IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> State Texas, Poll, Scores, Stuff
Poll
Who will come in first place?
Dulles [ 10 ] ** [55.56%]
Lubbock [ 6 ] ** [33.33%]
Highland Park [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
Friendswood [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
James E. Taylor [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Seven Lakes [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Plano East [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J.J. Pearce [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Klein [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Coppell [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J. Frank Dobie [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Other [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Who will come in second?
Dulles [ 6 ] ** [33.33%]
Lubbock [ 6 ] ** [33.33%]
Highland Park [ 4 ] ** [22.22%]
Friendswood [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
James E. Taylor [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Seven Lakes [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Plano East [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J.J. Pearce [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Klein [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Coppell [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
J. Frank Dobie [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Other [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Who will come in third?
Dulles [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Lubbock [ 5 ] ** [27.78%]
Highland Park [ 9 ] ** [50.00%]
Friendswood [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
James E. Taylor [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Seven Lakes [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Plano East [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J.J. Pearce [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Klein [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Coppell [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J. Frank Dobie [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Other [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Who will come in fourth?
Dulles [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Lubbock [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Highland Park [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Friendswood [ 9 ] ** [50.00%]
James E. Taylor [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
Seven Lakes [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
Plano East [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J.J. Pearce [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
Klein [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Coppell [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
J. Frank Dobie [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Other [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Who will come in fifth?
Dulles [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Lubbock [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Highland Park [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Friendswood [ 6 ] ** [33.33%]
James E. Taylor [ 4 ] ** [22.22%]
Seven Lakes [ 3 ] ** [16.67%]
Plano East [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J.J. Pearce [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
Klein [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Coppell [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
J. Frank Dobie [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Other [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
What will the highest team score be?
52,000+ [ 9 ] ** [50.00%]
51,500-51,999 [ 7 ] ** [38.89%]
51,000-51,499 [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
50,500-50,999 [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
50,000-50,499 [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Below 50,000 [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Who will be the highest scoring honors?
Sophie Cope - J.J. Pearce [ 6 ] ** [33.33%]
Michael Xie - Highland Park [ 5 ] ** [27.78%]
Achutha Srinivasan - James E. Taylor [ 3 ] ** [16.67%]
Annie Jain - Plano East [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Karen Chen - Plano Senior [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Logan Baker - Klein [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Selena Sheng - Lubbock [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Sophie Yangyi - Dulles [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Nick Watson - Monterey [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Vincent Lin - Coppell [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Other [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Who will be the highest scoring scholastic?
Samuel Steinman-Friedman - Dulles [ 12 ] ** [66.67%]
Jake Watts - Lubbock [ 4 ] ** [22.22%]
Trevor Schillaci - Highland Park [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Matthew Forbes - Highland Park [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Jasmyne Rodriguez - Highland Park [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Daniel Melson - J.J. Pearce [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Other [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Who will be the highest scoring varsity?
Leighton Nylander - Dulles [ 10 ] ** [55.56%]
Hanor Smith - Rockwall-Heath [ 4 ] ** [22.22%]
Esteban Romero - Lubbock [ 3 ] ** [16.67%]
Jacob Murphy - Montgomery [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Cooper Harrison - J.J. Pearce [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Other [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
What will be the highest individual score?
9,600+ [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
9,500-9,599 [ 5 ] ** [27.78%]
9,400-9,499 [ 8 ] ** [44.44%]
9,300-9,399 [ 2 ] ** [11.11%]
9,200-9,299 [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
9,100-9,199 [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
9,000-9,099 [ 0 ] ** [0.00%]
Below 9,000 [ 1 ] ** [5.56%]
Total Votes: 18
Guests cannot vote 
Lab
post Feb 26 2018, 05:19 AM
Post #41


Advanced Member
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 61
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 721,907



QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 25 2018, 11:16 PM) *
This assumes that the 3rd judge would NOT have given a high score that scores even higher than 995.


If the 3rd judge would have given a higher score then that student would have received a 996.6 which would have still allowed the 993.3 to be third.

My student received 99/99/100 which got them a 993.3

The other student received a 99/100 which gave them a 995. If they would have got 99/100/100 they would have gotten 996.6 and been tied for 2nd, which still would have awarded our 993.3 3rd place.

Its not a matter of unfair judging because they are called subjectives for a reason. Its a matter of the advantage you may or may not receive with more/less judges. I don't care about the difference in judge opinions at the different meets (or even at a single meet). But the scoring values change when there are a different number of judges in the room and that can be a factor (as it may have been this year).

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from either team and its a shame that the kids have to suffer because of this.

This post has been edited by LAB: Feb 26 2018, 05:23 AM


--------------------
Lucas Beville
Rockwall, TX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_J Eberhard_*
post Feb 26 2018, 05:35 AM
Post #42





Guests






QUOTE (LAB @ Feb 25 2018, 11:19 PM) *
QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 25 2018, 11:16 PM) *
This assumes that the 3rd judge would NOT have given a high score that scores even higher than 995.


If the 3rd judge would have given a higher score then that student would have received a 996.6 which would have still allowed the 993.3 to be third.

My student received 99/99/100 which got them a 993.3

The other student received a 99/100 which gave them a 995. If they would have got 99/100/100 they would have gotten 996.6 and been tied for 2nd, which still would have awarded our 993.3 3rd place.

Its not a matter of unfair judging because they are called subjectives for a reason. Its a matter of the advantage you may or may not receive with more/less judges. I don't care about the difference in judge opinions at the different meets (or even at a single meet). But the scoring values change when there are a different number of judges in the room and that can be a factor (as it may have been this year).

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from either team and its a shame that the kids have to suffer because of this.


I've been in meets where one judge also scores REALLY low. How do we know that the scores for a room were not 'really low' rather than the assumption that they were "really high".

Remember... Highland Park had the SAME judges as Lubbock. AND HP (specifically their coach) is someone I admire and respect for preparation more than anybody else in the state of Texas. Yet they were just as far behind Luboock in subjectives as Dulles was. For me, this is enough to signify that Lubbock WAS that much better in subjectives than everybody else....

it's time to prep for eNats or recruit for next year. An appeal is just sour grapes or DENIAL of the flawed program everyone is involved in. Get used to this flaw or quit coaching!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lab
post Feb 26 2018, 05:43 AM
Post #43


Advanced Member
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 61
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 721,907



QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 25 2018, 11:35 PM) *
QUOTE (LAB @ Feb 25 2018, 11:19 PM) *
QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 25 2018, 11:16 PM) *
This assumes that the 3rd judge would NOT have given a high score that scores even higher than 995.


If the 3rd judge would have given a higher score then that student would have received a 996.6 which would have still allowed the 993.3 to be third.

My student received 99/99/100 which got them a 993.3

The other student received a 99/100 which gave them a 995. If they would have got 99/100/100 they would have gotten 996.6 and been tied for 2nd, which still would have awarded our 993.3 3rd place.

Its not a matter of unfair judging because they are called subjectives for a reason. Its a matter of the advantage you may or may not receive with more/less judges. I don't care about the difference in judge opinions at the different meets (or even at a single meet). But the scoring values change when there are a different number of judges in the room and that can be a factor (as it may have been this year).

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from either team and its a shame that the kids have to suffer because of this.


I've been in meets where one judge also scores REALLY low. How do we know that the scores for a room were not 'really low' rather than the assumption that they were "really high".

Remember... Highland Park had the SAME judges as Lubbock. AND HP (specifically their coach) is someone I admire and respect for preparation more than anybody else in the state of Texas. Yet they were just as far behind Luboock in subjectives as Dulles was. For me, this is enough to signify that Lubbock WAS that much better in subjectives than everybody else....

it's time to prep for eNats or recruit for next year. An appeal is just sour grapes or DENIAL of the flawed program everyone is involved in. Get used to this flaw or quit coaching!



One of the HP coaches was one of the coaches I replaced at Rockwall so I can agree with what you say about him and can agree that whatever he does has usually ended with great results. But the same can be said for the counter argument: how do we know the scores for a room were not "really high" rather than them being "really low"? I said earlier that it is very possible that 3 judges in those rooms would have made no difference and Lubbock still would have won. I have no stake in this appeal and I don't like when coaches say that we lost because their subjectives were scored by "nicer" judges because that's the name of the game. It's a decathlon not a heptathlon. But if there was only one judge in the room, it is a clear violation of the "2-3 judges in each room" rule therefore this appeal holds some weight.


--------------------
Lucas Beville
Rockwall, TX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_J Eberhard_*
post Feb 26 2018, 05:59 AM
Post #44





Guests






QUOTE (LAB @ Feb 25 2018, 11:43 PM) *
QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 25 2018, 11:35 PM) *
QUOTE (LAB @ Feb 25 2018, 11:19 PM) *
QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 25 2018, 11:16 PM) *
This assumes that the 3rd judge would NOT have given a high score that scores even higher than 995.


If the 3rd judge would have given a higher score then that student would have received a 996.6 which would have still allowed the 993.3 to be third.

My student received 99/99/100 which got them a 993.3

The other student received a 99/100 which gave them a 995. If they would have got 99/100/100 they would have gotten 996.6 and been tied for 2nd, which still would have awarded our 993.3 3rd place.

Its not a matter of unfair judging because they are called subjectives for a reason. Its a matter of the advantage you may or may not receive with more/less judges. I don't care about the difference in judge opinions at the different meets (or even at a single meet). But the scoring values change when there are a different number of judges in the room and that can be a factor (as it may have been this year).

Again, I am not trying to take anything away from either team and its a shame that the kids have to suffer because of this.


I've been in meets where one judge also scores REALLY low. How do we know that the scores for a room were not 'really low' rather than the assumption that they were "really high".

Remember... Highland Park had the SAME judges as Lubbock. AND HP (specifically their coach) is someone I admire and respect for preparation more than anybody else in the state of Texas. Yet they were just as far behind Luboock in subjectives as Dulles was. For me, this is enough to signify that Lubbock WAS that much better in subjectives than everybody else....

it's time to prep for eNats or recruit for next year. An appeal is just sour grapes or DENIAL of the flawed program everyone is involved in. Get used to this flaw or quit coaching!



One of the HP coaches was one of the coaches I replaced at Rockwall so I can agree with what you say about him and can agree that whatever he does has usually ended with great results. But the same can be said for the counter argument: how do we know the scores for a room were not "really high" rather than them being "really low"? I said earlier that it is very possible that 3 judges in those rooms would have made no difference and Lubbock still would have won. I have no stake in this appeal and I don't like when coaches say that we lost because their subjectives were scored by "nicer" judges because that's the name of the game. It's a decathlon not a heptathlon. But if there was only one judge in the room, it is a clear violation of the "2-3 judges in each room" rule therefore this appeal holds some weight.


You are arguing the EXACT problem I was warned about in 1999. You are assuming that there is a 'program' that is absolute with perfect rules that get adhered to at every event..... When in reality each meet is a "fingers crossed" I hope the judges show up! I remember a STATE meet in 2001 where we lost the actual host location and the entire meet was improvised (#clusterf*ck). This is AcaDec. Whatever anyone wants to say about Rick, he brought stability and consistency to the state meet (at the Med school level). To challenge results because judges didn't show up is to challenge the very nature/flaw of AcaDec. Judges not showing up is the #1 concern of meet coordinators. Objectives on Saturday is a mindless piece of cake anyone can handle. FRIDAY is the hard part.
People want to complain about subjectives for a location hosting for the first time ?!? omg, that was Large school for 12 to 13 years... every year. I remember El Paso meets for Large where 1,000s in subjectives were like candy at a parade! Nobody in Large bitched about that LOL. Bottom line... if you have the "stable meet" AND lost... you really lost.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lab
post Feb 26 2018, 06:05 AM
Post #45


Advanced Member
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 61
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 721,907



QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 25 2018, 11:59 PM) *
You are arguing the EXACT problem I was warned about in 1999. You are assuming that there is a 'program' that is absolute with perfect rules that get adhered to at every event..... When in reality each meet is a "fingers crossed" I hope the judges show up! I remember a STATE meet in 2001 where we lost the actual host location and the entire meet was improvised (#clusterf*ck). This is AcaDec. Whatever anyone wants to say about Rick, he brought stability and consistency to the state meet (at the Med school level). To challenge results because judges didn't show up is to challenge the very nature/flaw of AcaDec. Judges not showing up is the #1 concern of meet coordinators. Objectives on Saturday is a mindless piece of cake anyone can handle. FRIDAY is the hard part.
People want to complain about subjectives for a location hosting for the first time ?!? omg, that was Large school for 12 to 13 years... every year. I remember El Paso meets for Large where 1,000s in subjectives were like candy at a parade! Nobody in Large bitched about that LOL. Bottom line... if you have the "stable meet" AND lost... you really lost.


I can't respond to most of this because I was 11 in 2001 haha. But I will say that in my 4 years of AcDec Rick has always been upfront with everything and at least in my opinion has done a great job.

This post has been edited by LAB: Feb 26 2018, 06:59 AM


--------------------
Lucas Beville
Rockwall, TX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Allan21996_*
post Feb 26 2018, 06:32 AM
Post #46





Guests






My biggest problem with this whole issue is that this is all reactive instead of proactive. Having watched the California State competition and be up close with the top teams, the big LAUSD coaches make sure during the coaches meetings in the Fall and at the competitions that every single question regarding guidelines and subjective is adhered to while making sure it is happening during the competitions. The amount of intensity they bring is crazy, but it's because they work so hard that they just want to make sure they have a fair shot. In regards to Eberhard's "get used to it or quit" statement, that's essentially what you have to do or work hard enough to create measure so that something like this doesn't happen again.

I feel bad that both teams have to go through this as everything I've seen or heard from them has shown an incredible amount of care/passion for this program.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lab
post Feb 26 2018, 06:36 AM
Post #47


Advanced Member
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 61
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 721,907



QUOTE (Allan21996 @ Feb 26 2018, 12:32 AM) *
My biggest problem with this whole issue is that this is all reactive instead of proactive. Having watched the California State competition and be up close with the top teams, the big LAUSD coaches make sure during the coaches meetings in the Fall and at the competitions that every single question regarding guidelines and subjective is adhered to while making sure it is happening during the competitions. The amount of intensity they bring is crazy, but it's because they work so hard that they just want to make sure they have a fair shot. In regards to Eberhard's "get used to it or quit" statement, that's essentially what you have to do or work hard enough to create measure so that something like this doesn't happen again.

I feel bad that both teams have to go through this as everything I've seen or heard from them has shown an incredible amount of care/passion for this program.


For sure. Texas coaches are just as intense. The problem here is that the medium/small ran low on volunteers so they just ran with what they had. And that should not have happened because now there is so much ambiguity......


--------------------
Lucas Beville
Rockwall, TX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_J Eberhard_*
post Feb 26 2018, 06:41 AM
Post #48





Guests






QUOTE (LAB @ Feb 26 2018, 12:36 AM) *
QUOTE (Allan21996 @ Feb 26 2018, 12:32 AM) *
My biggest problem with this whole issue is that this is all reactive instead of proactive. Having watched the California State competition and be up close with the top teams, the big LAUSD coaches make sure during the coaches meetings in the Fall and at the competitions that every single question regarding guidelines and subjective is adhered to while making sure it is happening during the competitions. The amount of intensity they bring is crazy, but it's because they work so hard that they just want to make sure they have a fair shot. In regards to Eberhard's "get used to it or quit" statement, that's essentially what you have to do or work hard enough to create measure so that something like this doesn't happen again.

I feel bad that both teams have to go through this as everything I've seen or heard from them has shown an incredible amount of care/passion for this program.


For sure. Texas coaches are just as intense. The problem here is that the medium/small ran low on volunteers so they just ran with what they had. And that should not have happened because now there is so much ambiguity......


"should not have happened"... "should not have happened"... "should not have happened".... story of AcaDec. get used to it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lab
post Feb 26 2018, 06:50 AM
Post #49


Advanced Member
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 61
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 721,907



QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 26 2018, 12:41 AM) *
QUOTE (LAB @ Feb 26 2018, 12:36 AM) *
QUOTE (Allan21996 @ Feb 26 2018, 12:32 AM) *
My biggest problem with this whole issue is that this is all reactive instead of proactive. Having watched the California State competition and be up close with the top teams, the big LAUSD coaches make sure during the coaches meetings in the Fall and at the competitions that every single question regarding guidelines and subjective is adhered to while making sure it is happening during the competitions. The amount of intensity they bring is crazy, but it's because they work so hard that they just want to make sure they have a fair shot. In regards to Eberhard's "get used to it or quit" statement, that's essentially what you have to do or work hard enough to create measure so that something like this doesn't happen again.

I feel bad that both teams have to go through this as everything I've seen or heard from them has shown an incredible amount of care/passion for this program.


For sure. Texas coaches are just as intense. The problem here is that the medium/small ran low on volunteers so they just ran with what they had. And that should not have happened because now there is so much ambiguity......


"should not have happened"... "should not have happened"... "should not have happened".... story of AcaDec. get used to it.


I am definitely already used to it....

For the past 4 years we have hosted the biggest meet in the country/world/of all time (40+ schools and 800+ kids) so I know about issues in running a meet (thanks to Evil Dr Calculus for saving our lives). And those meets don't even have subjectives.

But the fact that there wasn't enough judges to properly judge a state meet, which is the meet that matters more than any other, is enough of a mishap that could warrant an appeal.... I may be wrong, but this appeal has nothing to do with unfair scoring. It is about the fact that the medium/small meet didn't meet the minimum requirement for judges which may/may not have affected the outcome.


--------------------
Lucas Beville
Rockwall, TX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TinDefacto
post Feb 26 2018, 01:52 PM
Post #50


Turtlemaster.
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,280
Joined: 23-March 18
Member No.: 21



QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 26 2018, 12:09 AM) *
Before everyone goes into a 'fit' over the results... this is an OLD storyline. 2004 we even had ALL schools in San Antonio to avoid such controversy. I remember coaches meetings in the Fall to discuss eliminating subjectives to avoid such issues.

All I can say is... Large schools now have the "stable" meet in San Antonio that Mediums enjoyed for a long time. Mediums are now in the 2nd year of the traveling show. Large schools used to complain that moving around year to year was a disadvantage. Here we are of two years reversed and Medium winner goes to Nats in both of those years. Large schools have the "stable" meet and STILL complain about fairness?

Essay, more than any other event, has frustrated coaches. We all have "stories" of "great kids" who scored "5 on AP" but got a 300ish on Essay at Region or State. My first year coaching, the coach at San Antonio Holmes (Julianna) told me "get used to subjectives or quit coaching". Man, was she right!

So goes this year's state meet. It is a classic case of Academic Decathlon's "get used to it or quit". Lubbock won the right to go to Nats on the results of Essays graded by a common group of Essay graders. It's not as if Large and Medium had 'different' essay judges. So within the format used for Essay, Lubbock was 800 pts better than the next two teams. Get used to it or quit. smile.gif

I think just about everyone here agrees with you in general, but from what I've heard, the Essay situation here is actually very abnormal and warrants further investigation. I don't know the full story, but if it's true that there was a judge who gave everyone scores in the 900s (which makes it sound like they didn't even read the essays), then I think it's quite reasonable to ask for an appeal, especially when the scores are so close. I have no doubt that all coaches involved here would take the loss in good spirit if these concerns of fairness had not risen.

Also, all this stuff about a "stable" meet versus one that moves around is completely irrelevant: there's no reason a "stable" meet should have an innate advantage in subjectives simply by virtue of being put together well. It all goes back to judge training, and that can always go either way. A well-run meet can tell judges that 700s are great Speech/Interview scores and a poorly-run one can tell them the 800s are mediocre, or vice versa. Besides, both meets are "stable" now. Large will remain in San Antonio, and Medium/Small will remain in Frisco (even though it was their first year there and evidently poorly run).

QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 26 2018, 01:35 AM) *
Remember... Highland Park had the SAME judges as Lubbock. AND HP (specifically their coach) is someone I admire and respect for preparation more than anybody else in the state of Texas. Yet they were just as far behind Luboock in subjectives as Dulles was. For me, this is enough to signify that Lubbock WAS that much better in subjectives than everybody else....

it's time to prep for eNats or recruit for next year. An appeal is just sour grapes or DENIAL of the flawed program everyone is involved in. Get used to this flaw or quit coaching!

Highland Park =/= Dulles. As you say somewhere else, yes, Dulles did not get any Essay medals at Regionals, but they also (by their own admission) did not hit subjectives hard until afterward.

I understand your points and where you're coming from, but I do think you're being unreasonably harsh.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Scholastic Underdog_*
post Feb 26 2018, 03:07 PM
Post #51





Guests






QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 26 2018, 12:41 AM) *
QUOTE (LAB @ Feb 26 2018, 12:36 AM) *
QUOTE (Allan21996 @ Feb 26 2018, 12:32 AM) *
My biggest problem with this whole issue is that this is all reactive instead of proactive. Having watched the California State competition and be up close with the top teams, the big LAUSD coaches make sure during the coaches meetings in the Fall and at the competitions that every single question regarding guidelines and subjective is adhered to while making sure it is happening during the competitions. The amount of intensity they bring is crazy, but it's because they work so hard that they just want to make sure they have a fair shot. In regards to Eberhard's "get used to it or quit" statement, that's essentially what you have to do or work hard enough to create measure so that something like this doesn't happen again.

I feel bad that both teams have to go through this as everything I've seen or heard from them has shown an incredible amount of care/passion for this program.


For sure. Texas coaches are just as intense. The problem here is that the medium/small ran low on volunteers so they just ran with what they had. And that should not have happened because now there is so much ambiguity......


"should not have happened"... "should not have happened"... "should not have happened".... story of AcaDec. get used to it.

I understand what youíre saying, and while Iím not nearly as experienced as you, the fact of the matter is that a rule book exists for a specific reason, and that is to establish rules and give grounds for things like appeals. Interview didnít have the required number of judges for Medium/Small, which while that isnít the fault of Lubbock, it does mean itís possible they had an advantage due to that. Subjectives arenít ďfairĒ by their very nature, but having them judged on such uneven ground (3v1 judges) is enough to warrant an appeal in my opinionóDulles shouldnít suffer because of bad logistics at Medium, but the same can be said of Lubbock. I donít have a dog in the fight, I just want this to be settled amicably and in such a way that we can all move past this without seeing a repeat of Ď02.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Evil Dr. Cal...
post Feb 26 2018, 03:19 PM
Post #52


Advanced Member
***

Group: Admin
Posts: 1,549
Joined: 24-March 18
Member No.: 3



What solution do you propose for this problem?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_J Eberhard_*
post Feb 26 2018, 03:29 PM
Post #53





Guests






QUOTE (TinDefacto @ Feb 26 2018, 07:52 AM) *
QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 26 2018, 12:09 AM) *
Before everyone goes into a 'fit' over the results... this is an OLD storyline. 2004 we even had ALL schools in San Antonio to avoid such controversy. I remember coaches meetings in the Fall to discuss eliminating subjectives to avoid such issues.

All I can say is... Large schools now have the "stable" meet in San Antonio that Mediums enjoyed for a long time. Mediums are now in the 2nd year of the traveling show. Large schools used to complain that moving around year to year was a disadvantage. Here we are of two years reversed and Medium winner goes to Nats in both of those years. Large schools have the "stable" meet and STILL complain about fairness?

Essay, more than any other event, has frustrated coaches. We all have "stories" of "great kids" who scored "5 on AP" but got a 300ish on Essay at Region or State. My first year coaching, the coach at San Antonio Holmes (Julianna) told me "get used to subjectives or quit coaching". Man, was she right!

So goes this year's state meet. It is a classic case of Academic Decathlon's "get used to it or quit". Lubbock won the right to go to Nats on the results of Essays graded by a common group of Essay graders. It's not as if Large and Medium had 'different' essay judges. So within the format used for Essay, Lubbock was 800 pts better than the next two teams. Get used to it or quit. smile.gif

I think just about everyone here agrees with you in general, but from what I've heard, the Essay situation here is actually very abnormal and warrants further investigation. I don't know the full story, but if it's true that there was a judge who gave everyone scores in the 900s (which makes it sound like they didn't even read the essays), then I think it's quite reasonable to ask for an appeal, especially when the scores are so close. I have no doubt that all coaches involved here would take the loss in good spirit if these concerns of fairness had not risen.

Also, all this stuff about a "stable" meet versus one that moves around is completely irrelevant: there's no reason a "stable" meet should have an innate advantage in subjectives simply by virtue of being put together well. It all goes back to judge training, and that can always go either way. A well-run meet can tell judges that 700s are great Speech/Interview scores and a poorly-run one can tell them the 800s are mediocre, or vice versa. Besides, both meets are "stable" now. Large will remain in San Antonio, and Medium/Small will remain in Frisco (even though it was their first year there and evidently poorly run).

QUOTE (J Eberhard @ Feb 26 2018, 01:35 AM) *
Remember... Highland Park had the SAME judges as Lubbock. AND HP (specifically their coach) is someone I admire and respect for preparation more than anybody else in the state of Texas. Yet they were just as far behind Luboock in subjectives as Dulles was. For me, this is enough to signify that Lubbock WAS that much better in subjectives than everybody else....

it's time to prep for eNats or recruit for next year. An appeal is just sour grapes or DENIAL of the flawed program everyone is involved in. Get used to this flaw or quit coaching!

Highland Park =/= Dulles. As you say somewhere else, yes, Dulles did not get any Essay medals at Regionals, but they also (by their own admission) did not hit subjectives hard until afterward.

I understand your points and where you're coming from, but I do think you're being unreasonably harsh.


Harsh? I would agree with that assessment. smile.gif But this is one of the luxuries of not having a horse in the race anymore. Every year the most anxious part of a meet for me was getting those subjective scores (specifically essay). This is an old debate being held by a new group of coaches. My biggest concern is that the intent of "appeals" that began after the Large school meet in Wichita Falls was to challenge results at your competition. What we are now saying is that an appeal can be submitted for results at a different location of which the appealing team did not participate in. So an appeal is being filed for something the appealing team did not directly experience. Ask Greg about the subjectives at two locations when Friendswood finished ahead of Nimitz (the only time a Medium outscored a Large until 2017 and 2018). I know it still haunts him. BUT, these are the tenuous possibilities that we are all aware of and keep coaches awake on Friday nights at region and state. Allowing appeals regarding the "other" competition site not only violates the intent of the appeals rule, but comes across (to me) as reactionary, perhaps from frustration of two years in a row. With HP in mediums for the foreseeable future, as well as other programs (like Lubbock this year) that have eliminated the gap between the top Large and top Mediums, this could likely be an annual debate/conflict.

Funny thing is, Friday afternoon I was texting with a friend... after looking at scores for these top three teams over the past few months, I predicted a "brewing controversy" like 2004. It's bound to happen (I remember at the coaches' meeting a proposal to have the top two teams meet the weekend after state for a one on one subjective only competition LOL). Finally, too much agonizing about subjectives starts to sound like Lubbock didn't compete fairly. Who's to say that their scores weren't LOWER than they could have been, rather than assuming they had to be higher. It's a "large school bias" that those in Mediums have heard for a long time... and ultimately led to the "switch" of who goes to S.A. and who gets the traveling meet. And now the medium team that had to travel the last two years ends up with the higher score. The IRONY is teaching us something.
Thanks for listening. I comment so much I guess because I miss having 'horses' lol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_CoachK_*
post Feb 26 2018, 03:33 PM
Post #54





Guests






QUOTE (The Evil Dr. Calculus @ Feb 26 2018, 07:19 AM) *
What solution do you propose for this problem?


As far as I can gather from this board, the two teams were separated by less than 100 points and competed in different locations with different judging criteria. In the future, perhaps the state meets should be merged so that every school competes under the same criteria. Either they all have 3 judges or one but at least it will be consistent. As for a solution to the problem for this year, why not send both teams to nationals? It seems fair in light of the fact that there is no possible way to go back and have their subjectives evaluated fairly after the fact. There are no winners here depending on the results of an appeal... both teams will have the outcome questioned and scrutinized all the way through nationals and beyond. That seems like a terrible burden and distraction. Send them both!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_melanie98_*
post Feb 26 2018, 03:38 PM
Post #55





Guests






The Frisco meet was not as poorly run as it might seem from the comments here. The new director was kind and conscientious--he just did not have enough volunteers. After standing in the cold until 11pm last year in El Paso, we were happy to have just one judge and knew it could easily work to our disadvantage or our advantage. Essay scores are the bane of my existence. I have never been able to figure out how to coach this event, and this year was no different. I have a story (like everyone) of national merit students who score 5's on AP exams but earn 200s in essay. I was once told that my student probably wrote "over the head" of the essay judge. Were all the essays scored by the same set of judges? If so, I don't see the issue with essay. If there was one judge that scored essays too easily that is not fair but certainly not unusual. Maybe there's something I don't know? I do know that Lubbock was great. Their kids were very kind to ours and their coaches could not be nicer. I hope this won't end in a lawsuit but am afraid it will. (I also remember Wichita Falls).

I do think Frisco will put on a good state meet in the future. The banquet seating was chaotic and super quiz did not work in that setting (my students saw students on their phones during the competition). Still, the feel of it was better than El Paso, and I hope finding a permanent home there will lead to some stability and consistency.

Our team finished 3rd again. We're moving up to large schools next year and starting over because my entire team is graduating (yikes). We had an incredibly hard-working student that we all LOVE finish first overall honors, and we all cried. He cried, his mom cried, the team cried, the coaches cried...we were just so happy for the kid. He has worked so hard and deserves it so. We also had a varsity student finish second overall after finishing fifth last year. We were so pleased for him (although he was hoping for first). They've earned almost 9k in scholarships in a couple years and I am not ready to think about a team that doesn't include them next year.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lab
post Feb 26 2018, 03:51 PM
Post #56


Advanced Member
***

Group: Coach Class
Posts: 61
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 721,907



QUOTE (melanie98 @ Feb 26 2018, 09:38 AM) *
Our team finished 3rd again. We're moving up to large schools next year and starting over because my entire team is graduating (yikes). We had an incredibly hard-working student that we all LOVE finish first overall honors, and we all cried. He cried, his mom cried, the team cried, the coaches cried...we were just so happy for the kid. He has worked so hard and deserves it so. We also had a varsity student finish second overall after finishing fifth last year. We were so pleased for him (although he was hoping for first). They've earned almost 9k in scholarships in a couple years and I am not ready to think about a team that doesn't include them next year.


That's awesome! Congrats to you and your kids!


--------------------
Lucas Beville
Rockwall, TX
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_mrstewart_*
post Feb 26 2018, 03:53 PM
Post #57





Guests






QUOTE (melanie98 @ Feb 26 2018, 09:38 AM) *
The Frisco meet was not as poorly run as it might seem from the comments here. The new director was kind and conscientious--he just did not have enough volunteers. After standing in the cold until 11pm last year in El Paso, we were happy to have just one judge and knew it could easily work to our disadvantage or our advantage. Essay scores are the bane of my existence. I have never been able to figure out how to coach this event, and this year was no different. I have a story (like everyone) of national merit students who score 5's on AP exams but earn 200s in essay. I was once told that my student probably wrote "over the head" of the essay judge. Were all the essays scored by the same set of judges? If so, I don't see the issue with essay. If there was one judge that scored essays too easily that is not fair but certainly not unusual. Maybe there's something I don't know? I do know that Lubbock was great. Their kids were very kind to ours and their coaches could not be nicer. I hope this won't end in a lawsuit but am afraid it will. (I also remember Wichita Falls).

I do think Frisco will put on a good state meet in the future. The banquet seating was chaotic and super quiz did not work in that setting (my students saw students on their phones during the competition). Still, the feel of it was better than El Paso, and I hope finding a permanent home there will lead to some stability and consistency.

Our team finished 3rd again. We're moving up to large schools next year and starting over because my entire team is graduating (yikes). We had an incredibly hard-working student that we all LOVE finish first overall honors, and we all cried. He cried, his mom cried, the team cried, the coaches cried...we were just so happy for the kid. He has worked so hard and deserves it so. We also had a varsity student finish second overall after finishing fifth last year. We were so pleased for him (although he was hoping for first). They've earned almost 9k in scholarships in a couple years and I am not ready to think about a team that doesn't include them next year.


I agree with Ms. Atkinson, the big issue was interview judges which worked out for some not so much for others. However, all the other issues impacted the experience but not the scores (banquet seating, too small Super Quiz setting, break space for kids, etc). Mr. Rasmussen was upbeat, seamed to enjoy running the meet, and most importantly accepted responsibility and pledged to fix stuff before next year. I have no doubt he will. I kind of wish they'd flip the locations every other year just so my kids would get to compete outside their home town, but I'm confident next year will be way better overall (Feel free to throw this back at me next year if not. I'm excellent with the past, horrible with the future). I'm also excited to see some different teams competing for the state title at both meets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Stealer of Souls_*
post Feb 26 2018, 04:26 PM
Post #58





Guests






Won't help this year, but qualify your teams however you want for the state competition, but rather than separating them by size into two meets, separate them by score. If the only thing separating teams is student population numbers which are irrelevant in picking an overall winner then make your meet more competitive by putting all your best teams in one location and the rest in the other. Now you're competing based on where you scored rather than how big your school is. This is how it is done in California. When it comes to subjectives at state the top 10 teams are all in the same speech/interview rooms, the 2nd ten in their own rooms, etc. Head-to-head is the only way to go.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_nixonotis_*
post Feb 26 2018, 04:43 PM
Post #59





Guests






QUOTE (Stealer of Souls @ Feb 26 2018, 09:26 AM) *
Won't help this year, but qualify your teams however you want for the state competition, but rather than separating them by size into two meets, separate them by score. If the only thing separating teams is student population numbers which are irrelevant in picking an overall winner then make your meet more competitive by putting all your best teams in one location and the rest in the other. Now you're competing based on where you scored rather than how big your school is. This is how it is done in California. When it comes to subjectives at state the top 10 teams are all in the same speech/interview rooms, the 2nd ten in their own rooms, etc. Head-to-head is the only way to go.

Agreed. I don't know whether this is a popular opinion, but I've always felt this way, and while I know people have complaints about how CAD does their state competition, I think it's the best way to handle this many solid programs vying for a chance at state. I haven't done any statistical analysis, but I don't think school size has any meaningful correlation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Honourable Honors_*
post Feb 26 2018, 05:15 PM
Post #60





Guests






In other news, congratulations to Annie Jain for setting a new Texas state meet record. And to Michael Xie for what I believe is an all time record 7th score over 9,000.

This post has been edited by Honourable Honors: Feb 26 2018, 05:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th August 2018 - 06:47 AM