals bids, I believe for the first time in their history. They will certainly be a strong nationals contender.

    Any other things catch anyone's eye?

  • Random
    replied
    Unless I am doing the math wrong, there seems to be a clear defense bias in the case again (aside from R1 in Santa Monica and R4 in Cedar Rapids).

    Leave a comment:


  • OJSimpson
    replied
    I scouted the Stanford round against Denver and was frankly shocked to see the result. In my humble opinion it was a clear win in their favor, and I found myself thinking that Stanford could be a championship round contender for Philadelphia. They were clearly well-practiced but still believable. It may be worth noting that I am from a program considered geographically "southern" but I saw no issues with their presentation style coming across aggressive. I also scouted Ohio's round against North Central and enjoyed their presentation style, with exception of their witness lineup who were too combative for my taste.

    Leave a comment:


  • Random
    replied
    It is like everyone forgot that mock trial is a subjective activity.

    Leave a comment:


  • nunya
    replied
    Originally posted by adamsel View Post
    Once again, Stanford did not "falter", they had 12 wins as a program vs. OSU's 14. They had the same amount of wins as a program as Northwestern so like idk why this is an issue
    Exactly. Distinguishing between OSU and Stanford is a useless exercise. How is this discussion not centered around the east and west coast powerhouses not advancing to nationals (for the first time, basically ever?). They of course remain stellar programs, but I would like to hear some specifics about their weekends rather than chatting about how loudly Gineva contenders spoke.

    Leave a comment:


  • Not a Good Mocker
    replied
    I don't think it's so much an issue with Stanford "faltering" as it is just pointing out that Stanford A dropped some ballots to some questionable teams. Having seen both OSU and Stanford, I would tend to agree with MarciaClark; from what I saw, Ohio State was very loud, but that played out as just having more confidence rather than being aggressive. I noticed that they didn't have a tendency to interrupt witnesses, and in general, their demeanor, though loud, was very clean and matter of fact.

    Stanford, like most of the West Coast, tends to have a more aggressive crossing style that's more than just being loud. Presentationally, I do think that there's a distinct difference between OSU's loud but very matter of fact style and Stanford's loud but more aggressive style that played differently with the Geneva judges. Ofc, I am basing this off of only a few rounds that I was able to see, so I could be wrong but regardless, I think it's clear that both teams are very clean and are strong final round contenders.

    Leave a comment:


  • adamsel
    replied
    Once again, Stanford did not "falter", they had 12 wins as a program vs. OSU's 14. They had the same amount of wins as a program as Northwestern so like idk why this is an issue

    Leave a comment:


  • MarciaClark
    replied
    Earning a bid is of course nothing to scoff at, but I'm looking at this from the perspective of where everyone thought the program would be. No one would have thought Stanford would be saved by their B team (although, I've heard their all-freshman B team is spectacular). I would agree that OSU is "as loud as they come", but their style is very different from that of Stanford. Stanford acts with aggression, while I find that OSU's volume is based more in confidence than arrogance. Just my opinion based on what I've seen of them this year. I think this distinction is what made OSU dominate and Stanford falter.

    Leave a comment:


  • adamsel
    replied
    Stanford as a program went 11-3-2 so I think they did fine lol

    Leave a comment:


  • happygolucky
    replied
    Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post

    OSU is as loud and aggressive as they come and they did just fine in Geneva...
    But not all judges are the same. I suspect the implication from MarciaClark (that I would agree with) is that more midwestern judges don't like this style. Perhaps Stanford just happened to get these judges, and Ohio State didn't.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gronksmash
    replied
    Originally posted by MarciaClark View Post
    Stanford simply has a style that didn't play over well in Geneva. Stanford was loud and aggressive, which didn't go over well against the calm, meeker teams they hit. Stanford just made themselves easy to dislike in a pool of midwestern Illinois-style judges.
    OSU is as loud and aggressive as they come and they did just fine in Geneva...

    Leave a comment:


  • happygolucky
    replied
    Originally posted by MarciaClark View Post
    Stanford simply has a style that didn't play over well in Geneva. Stanford was loud and aggressive, which didn't go over well against the calm, meeker teams they hit. Stanford just made themselves easy to dislike in a pool of midwestern Illinois-style judges.
    I haven't seen Stanford this year (but I've seen them plenty in the past) and I suspect this is correct. Midwestern judges and Stanford seem like a clash, and seems like they drew a few judges who just didn't appreciate their style. That Denver split is especially bizarre.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarciaClark
    replied
    Stanford simply has a style that didn't play over well in Geneva. Stanford was loud and aggressive, which didn't go over well against the calm, meeker teams they hit. Stanford just made themselves easy to dislike in a pool of midwestern Illinois-style judges.

    Leave a comment:


  • WitnessTheAttorney
    replied
    Stanford's schedule at Geneva was a bit strange to look at. Directly comparing them with any of the schools they went up against, on paper I would have expected a sweep every round (not as a bash on those teams, but as high praise for Stanford's program). Given some of their PD splits (+9, +0 against Carthage; +24, +0 against Denver), this makes me think they might have gotten unlucky with judges. Does anyone know what happened in either of those rounds?

    Leave a comment:


  • Random
    replied
    I think the case writers did a good job in balancing this case, which is why you are seeing so many splits between teams. I am eagerly awaiting the ballot analysis to see if the balance is still fairl even.

    I do think that it is a shame that there will be teams with 6 wins who will not be making it to Nationals. That had only ever happened once before and it seems like it will now be a regular occurrence.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X