Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2019 Agenda - Limiting NCT to One Team Per Program

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

  • #31
    I think others have better articulated the merit behind a 1 school, 1 team policy for the NCT, but I do want to chime in on a few things:

    Originally posted by Adevans View Post
    2) BUT THAT MEANS WE NEED WAY MORE JUDGES! Easy, we should have a registry for all mock Trial alums, and we add that a requirement also be to have done mock trial for two years of college but no longer be competing in college mock trial. This would add hundreds of potential judges around the country to the pool to choose from, most of which would probably be far better judges then we normally get anyway.
    I like your proposal for the purposes of eliminating the changes that were made to ORCS last year. I don't think your proposal and a 1 school, 1 team policy are mutually exclusive, both could exist to solve separate issues. In regards to the above quote: this already exists. http://www.collegemocktrial.org/registration/alumni/. I would encourage any alumni or alumni-to-be to quickly sign up. I would also encourage AMTA to utilize this more, both in advertising it, and actually emailing people who sign up. I've personally never received an email from AMTA through this form.

    Originally posted by 801D2A View Post

    There seems to be a fundamental disagreement among people on this forum regarding the difference between "access" and "entitlement".

    EVERY TEAM already has access to Nationals. Every team can compete at Regionals, and then move on to ORCS. If you win 6 ballots, you're in NCT. You aren't arguing for access, you're arguing for entitlement. Your argument is "some teams aren't good enough to get to Nationals, but they are entitled to compete over better teams because they're on an A team."

    And to reiterate, if you're concerned about a school not being able to learn from Nationals level teams, that school is welcome to go to Nationals and learn by observing. That's how you can increase education. But that's not what the proponents of this motion really want. They don't want education, they want a second chance to win the championship.
    I think there's a lot wrong with this logic. Obviously we disagree on the point of view to take here, but on a structural level I view AMTA as a competition between universities. Like most other competitive collegiate activities. Bids are awarded to schools, not individuals. Why should a school be entitled to more than one opportunity to win the National Championship? If anyone has a "second chance to win the championship" is it not the schools with a second team at the championship? You could argue that this logic conflicts with allowing large numbers of Regionals teams and two ORCS teams, but I think there is a distinctive difference between competing to qualify for the National Championship, and competing to win the National Championship. It's not illogical to say universities should have multiple opportunities to qualify, but only one opportunity to win. One way to think about this concept is that as the stakes are raised, a school's margin for error should decrease.

    As pointed out before, access remains unchanged under this proposal. Those B team members who would otherwise qualify for the NCT still have access to NCT competition by proving among their peers in their university that they are the best of the best and deserve a spot on the A team. This concept isn't unprecedented, every year programs have third, fourth, and fifth teams qualify for ORCS and cannot attend, who face this same challenge. If this creates turmoil within programs, then those programs need to do a better job at developing organizational unity, transparency, and meritocracy.

    Finally, I think the argument that teams are "welcome to go to Nationals and learn by observing" borders on bad faith. We all know that it is wholly unrealistic to think hyper-involved students will pay to fly across the country, book hotel rooms, and miss class to watch but not compete at Nationals.


    A lot of the arguments against this proposal make sense, and should be considered by the board. But throughout others there seems to me an underlying tone suggesting that the motion is being opposed, because it harms the opposing's program or the opposing individual. It's disheartening to get that sense, I hope the community and board will evaluate this motion based on its impact to AMTA as a whole, not on its impact to any individual person or team.

    Comment


    • #32
      There's a "net good" when a team qualifies for NCT. It makes it easier to lobby your school administration to treat mock as a valuable activity, and you can reap the benefits of that recognition in many ways. It can also improve fundraising prowess. It probably makes recruiting better for the next couple seasons. If professors notice, it could make some of them give you less of a hard time about missing classes for tournaments. It enhances your school's trial footage library. Competing against the best makes you up your game, and you're going to take those new skills back to train your younger members and to improve the competitiveness of your program. You're going to get more invites to the high caliber invitationals, which is another way of sustaining that competitiveness.

      If you've been a part of a team that qualified for the first time in a school's history, you know what I'm talking about - but these are gains applicable to teams that are a regular presence at NCT as well. NCT appearances award institutional benefits for every team that makes it, and in turn that benefits the AMTA community as a whole, because more teams getting better means the competitiveness as a whole increases, and there's more teams with improved school support which improves program sustainability.

      There are absolutely some benefits if a program qualifies two teams instead of just one. But, when considering "net" gain in terms of those institutional benefits that are created, the gain is greater when it's 2 different schools versus 2 teams from the same school, because the initial gain is high. That's why I support Bernstein's value-based statement that it's better to include more schools. Will it be "unfair" to some B team members? Yes, probably, and so I sympathize with the well-articulated arguments raised here against the motion, and I bet this motion will be a hotly debated one at the board meeting. But when I say that I think the motion is fair, I mean that I think it's AMTA's prerogative to decide which values they want to prioritize over other important values, and in this case if they decide that they want to prioritize the benefits that NCT brings to a given school by favoring a 1 school, 1 team rule, I think that's a reasonable values statement for them to make.
      Last edited by geneva; July 11th, 2019, 02:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by STC View Post
        As pointed out before, access remains unchanged under this proposal. Those B team members who would otherwise qualify for the NCT still have access to NCT competition by proving among their peers in their university that they are the best of the best and deserve a spot on the A team. This concept isn't unprecedented, every year programs have third, fourth, and fifth teams qualify for ORCS and cannot attend, who face this same challenge. If this creates turmoil within programs, then those programs need to do a better job at developing organizational unity, transparency, and meritocracy.
        Let me give a hypothetical. Let's say this policy was in place for all time. It's 2016, and I'm a closer on Yale B. I clean up with awards all year. I rake in 9's and 10's and it's clear I'm really good at this. My B team gets a good enough record to earn a bid out of ORCS but our A team does as well so we don't get to go to Nationals.

        Now, I have one of the best resumes I could possibly have. I've been about as successful as my situation allowed me to be. But in order for me to be brought up to the A team, Yale would have to decide that Daniel Stern would not be closing on one side. Which obviously, is not going to happen.

        The argument here is not that B team people should have to prove they're as good or better than the people on the A team at their school. It's that they should have to prove they're good enough to earn a spot to Nationals. Setting this motion in place would put an artificial cap on what B team people are able to accomplish because of the presence of other people who are good at mock trial at their school.

        Originally posted by STC View Post
        Finally, I think the argument that teams are "welcome to go to Nationals and learn by observing" borders on bad faith. We all know that it is wholly unrealistic to think hyper-involved students will pay to fly across the country, book hotel rooms, and miss class to watch but not compete at Nationals.
        If this is true, then anyone who says that the Board meeting is open and therefore the Board is transparent is acting in just as much bad faith, except maybe more because so many people have job and family obligations over the summer as well. If we say that the real barriers to travel matter in this calculus, then we need to fundamentally reexamine Board transparency. If those barriers don't matter, then teams being able to go observe Nationals should be sufficient.

        Originally posted by STC View Post
        A lot of the arguments against this proposal make sense, and should be considered by the board. But throughout others there seems to me an underlying tone suggesting that the motion is being opposed, because it harms the opposing's program or the opposing individual. It's disheartening to get that sense, I hope the community and board will evaluate this motion based on its impact to AMTA as a whole, not on its impact to any individual person or team.
        I don't wholly disagree with this. But conversely, I think there is a strong underlying tone from proponents of this suggesting that the motion is being supported because it increases the chances of the proponent's program or of the proponent themselves to get an opportunity to compete or coach at Nationals. There's going to be bias on both sides here, but I do think we need to view this tangibly and take into account how it affects individual people and teams. This isn't abstract. Tell Rhodes B that even though they got a bid, they deserve to go to Nationals less than Baylor, who was the first team out. Tell Emory B that even though they got a bid, they deserve to go to Nationals less than South Carolina, who was the first team out. Thinking this is abstract is ignoring the real effect that this motion passing would have on programs and people in the community. Frankly, I'm not sure I would continue to do mock trial if I spent all this time and didn't even have a shot at Nationals.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by QuickQuotesQuill View Post
          If this is true, then anyone who says that the Board meeting is open and therefore the Board is transparent is acting in just as much bad faith, except maybe more because so many people have job and family obligations over the summer as well. If we say that the real barriers to travel matter in this calculus, then we need to fundamentally reexamine Board transparency. If those barriers don't matter, then teams being able to go observe Nationals should be sufficient.
          First I would just note that your argument against the 1 school, 1 team is perfectly valid; I just assess the merits for 1 school, 1 team, along with the alternative intra-school route for the Yale B closer that you discussed, to outweigh these concerns. I would actually agree that the Board meeting is not transparent enough, especially considering the degree to which modern technology allows increased remote access to meetings. An agenda and minutes are not sufficient in my mind. While understanding that some matters dictate private discussion, I'd like to know what the discussion is for many motions, and how each member votes. But that's not the topic for this thread, and I think the transparency of the board and the opportunity to experience Nationals are fairly distinguishable issues.

          Originally posted by QuickQuotesQuill View Post
          I don't wholly disagree with this. But conversely, I think there is a strong underlying tone from proponents of this suggesting that the motion is being supported because it increases the chances of the proponent's program or of the proponent themselves to get an opportunity to compete or coach at Nationals. There's going to be bias on both sides here, but I do think we need to view this tangibly and take into account how it affects individual people and teams. This isn't abstract. Tell Rhodes B that even though they got a bid, they deserve to go to Nationals less than Baylor, who was the first team out. Tell Emory B that even though they got a bid, they deserve to go to Nationals less than South Carolina, who was the first team out. Thinking this is abstract is ignoring the real effect that this motion passing would have on programs and people in the community. Frankly, I'm not sure I would continue to do mock trial if I spent all this time and didn't even have a shot at Nationals.
          Of course the bias goes both ways, and we should absolutely look at real examples to understand how this change will play out. My reasoning in stating this is that many board members who will decide this are members of programs who will be most effected: programs who are regularly in the mix for 1 or 2 NCT bids. I hope (and with some hesitancy trust) that the board members will be able to set aside their personal stakes in the matter to make a decision based on the outcome for AMTA as a whole.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by shasp View Post

            The only way this makes sense to me is if those members comprising the B team know, before going into ORCS, that the composition of the NCT team will be the ORCS A roster and remain unchanged. If this motion passes, programs, student or coach run, will undoubtedly adjust their approach to NCT team composition. If students on A and B know that the NCT spots are up for grabs, this idea that those currently on B will give up is less convincing to me. I'm also generally unconvinced that the risk of ambivalence is sufficient to reject this motion.
            1. Again, you are assuming that students will behave perfectly reasonably. But as a governing body, AMTA has to act with the knowledge that they won't. C team students don't know for sure that they won't get pulled up. They don't know for sure that they won't need to get a bid because their B team flubs. But That doesn't mean that there aren't problems every single year with C-F teams goofing off and not taking it seriously. The same will happen with B students and AMTA needs to be prepared for the fact that such things will make ORCS less fair.

            2. As to the claim that "If this motion passes, programs, student or coach run, will undoubtedly adjust their approach to NCT team composition." I can basically assure you that this is not true. Some teams will, some won't. My program for instance NEVER pulls up people from C if A and B got bids, even if there is space, even if the person from C has won awards at every tournament. Our program just doesn't mess with stacking after the initial stack. You may think thats a dumb system. You may think we ought to change it. But we probably wont. Again, AMTA has to work on the assumption that some programs will not change. If that is the case, then the B team people really will know that there is no chance of them going on if A does. And that is very likely to make them work just a little less hard.

            3. Here's a scenario in which I basically guarantee a weird outcome: A team is in the guaranteed to go through bracket at the end of round 3. Sometimes (not often at ORCS anymore but it still happens), there are teams that are mathematically guaranteed to advance. Suppose the A team is in that bracket, but the B team is 1 or 2 ballots behind them. B team is not in the primary bracket. What happens in their round really matters. They really need to take it seriously in order for the tournament to be fair because every primary bracket round matters. But they know they can't go through. Now, unlike everyone else in the primary bracket, they aren't fighting anymore. They might goof off. they might decide to do an 0-6 theory. If it's a 1-2-1 tournament they might get drunk the night before round 4.

            I know you don't think the risk of ambivalence is enough to reject this motion, but first, I think you under estimate the risk and the effect that an ambivalent team can have. Second, it doesn't have to be enough on its own. It's one of a whole litany of reasons, many of which have been litigated here why this is a bad idea.


            Originally posted by shasp View Post
            You're right. I highlighted this in previous posts; a few students won't make the theoretical consolidated roster. I think that is a price the Board may be willing to pay to provide greater access to other programs. Just trying to highlight how they might be thinking.

            I'd argue this discussion signals that AMTA's reasoning for this motion is not arbitrary. Those opposing the motion (including you of course) have made excellent points, especially from a competitiveness perspective. But I think we should acknowledge that the motion is, at minimum, rationally related to AMTA's purpose. Yes I dropped a con-law reference and yes, I hate myself for it.
            I think we just have a philosophical disagreement here. You seem to think that it's super important for different teams to get to go to Nationals. Maybe it makes me an elitist or an asshole, but I really don't care. This is a competition at its heart. We do a lot of things to make it educational and there are lots of times and places in mock where spreading education around is important. But NCT is about pitting the BEST teams against each other and you will never convince me that taking out B teams is good for that goal. If the best teams are the same every year, so be it. They aren't any less the best because they were the best last year too.

            And yes, I recognize that it's hard to start from the bottom and make it to the top and that we need to give teams a chance to do that. But the current system does that already. There are plenty of Cinderella teams that make it to the NCT every year with our current system. Nobody is stopping them. And I really don't think that having one or two more Cinderella teams every year (because again remember that not all the teams you give the extra spots to will be "up and coming new team who wasn't getting a fair shake;" most will be "traditional power program having a mediocre year") is worth adopting a system that is unfair to a whole category of other teams and also threatens to upset the competitive balance.

            Comment


            • #36
              I think one thing to keep in mind here when we think about whether this motion is worth it is what happens with the B teams from less well known programs. I think there is a bit of a tendency when we think of B teams that go to nationals to be thinking of Yale B or UVA B or Rhodes B. Those are programs where, if you are on the B team, you will probably get to move up to the A team eventually and compete at Nationals in a year or two. I can see how it might be easy to shrug at the prospect of saying that those kids don't get to advance when a different program does. I think it would be wrong to shrug at that and I think the motion is patently unfair to begin with, but I can understand it.

              But those aren't the only kinds of programs that get two teams to nationals. There are a lot of programs who sometimes don't make it to Nationals at all (sometimes for years on end) and then suddenly get two teams to Nationals. Wesleyan didn't go last year and up until 2017, they hadn't gone at all. This year they got two teams. UGA hadn't been in a while. This year they got two teams. Emory has been a bit off and on about making it, so has Northwestern. Both of them got two teams.

              The point is that sometimes going to Nationals as part of a random hyper successful B team, can in those cases be a student's only chance to go to nationals. And most A team's won't have space to pull up the entire B team (even if they were willing to make the competitive sacrifice that would involve). The whole point of this motion was to make sure that people who might otherwise never get a chance to go to nationals do get to go to nationals and have that experience. But remember that in a lot of cases what this rule would do is remove a team like UGA B or Wesleyan B or Emory B and replace them with NYU. And on the whole, just about every kid on NYU A is going to get to go to nationals and compete at top tournaments way more often than anyone on UGA or Wesleyan or Emory let alone the people on UGA B, Wesleyan B, or Emory B.

              In other words, I think there is way to great a tendency to focus on the fun "lets root for the underdog" cases where we can shelve our discomfort at the fairness issues, or the competitive issues because "new school that's never had a chance before is able to go to nationals for the very first time and that's pretty cool" and "look the kids on Yale and UVA and Rhodes have plenty of chances anyway." But we also need to admit that those people are not the only people that this rule is going to affect and I think the effects on teams that don't always get to go to Nationals are a lot less palatable. And, more importantly, in those non-palatable cases, I think the motion would actually be working against the goal of getting more people Nationals experience

              Also before you ask, no, I am not on a B team from any of the programs mentioned above.


              On a happier note, I like the part of this motion that increases the Nationals roster to 12. Nationals can be stressful with the new case and a lot of coaches have complained that it's too much for their students. This allows teams to send more students which a) increases the access we have all been talking about and b) decreases stress for everyone else.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Bart The Fish View Post
                In other words, I think there is way to great a tendency to focus on the fun "lets root for the underdog" cases where we can shelve our discomfort at the fairness issues, or the competitive issues because "new school that's never had a chance before is able to go to nationals for the very first time and that's pretty cool" and "look the kids on Yale and UVA and Rhodes have plenty of chances anyway." But we also need to admit that those people are not the only people that this rule is going to affect and I think the effects on teams that don't always get to go to Nationals are a lot less palatable. And, more importantly, in those non-palatable cases, I think the motion would actually be working against the goal of getting more people Nationals experience
                I think what I'm hearing overwhelmingly from people on this forum is that there is a desire to have some way of giving newer, less experienced teams a chance to break into the top that they don't currently have. I think there is a feeling that the top programs are so well established that its getting harder and harder for a team that isn't an old-power team to do well. In other words we are seeing fewer and fewer Cinderella teams because the top few teams have such a head start. Those seem like valid concerns, and I understand the instinct to jump support this motion because it feels like it will help those teams. But I think Bart The Fish is right that it's likely to backfire and hurt teams that we should be rooting for and help old power programs. I also think that we can't underestimate the degree to which this motion will actually help coached programs at the expense of student run ones (because the more successful your lower teams are the more likely you are to be able to develop strong institutional memory which is something student run programs struggle with and coached programs don't). That also pushed more power towards the old power programs rather than new up and comers (who tend to be more student run).

                In other words, help new programs seems like a worthy goal, but I think given the above points this motions very likely to backfire and not actually support that goal and cause a lot of collateral damage in the process.

                I think instead of capping the number of teams we should be trying to find a more direct and targeted way of helping new programs. I can think of a lot of options to do this but here are some:
                1. Make video of more top end rounds open access. One of the things I keep hearing is that if we let more programs go to nationals, they will get nationals level footage to start to combat the huge footage libraries of the elite programs and then they can improve. So, instead of trying to give them spots at nationals that a different team earned and they didn't, let's just give them some footage. AMTA has a bunch of rules that make it really hard to share footage. If AMTA lifted some of those restrictions people could share more and People could start putting together a training library for new teams. AMTA could still ban footage sharing of any rounds from the current case so that it doesn't become a matter of scouting by footage, but old rounds are mostly used for education. AMTA could also lower the barrier to getting final round footage. Once upon a time they had to sell the videos at a high cost because they had to produce disks of round they were taping. But in this day and age, they could just put it on Youtube for free. If they want to paywall it so they make a profit, they could at least do it by putting it online behind a paywall the way they do for the case every year so that students are just paying AMTA's IP fee rather than the AMTA IP fee plus the cost of the disk and shipping.

                2. Some sort of mentorship program where a top team could work with a newer team across the country. Right now AMTA has a mentorship committee but it mostly seems to be relying on a few AMTA people acting as mentors for those teams. The program could be vastly expanded and provide more resources if they got students from top teams involved. It would also be a way of getting students to feel like they have a way of helping AMTA which might be a gateway drug for those same students deciding to stick around and rep or be on AMTA committees. Students from experienced teams could offer tips and advice to newer teams and maybe look over scripts or share some video or point them towards good fundraising mechanisms. They could be a resource the newer teams could rely on to answer questions. I would also go so far as to say that it might help foster a sense of community. Top programs could be matched with a program that's far enough away from them that they won't be going to the same Regionals/ORCS so there isn't a conflict of interest.

                Neither of the above ideas are fleshed out or perfect, but I think both of them have the benefit that they address the root cause of the problem that this motion is going for rather than making a grand gesture that may have limited effects in the areas we want it to and cause damage in others.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Here's an idea: If AMTA actually wants to increase education, how about they stop price gouging for the championship videos and make them free so new programs can watch them?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by STC View Post

                    I think there's a lot wrong with this logic. Obviously we disagree on the point of view to take here, but on a structural level I view AMTA as a competition between universities. Like most other competitive collegiate activities. Bids are awarded to schools, not individuals. Why should a school be entitled to more than one opportunity to win the National Championship? If anyone has a "second chance to win the championship" is it not the schools with a second team at the championship? You could argue that this logic conflicts with allowing large numbers of Regionals teams and two ORCS teams, but I think there is a distinctive difference between competing to qualify for the National Championship, and competing to win the National Championship. It's not illogical to say universities should have multiple opportunities to qualify, but only one opportunity to win. One way to think about this concept is that as the stakes are raised, a school's margin for error should decrease.

                    No, a school isn't "entitled" to 2 shots at the championship if they earned the second bid. That's the disconnect here! You think earning a bid is entitlement. It's not. You want to know what entitlement is? "We lost fair and square but we want to compete at Nationals anyway, even though we'd be taking a better team's bid".

                    And again, I know people on this board are buying into the fantasy that a competitive A team will actually have a 12 person roster, but it's built on a false premise. This isn't a rowing team. Individual competitors have different skill sets. In mock trial, you often have you best scoring closer, your best scoring expert witness, etc. If you're actually trying to win ballots, your best closer doubles on A, and your second best closer doubles on B. Same with openers, middlers, experts, characters (unless, of course, one person is a great defendant. That person singles as a defendant and you maybe have 1-2 extra character witnesses, which equates to an 8 person team roughly)

                    Why on earth, if you're trying to win the championship (and just to remind everyone here, it's called the National CHAMPIONSHIP Tournament, not the "National Education Seminar"), would you bench your best closer at Nationals to give a weaker competitor the slot?

                    That's why this fake roster expansion solution is bogus. Because the schools that actually know how to field a competitive team will never bench a double sided member for someone who doesn't score as well.
                    Last edited by 801D2A; July 11th, 2019, 10:47 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I think part of the issue here is how we've framed the question. We've been arguing whether or not AMTA should or should not change the structure in place, and it seems as though the burden of proof is on the purveyors of "change". But in all fairness, this would be a "change" that aligns our organization with what is commonly seen in terms of team competitions already. Because of this, the burden of proof seems to lie, at least partially, on the person who believes we should maintain an outdated system. I have yet to hear a good reason as to why we should allow schools to have two shots at winning nationals. With that being said, here is a breakdown of why I disagree with each argument that is against changing the structure and/or for maintaining the current system:

                      "You are going to 'take away' bids from 'teams' that earned them"
                      The way you are looking at this issue aligns with the belief that schools inherently be allowed to take two berths to the NCT because they earn two bids through two different teams. I think the disagreement lies within the nature of a national championship tournament. This proposal asks us to change the way we view 'teams' as individual units, to viewing each school as one, unified program. Which, in my opinion, is not a radical idea, but rather the prevailing view in most, if not all, structured, competitive team-activities.

                      With that in mind, the proposal would guarantee each program has two *opportunities* to win one, single bid to the NCT. Having an extra opportunity to win that single available bid is already a handsome advantage, earned as a reward for developing a deep talent pool. But I'd wager you would be hard pressed to find a team sport in which schools are allowed to field or send out two teams to compete for the national title. It doesn't really exist. It feels like the reason this is such a big issue for some is because allowing 2 teams per school happens to be the way AMTA has run in things the past, and, thus, you believe is the way AMTA should continue to run itself in the future. I do not buy that argument.

                      "These are radical changes, without a good enough reason for them"
                      I do not believe these proposed changes are all that surprising if you follow some of AMTA's recent big changes. They have already taken action steps in recent history suggesting that they are looking at each school as a single, unified program, rather than the sum of its parts (i.e. individual teams). The two examples that come to mind: changing the rule that allowed for more than one point-of-contact per school (school's are no longer allowed to have separate, independently run teams), and limiting the number of teams per program allowed to accept bids out of regionals to just 2, regardless of how many qualified out of regionals. Whether you like or dislike these changes, all of them have corresponded to a bigger picture; making AMTA's structure as organized as possible while also trying to deal with the growing pains of the activity.

                      "Mock trial has an educational component, but is - at its core - a competition"
                      The debate has seemingly boiled down to "education vs. competition," which is a complete albatross. To me, there is no inherently greater value in external vs. internal competition. This rule, prima facie, does not guarantee -- let alone make any attempt at responsibly predicting -- a diminishment of competitiveness in AMTA. I would argue it could just as likely, if not more predictably, guarantee a rise in the competitive nature of this activity. The difference is where we see that competition play out. If you are on the B team for your school at ORCS, you have two main motivations; (1) making sure your school qualifies to the NCT, especially in case the A team fails to (such as Georgia Tech A this year... although in fairness they finished 6-2), and (2) utilizing that tournament as an opportunity to show why you deserve a spot on the NCT team. Under this change you STILL compete fiercely against the other schools, AND, even more fiercely than before, against peers for spots on the team. You have added a new layer of competition to the activity as a whole that should raise everyone's level.

                      "The best teams in the country should compete at the NCT"
                      Just because a school is deep doesn't justify an entire system where that school can send more teams than another to the competition that determines the national champ. The reward for being a deep program is an increase in opportunity; whether is to secure two bids to ORCS, or whether it will be to secure the single bid to the NCT (if the motion were to pass). I think this circles back to treating each school as one program, rather than autonomous, individual teams.

                      I also don't buy that you lose competitiveness at the NCT. Do you believe Patrick Henry, for example, did not have what it took to go to the NCT? Because it is those very best 4 to 6 schools that are sliding into the NCT, not some 2-6 ORCS team. Patrick Henry place 4th in their division during a time when the program was in mourning from the loss of their coach, Dr. Guliuzza. I would hardly call them a bottom of the pack team.
                      Last edited by bdopl; July 13th, 2019, 08:37 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by 801D2A View Post
                        Here's an idea: If AMTA actually wants to increase education, how about they stop price gouging for the championship videos and make them free so new programs can watch them?
                        20 bucks for a DVD is price gouging? And there are several older rounds on the AMTA YouTube page.
                        Mock Trial with J. Reinhold! Mock Trial! Mock Trial with J. Reinhold!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hi all - I haven't posted to Perjuries in probably a decade - but this pending motion concerns me. As the long-time head coach of a school that has qualified multiple teams and even won a National Championship with our B team, I think this motion is a terrible idea. It is particularly punitive against larger schools that have multiple teams compete to allow greater participation by our large student body. It will also basically result in an NCT that is not comprised of the best teams in the nation - but a lot of "almost qualifying" teams. If you oppose this motion, are from a larger school that may be negatively affected or from a school that has qualified multiple teams at the NCT, I encourage you to write to AMTA at AMTA@collegemocktrial.org and ask that your letter be circulated to the entire Board of Directors. Or you can write the Board Members directly - emails are at: http://www.collegemocktrial.org/abou...ors-directory/

                          I think it is extremely important that the Board hear from student competitors and former competitors. This is such a fundamental change of how AMTA operates or function, I don't think it should be rushed through without further discourse among the membership. Thanks for hearing me out.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Here's a layout of the teams that would have gone to nationals this year if the one team per school rule had been implemented for 2019.

                            From Geneva:
                            OSU
                            University of Cincinnati
                            Northwood
                            Stanford
                            Wheaton

                            From Hamilton:
                            University of Rochester
                            Miami
                            University of Dayton
                            Pennsylvania State University
                            Patrick Henry

                            From Memphis:
                            Rhodes
                            UGA
                            Texas A&M
                            Baylor
                            Alabama

                            From Richmond:
                            Georgetown University
                            UNC
                            UMBC
                            Howard University
                            UVA

                            From Santa Monica:
                            UCLA
                            UC Berkely
                            UC Davis
                            UC Sandiego
                            UC Santa Barbara

                            From Cedar Rapids:
                            University of Minnesota Twin Cities
                            UChicago
                            Cornell College
                            Northwestern
                            The University of St. Thomas

                            From Central Islip:
                            Wesleyan University
                            Cornell University
                            Columbia University
                            Fordham University Lincoln Center
                            Lafayette

                            From Chestnut:
                            Boston University
                            Tufts University
                            Yale University
                            Boston College
                            Wesleyan University

                            From Decatur:
                            Georgia Tech
                            Duke
                            University of Florida
                            Emory
                            University of South Carolina

                            And there would be three additional teams chosen from the open bid list (which is hard to find now because the open list is limited to teams that did accept and would have qualified if b teams were eliminated or teams that would have been b teams if they were given that open bid.)

                            Assuming that all teams would have kept the same A teams that they took to nationals (which is a big assumption) the following witnesses would not have been able to win All-American WItness Awards: Julia Cash, Connor Hurley, and Kathryn Machanic.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              If the motion were to pass, I don't think they would skip the B team and award the bid to the next best team at each ORCS. Instead, it'd probably be done similar to Regionals, where each additional bid would become an open bid. The overlap between the two ways would be high, but there would be differences.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                For reference on if this were applicable over the past year.

                                *= B team would have qualified over the A team, this assumes B team would have its bid taken by A.

                                Teams Out - 9 Total
                                *Rhodes B - ORCS: 7-1 CS 14.5 - NCT: 7-7-2 CS 31
                                Cornell B - ORCS: 6-2 CS 6.5 - NCT: 6-9-1 CS 34
                                UCLA B - ORCS: 7-1 CS 14 - NCT: 8-8 CS 32
                                *Northwestern B - ORCS: 6-2 CS 17 - NCT: 6-10 CS 34
                                *Ohio State B - ORCS: 7-1 CS 16.5 - NCT: 10-5-1 CS 40.5
                                Miami B - ORCS: 6-2 CS 14.5 - NCT: 7-8-1 CS 34
                                *Georgia B - ORCS: 7-1 CS 13 - NCT: 6-9-1 CS 27.5
                                Emory B - ORCS: 6-2 CS 19 - NCT: 2-12-2 CS 30
                                Wesleyan B - ORCS: 7-1 CS 15.5 - NCT: 4-11-1 CS 28.5

                                The Open Bid List if B Teams Create Open Bids - First 9 Are In*
                                List Position School Wins CS OCS
                                1 UC Santa Barbara 6 13.5
                                2 Lafayette 5.5 16.5 71
                                3 SUNY Binghamton 5.5 16.5 70.5
                                4 Baylor 5.5 16 70.5
                                5 NYU 5.5 16 67
                                6 Princeton 5.5 14.5
                                7 Michigan 5 20 69
                                8 Wheaton 5 20 60
                                9 Michigan State 5 19
                                10 Alabama 5 18.5
                                11 UC Irvine 5 18 67.5
                                12 Arizona 5 18 65.5
                                13 Illinois 5 17
                                14 Umass Amherst 5 16.5
                                15 Macalester 5 16
                                16 FSU 5 15
                                17 Georgetown 5 14 70
                                18 John Hopkins 5 14 69.5
                                19 Texas 5 13 73.5
                                20 Hillsdale B 5 13 67.5
                                21 Louisiana Monroe 5 8.5
                                22 Indiana B 5 7.5
                                * This list does not include the 3 open bids taken by South Carolina, St. Thomas, and Patrick Henry which would have been unaffected by this proposal.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X