Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

National Championship (non final round) discussion

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by ImproperCharacter View Post

    This is actually not as bad as I was expecting. Certainly a biased case, but not THAT biased overall. The most surprising thing is that it's a P biased case rather than a D biased case.
    A nearly 8 percent side bias in Guliuzza is pretty massive. You could tell Rhodes thought they had it in the bag when they won the coin flip...

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post

      A nearly 8 percent side bias in Guliuzza is pretty massive. You could tell Rhodes thought they had it in the bag when they won the coin flip...
      Yeah, keep in mind that 57.8% P implies 42.2% D (every percent above 50 for one side is amplified in overall bias by a percent under 50 for the other side). A 15.6% gap between the sides is huge.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post

        A nearly 8 percent side bias in Guliuzza is pretty massive. You could tell Rhodes thought they had it in the bag when they won the coin flip...
        I agree it's biased, but not surprisingly so. It's not so far out of line with other cases, based on the numbers I have seen on the forum.
        • Empowermilk (NCT): 56.25% P wins overall.
        • MTS (Week 1 of ORCS - don't see Week 2): 55.7% D wins overall, 57.8% D in "Top Rounds" -whatever that is
        • Parker Barrow (NCT): 54% D wins overall; 56.9% D wins in Rounds 3 and 4.
        • Hendricks (ORCS): 55.2% D wins overall; 50% P and D wins in "Top Rounds"
        I was expecting see it be a 60% plus P bias based on how everyone was talking. But it's pretty in line with other cases.

        Also considering the small sample size, the margin of error is pretty big for these stats - about 5% for a 95% confidence interval. Makes all of this kind of hard to evaluate.

        Comment


        • #19
          I would be very interested to hear of any team that managed to effectively use Patel, especially as a plaintiff witness. I heard one Patel get an award but I never saw one in trial and it seemed very difficult to make an effective witness out of Patel that wasn't subject to some very difficult objection battles.

          Comment


          • #20
            Columbia and Northwood ran defense Patels and I thought they were pretty good. They did their job as character witnesses and had the courtroom laughing. Don't recall too many objection battles coming up during them...

            Comment


            • #21
              How would people say this case compares to previous Nationals Cases? I know a lot of people were complaining how simple Barrow was last year, was the more complicated fact pattern a step back in the right direction?

              Comment


              • #22
                I liked this case for it's complexity but at the same time thought the complexity was executed poorly. The plaintiff could pursue damages from loss of sales or contract or both. This meant the defense had a very difficult time because they had to essentially prepare to face any of these plaintiffs.

                However, a contract defense has very different calls from a sales defense. A contract defense wants Okafor but a sales defense wants Sullivan. This made preparing calls and making calls difficult, especially in captain's meeting when Defense doesn't know which damage plaintiff is pursuing.

                If plaintiff had to choose (before selecting witness calls) in captain's meeting whether they were pursuing damages from sales or contract (like P had to choose between prosecuting Bancroft or Covington) then defense could make calls accordingly and have a better chance of being prepared well.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gronksmash View Post
                  Columbia and Northwood ran defense Patels and I thought they were pretty good. They did their job as character witnesses and had the courtroom laughing. Don't recall too many objection battles coming up during them...
                  I saw Duke keep Northwood's entire Patel out on hearsay. Judge thought limiting instruction wouldn't be enough to avoid prejudicial 'truth' effect from the testimony, and it was argued very well.

                  I heard some teams conceded falsity which allowed for things like the Patel article to come in because the truth of the matter had been conceded already

                  Edit: I will say though, Simeon Lawrence who played Northwood's Patel was excellent and extremely likeable despite the fact that the direct ended up with no substance. Easy to see why he went All-American on the other side of the case
                  Last edited by viswan23; April 11th, 2019, 01:22 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    If I can step in. I know AMTA isn't big on people involved in case writing publicly discussing certain particulars, so I'll keep my comments limited. I will say, however, that the side bias is significant, and, I believe, the worst of any nats case we've had. It's not something I, or I'd wager anyone else on the committee, is proud of. That being said, what I am extremely proud of is all the hard work everyone put in. There was a clear aim by everyone on the committee to restore some complexity and variability to nats cases and I definitely think we did that. I really like the product we created and I feel the two biggest issues we saw (the unevenness of witness calls and the side bias) could have been pretty easily remedied. But that's the problem in a nats case, you don't really get the beta-testing of invitationals to tweak those things.

                    Whether you loved or hated the case, I appreciate seeing the open discussion and, make no mistake, the constructive ideas are something that a lot of people involved with future case writing notice. I'm glad to see people weighing in and it's fascinating to see what worked, didn't work, and what people might like in the future.
                    Last edited by JayZ; April 11th, 2019, 01:54 PM.
                    "Call on God, but row away from the rocks." - Hunter S. Thompson

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Entire Patel? They didn’t try to enter the article. Northwood’s Patel accidentally said a direct quote from the article just describing what it was. That testimony was stricken under hearsay. I saw them vs UVA and the testimony was almost identical

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by ObtainedGrain View Post
                        Entire Patel? They didn’t try to enter the article. Northwood’s Patel accidentally said a direct quote from the article just describing what it was. That testimony was stricken under hearsay. I saw them vs UVA and the testimony was almost identical
                        Pretty much any of the statements from parents or doctors regarding their kids and Almond Power were kept out, as well as any references to the article. I don't know exactly how Northwood's Patel was supposed to run because the testimony that got in ended up boiling down to "I talked to some parents and wrote an article"

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          JayZ you should be super proud of your case - it was amazing. I truly wish we could have seen a few more tournaments with the case. Thanks for all the hard work you put in.

                          Only think I would say for the future is that this case probably did TOO much for a NCT case - the variety was great, but the witness options PLUS the damages options PLUS the side-switching calls might have been too many new things to try at once. That's why I think this case would have been even a better regular-season case than Kosack.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I really disagree that the case was too much. My team and I loved every bit of the complexity. (For context, we are completely uncoached, and this was our first time at Nats.)

                            It was challenging in the best way and forced us to make judgment calls on what was and was not important. There was a lot of freedom in determining what you were going to try and prove- which was a GREAT break from Kosack. I loved being able to pursue different damages and malice on the plaintiff- and having to be reactive on the defense. I personally ended up writing like 3.5 different directs for myself, and I wouldn't have it any other way in prepping for a National Championship.
                            Last edited by EgregiousInvention; April 11th, 2019, 02:55 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I would agree that the case was probably a bit on the "too much" side considering the limited amount of prep time. All of the wrinkles were awesome ideas in isolation, but together presented more variety, especially for defense to prepare for, than I think is ideal. Though this was much closer to where I'd personally like it to be than where the Barrow case was.

                              I think the witness call rates were definitely far from ideal. The swings were all very biased to one side or the other, and Patel and Okafor both seemed to be called much less than the others.

                              My main complaint is the nature of the problem itself. I think the reward for making the NCT in part should be a fun and exciting case problem to deal with. Last year's case was near the pinnacle of this for me. A bank robbery, an inside man, the prosecution had a snitch witness that you can bring into court in a jumpsuit, the physical evidence in trial. All of this stuff made it just a really fun case to try. In comparison, a defamation case for an almond milk company was just sorta... boring? The defendant being an athlete was a neat point, as was having a conspiracy theory witness, but ultimately this was probably the most boring case since Winter v. TBD.

                              All in all, however, this was a solid case. I think it rewarded teams that were able to identify the big variety case strategies available and smartly choose the path best for them, which is what you always want to see.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by EgregiousInvention View Post
                                I really disagree that the case was too much. My team and I loved every bit of the complexity. (For context, we are completely uncoached, and this was our first time at Nats.)

                                It was challenging in the best way and forced us to make judgment calls on what was and was not important. There was a lot of freedom in determining what you were going to try and prove- which was a GREAT break from Kosack. I loved being able to pursue different damages and malice on the plaintiff- and having to be reactive on the defense. I personally ended up writing like 3.5 different directs for myself, and I wouldn't have it any other way in prepping for a National Championship.
                                I agree that it wasn't necessarily *too* much, but I think that one issue causing a lack of variety in calls stemmed from having two side-locked D witnesses rather than three. This necessitated either a) calling Anderson and Lee, then prepping 2 flexes, or b) prepping Anderson -or- Lee, and prepping all 4 flex witnesses. This may have pigeonholed a lot of teams into the defendant, whose testimony had major potential for damage and gave a huge opportunity for one P crosser to dismantle the witness.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X