2011-2012 POI National Rankings
Following reflects the rankings after the California state tournament.
Computed using POI’s gradual diminishing return formula ((100% of points from best tournament)+(95% of points from 2nd Best)+(65% of points from 3rd Best)+(30% of 4th Best)+(10% of 5th Best)).
1. Los Gatos SG (Silverman & Gilbert) 49.775
2. Windsor FJ (Fauss & J. Jeffrey) 40.7
(3) A. Carson (Bishop O’Dowd) 39.675
3. Saratoga AC (Agrawal & Chiang) 36.35
(4) Mecklai (Mira Loma) 34.05
4. Bishop ODowd CD (A. Carson & Dierkx) 32.975
(5) Zepeda (Bishop O’Dowd) 32
5. Mira Loma ML (Mecklai & Leibenhaut) 30.55
6. Lincoln BW (Lane Burton & Eliot Woods) 26.575
(7) P. Jeffrey (Windsor) 24.55
7. Bishop ODowd ZV (Zepeda & Vegis) 23.625
8. Redmond WM (Lilianna Wagner & Conor McCue) 23.225
9. Windsor SJ (Steiger & P. Jeffrey) 23.2
10. Windsor FZ (Foster & Ziedrich) 23.1
11. Sierra Canyon HS (Hariz & Shokar) 22.875
12. Lake Oswego KX (Kwartler & Xu) 22.65
13. Bishop ODowd PA (Perl & Accinelli) 22.3
14. Gunn NO (Oyer & Neff) 22.275
15. Evergreen Valley KP (Khan & Park) 21.575
(16) Patel (Valencia) 20.525
16. Leland NW (Nguyen & Wu) 20.2
17. Gunn YA (Ye & Atlas) 20
18. Sprague MO (Jeff Metzger & Devon O’Donnell) 19.925
19. Lincoln LO (Mason Lam & Rose Owen) 19.225
20. Esperanza CC (Chang & Chin) 19.05
(21) Seideman (Bishop O’Dowd) 19.1
(21) Revello (Cleveland) 18.8
21. Santa Rosa BF (Burch & Fields) 18.75
22. Evergreen Valley AV (Vivrekar & Arun) 18.7
23. Redlands KK (Kim & Karpouzis) 18.55
24. Oxford Academy PR (Perdew & Ramirez) 18.45
25. James Enoch MW (Marsh & Walbridge) 17.95
26. Cleveland RT (Revello & Tuchman) 17.9
(27) Dhinakaran (Irvington) 17.87500
27. Notre Dame FV (Furniss & Vaddi) 17.775
28. Peninsula CP (Crossman & Pond) 17.2
29. El Dorado RM (Rapp & Moore) 15.95
30. Cleveland MW (Milfred & Warner) 15.65
30. Southridge NG (Nikong & Graham) 15.65
32. Valencia KP (Khokar & Patel) 15.35
33. Bishop ODowd SW (Seideman & Walsh) 14.975
34. Valencia FS (Faraldo & Savant) 14.75
35. Claremont DY (Dowd-Lukesh & Yeturu) 14.65
35. SOCES KS (Kabir & Silverberg) 14.65
37. Corvallis AM (Allen & Morago) 14.625
38. Dougherty Valley KW (Konath & Wang) 14.575
39. Peninsula GL (Gianvecchio & Lim) 14.475
40. El Modina SB (Steffensen & Burnett) 14.35
41. Leland CY (Chen & Yun) 14.25
42. Oaks Christian BW (Beach & Waller) 14.225
43. Leland KT (Kang & Tseng) 14.2
44. Miramonte TF (Tuemmler & Fehrnstrom) 13.875
45. Lynbrook RY (Ying & Rao) 13.7
46. Ashland PP (Pictin & Preskenis) 13.65
47. Canby BB (Baker & Burt) 13.65
47. Century MV (Mercutio & Van Vleet) 13.65
47. Gresham EK (Ernst & Kennard) 13.65
47. Redmond GY (Gile & Young) 13.65
51. Bishop ODowd CZ (A. Carson & Zepeda) 13.5
51. Los Osos DJ (Daden & Jiang) 13.5
53. Leland HC (Han & Chiu) 13.3
54. Santa Rosa VD (Vonseggern & Delattre) 13.25
55. Legitarius DG (Dhinakaran & Gill) 13.175
56. Centennial HB (Hicks & Brewer) 12.8
56. Monta Vista GZ (Guo & Zimmerman) 12.8
58. Oxford Academy CS (Chaudhary & Sandhoefner) 12.75
59. La Jolla PH (Prasad & Halgren) 12.7
59. Los Osos LG (Long & Guerrieri) 12.7
61. Analy KS (Keegan & Schlutius) 12.225
62. Oxford Academy HK (Hwangbo + Kim) 12.1
62. Sanger TO (Taboada & Oakes) 12.1
64. Lowell CO (Chen & Ong) 11.875
64. Oaks Christian RY (Rebbe & Young) 11.875
66. Analy MD (Mizutani & Dimick) 11.775
67. Ashland CW (Cronin & Walker-Robert) 11.75
67. Bentley RD (Riley & Durant) 11.75
67. South Albany LR (Lehman & Roger) 11.75
67. Tigard JB (Jiang & Bigg) 11.75
71. Leland DS (Deghuee & Sonkowsky) 11.725
71. Milpitas OG (OBrien & Grillo) 11.725
73. Santa Rosa BF (Foote & Beloberk) 11.4
74. Leland LL (Lopez & Lee) 11.275
74. Mountain View LS (Leybzon & Sivaraja) 11.275
76. Lynbrook SV (Sathe & Velamuri) 11.25
77. Bakersfield Christian RT (Riggs & Taylor) 11
77. Bishop ODowd/Mira Loma CM (Carson & Mecklai) 11
77. Polytechnic HS (Harmon & Sanders) 11
77. Wilton JB (Jankowski & Brewer) 11
81. Bandon MW (Maddi & Wiprud) 10.8
81. Cleveland WI (Williams & Ingraham) 10.8
81. Dougherty Valley MP (Mau & Pok) 10.8
81. Granite Bay OH (Ontiveros & Habashi) 10.8
81. Mira Loma OH (Ozdemir & Hakobian) 10.8
81. North Valley SB (Schoenborn & Beairsto) 10.8
81. Sprague BR (Silberman & Ajanovic) 10.8
81. Walnut B (Bhanderi & ?) 10.8
81. West Linn BB (Bosson & Brown) 10.8
81. Westview AA (Apte & Akmal) 10.8
91. Analy LW (Lindenbusch & Williams) 10.75
92. Leland AK (Ahir & Kamat) 10.5
93. Los Gatos FE (Flechsig & Esslinger) 10.25
94. Granite Bay GH (Gupta & Habashi) 10
94. Westview HK (Hudson & Kandaswamy) 10
96. Analy WG (Wilcox & Goldstein) 9.85
97. Peninsula KN (Kumar & Noch) 9.75
98. Clash CK (Clark & Kim) 9.275
99. Narbonne AD (Alquitran & De Guzman) 9
99. Simi Valley/Valencia PD (Patel & Dickey) 9
101. Bullard A (Allen + ?) 8.9
101. Campbell Hall E (Ehrenberg & ?) 8.9
101. Delta Charter S (Sarvey + ?) 8.9
101. Grant’s Pass DS (Dooly & Sherman) 8.9
101. Gresham YC (Yeskes & Cox) 8.9
101. Hermiston HW (Houk & Wilkerson) 8.9
101. La Canada J (Jones & ?) 8.9
101. La Costa Canyon W (W & ?) 8.9
101. La Salle Prep CG (Caster & Granato) 8.9
101. La Quinta E (Easley & ?) 8.9
101. Rex Putnam FG (Farlow & Garza) 8.9
101. San Dieguito B (Borchers & ?) 8.9
101. San Dieguito O (Otillo * ?) 8.9
101. Sheldon RS (Rhoden & Smith) 8.9
101. South RT (Ruben & Tirumala) 8.9
101. Tillamook RH (Rumage & Haenggi) 8.9
101. Leland DL (Deghuee & Luh) 8.5
101. Walnut S (Shah & ?) 8.9
119. Gabrielino SR (Singleton & Rodriguez) 8.5
119. Irvington LM (Lam & Manzur) 8.5
121. Crescent Valley PS (Parron & Steinaurer) 8.325
122. James Logan CC (Chang & Chang) 8.3
123. Foothill BM (Ballmer & Miller) 8
124. Bakersfield Christian B (Bradford & ?) 7
124. Bandon HF (Hill & Fuller) 7
124. Bishop ODowd/Windsor JS (P. Jeffrey & Seideman) 7
124. Campbell Hall CL (Clements & Wilks) 7
124. Clovis East A (Austin & ?) 7
124. Crescent Valley LQ (Liu & Quian) 7
124. Milpitas TZ (Tran & Zahid) 7
124. Rodriguez N (Nojoomi & ?) 7
124. San Marin W (Wang & ?) 7
124. Stockdale J (Johnson & ?) 7
124. Walnut Y (Yeung & ?) 7
124. West Ranch MD (Morgan & Dewey) 7
136. Windsor RS (Roady & Schneider) 6.925
137. Bishop ODowd SZ (Seideman & Zepeda) 6.85
137. Centennial RK (Reed & Kleinman) 6.85
139. Dougherty Valley TZ (Tu & Zhu) 6.5
139. Gabrielino TT (Trinh & Tran) 6.5
139. Granite Bay GH (Gupta & Holzer) 6.5
139. Northwood AS (Ahuja & Shastry) 6.5
139. Notre Dame LA (Lunia & Ahemed) 6.5
139. San Marino WT (Wong & Thai) 6.5
145. Sonoma Academy NS (Noel & Syiek) 6.425
146. Bentley PP (Pracar & Pracar) 6
146. New Canaan AL (Abhi-Raman & Luchs) 6
146. San Marino KT (Khoshanan & Thai) 6
146. Sanger HL (Holquin & Lopez) 6
146. Simi Valley GM (Godoy & Mckinnon) 6
146. Wilton JH (Jensen & Hiestand) 6
152. Dougherty Valley MK (Mahmood & Keefer) 5.925
153. South Eugene LB (Eli Lininger & Alec Bania) 5.5
154. Bishop ODowd CR (A. Carson & Reynes) 5
154. Carlsbad KO (Kuperman & O’Loughlin) 5
154. Cleveland RJ (Rosen & Janowski) 5
154. Granite Bay MM (Clare Moore & Grace Moore) 5
154. Independent CS (Chaudhary & Sandhoefner) 5
154. Irvington DD (Dhinakaran & Dhinakaran) 5
154. Irvington KL (Kaushik & Lingampalli) 5
154. James Logan ZC (Zhang & Chen) 5
154. Milpitas NT (Trinh & Nguyen) 5
154. Monterey Trail RM (Richard & Gamboa) 5
154. Oaks Christian MP (Matthews & Philips) 5
154. Palos Verdes MW (Moore & White) 5
154. Santa Rosa DW (Dolan & Waaland) 5
154. Sonoma Academy MB (Maciorowski & Bottari) 5
154. West Ranch MH (Morgan & Hart) 5
154. Windsor CV (Colburn & Valenzuela) 5
154. Windward SG (Siegel & Gooding) 5
171. Carlsbad MR (Maldi & Rohring) 4.5
171. Clash BV (Browatzke & Vehrs) 4.5
171. El Cerrito AT (Akpan & Terman) 4.5
171. Irvington DG (Dhinakaran & Gill) 4.5
171. Irvington KR (Krishna & Reddy) 4.5
171. James Logan RW (Recinto & Wong) 4.5
171. Leland HL (Hu & Loftis) 4.5
171. Marlborough KK (Kang & Kasten) 4.5
171. Mountain View MR (Morgan & Ruehle) 4.5
171. Notre Dame LZ (Lan & Zambo) 4.5
171. Prospect LS (Latta & Sirinivasan) 4.5
171. Prospect NL (Nguyen & Latta) 4.5
183. Analy CN (Cotherman & Noe) 4
183. Bishop ODowd AZ (Anderson & Zepeda) 4
183. Bishop ODowd WC (Walsh & Crosby) 4
183. Claremont AC (Ali & Cusic) 4
183. Clash TS (Tcheau & Soiland) 4
183. Dougherty Valley AL (Abueg & Ling Soh) 4
183. Granite Bay AT (Asokan & Tom) 4
183. Los Gatos DA (Doyle & Adam) 4
183. Lynbrook PK (Parthasarathy & Kandalam) 4
183. Manchester Essex MR (Martz & Rodier) 4
183. Mira Loma RL (Ryabov & Liu) 4
183. Mountain View LH (Leybzon & Holton) 4
183. Peninsula CG (Choi & Gianvecchio) 4
183. Peninsula KS (Kang & Silvano) 4
183. San Marino HW (Hu & Wei) 4
183. Saratoga TZ (Taggarsi & Zhang) 4
183. Shady Side CC (Cao & Costa) 4
183. Stockdale KM (Kannappan & Munoz) 4
183. Washington CC (Chung & Chaus) 4
183. Wilton SC (Schaefer & Clifford) 4
203. Ashland AC (Jericho Apollo & Kelsey Cronin) 3.5
203. Ashland AP (C. Alstrom & Fielding Picton) 3.5
203. Forest Grove SB (Ian Schlegel & Luke Berdahl) 3.5
203. Lincoln SA (Lukas Schwab & Carmen Alfaro) 3.5
203. Willamette JS (Annie Jernberg & Andrew Sechrist) 3.5
208. Bishop ODowd AV (Anderson & Vegis) 3
208. Bishop ODowd CP (G. Carson & Perl) 3
208. Burbank JS (Jun & Sepanyan) 3
208. Chaminade OW (Oblea & Wright) 3
208. Claremont DM (Davis & Maine) 3
208. Cleveland RR (Revello & Rosen) 3
208. Cleveland SR (Sandin & Ross) 3
208. Cypress DP (Dickinson & Park) 3
208. Honor Academy KS (Kimm & Shibuyaa) 3
208. James Logan RS (Rook & Sugino-Sue) 3
208. Narbonne GA (Guzman & Alquitran) 3
208. North Hollywood MO (Magana & Ohayon) 3
208. Oaks Christian HS (Hanken & Smith) 3
208. Peninsula KE (Klose & Enders) 3
208. Peninsula RW (Razi & Wong) 3
208. Peninsula VM (Vezina & Mousavi) 3
208. SOCES VS (Vuong & Semon) 3
208. Southridge FM (Fragga & Marrott) 3
208. Westview BW (Bhatt & Want) 3
227. Analy AB (Alameida & Burns) 1.5
227. Analy BP (Berls & Pinna) 1.5
227. Bishop ODowd SR (Seideman & Reynes) 1.5
227. Bishop ODowd ZP (Zepeda & Perl) 1.5
227. Dougherty Valley GS (Ganesh & Sharan) 1.5
227. Dougherty Valley HP (Hua & Patil) 1.5
227. Irvington MD (Mayilvahanan & Dara) 1.5
227. Irvington RD (Reddy & Dhinikaran) 1.5
227. Las Lomas HD (Herro & Dec) 1.5
227. Livermore DH (Dec & Herro) 1.5
227. Maria Carillo GH (Gallagher & Horner) 1.5
227. Maria Carillos GS (Gibson & Schwartz) 1.5
227. Miramonte BA (Bahramipour & Asadi) 1.5
227. Miramonte HB (Hasanain & Bata) 1.5
227. Miramonte HK (Han & Kirk) 1.5
227. Miramonte MH (McDonald & Henry) 1.5
227. Miramonte TC (Ting & Conklin) 1.5
227. San Marin RR (Rasmussen & Rai) 1.5
227. Santa Rosa RG (Rogers & Glynn) 1.5
227. Sonoma Academy PN (Pope & Nolan) 1.5
227. Windsor TG (Tocchini & Gabel) 1.5
Leave a Reply
Just for clarification, Los Gatos DA(Doyle & Adam) is actually Los Gatos DH(Doyle & Holmes).
His name is Adam Holmes, our coach just blanked on his last name when registering him.
Wow. Wilton (Connecticut) has gone to all of one Parli tournament and is still 4th on the club rankings.
Not bad.
At Yale Wilton not only won the tournament, but had teams advance to quarters and semis. Not a bad show for one tournament.
Notre Dame LA should be Ahmed and Limberis.
So just curious…is this a national ranking now?
That’s a really good question. It can’t really be considered a state ranking anymore (seeing as we can’t have a team from Connecticut be the state champ of CA), but I think we’re far from being a definitive national rank. That being said, POI is probably the best source out there which at least attempts to unify Parli rankings across the various HS communities which practice a version of Parli. We do limited coverage nationwide (Yale, Nationals, idea@Willamette, etc.), but we’re very much CA-centric.
You could probably get away with “Top Ranked Parliamentary Debater in the Nation” on a college app, though.
If it is to become national ranking, you’d have to drop GGSA tournaments, only counting the state tourney and calicup. Plus one team from CT hardly makes for a national ranking system.
POI is certainly Calicentric, but we can branch out into other regions where parli is exceptionally popular while resembling parli as we know it: New England (including NY and PA) and the Northwest.
The hope is that there is power in the list. POI is becoming a known commodity outside of the state and there is increasing curiosity about what this site represents. When non-California schools see themselves ranked, it should hopefully make an impression and lead to the submission of more tournament results so that the rankings can become more comprehensive. We do have the power to increase its scope. And while I don’t think our ranking list is definitive, it has no equal in terms of quality and recognition. We’ll know we’ve crossed the Rubicon when out-of-state teams begin submitting Cal Cup applications.
If you want out-of-state teams, I’d recommend renaming it into “parli TOC”
Honestly, I don’t think that it is fair to award POI points for tournaments that are out of state. Most schools with deserving teams do not have the money to send their debaters to tournaments across the country, so the results of such tournaments are not an accurate reflection of skill when not all debaters get an opportunity to compete. While I realize that well-funded teams will always have an advantage in attending more tournaments, expensive, far away tournaments like that at Yale is too much. This is a site that ranks California teams, so it is only logical that it should only include California tournaments.
Agreed.
Including out-of-state tournaments like Yale is not only defeating the purpose of “California” rankings (especially for CALIFIORNIA Cup), but it also patently unfair for teams with neither the funding nor the time to be able to fly around the country attending tournaments.
I am becoming increasingly concerned with the direction that this site, especially its ranking system, has been taking. It is becoming more an elitist competition of wealth rather than an equitable evaluation of debate skills.
I doubt the community can address these issues through online comments. On January 14, the MLK-Logan tournament has a four-hour window between the end of the last debate prelim and the start of elims. Would people be interested in using that time to have a community discussion on the direction hs parli should be going in?
I didn’t make the decision to include out-of-state tournaments, but I’m inclined to agree with Mr. Thorpe on this one. Here are some of my preliminary thoughts:
- POI Rankings were never an equitable evaluation of debate skills. POI Rankings are a measure of success at tournaments. How well this success correlates with debate skill is up to debate. The rankings reflect the reality of the circuit, and they can only deviate from this reality so much without losing legitimacy. If the circuit is screwed up, don’t blame the messenger.
- You get diminishing marginal returns from attending more tournaments. So if a rich school attends 10 tournaments instead of 3, that will only improve their points by a factor of 1.15
- There is value in expanding the circuit. Originally, POI rankings only covered GGSA and CFL; I think allowing SoCal and Sacramento kids to participate has been a net benefit.
- If a team couldn’t attend more tournaments due to financial difficulties, they can mention this in their at-large application.
I can fully understand POI’s decision to expand coverage to SolCal.
What I flat-out disagree with is expanding it to places like Yale, thousands of miles away from CA. Soon, we’ll be covering countries abroad.
This development is simply unfair, unreasonable, and flat-out disgusting. No time has POI actually paid attention to out-of-state tournaments, even in the case of parliamentary debate.
Only when Bishop O’Dowd wins then you start seeing Yale being added in, when incidentally, their coach was made administrator of POI at around the same time. This stinks of politics and is all-the-worse for everyone else.
That’s kind of an absurd complaint-they weren’t included previously because Artem didn’t get packets for them. I don’t understand complaining about something that was, until this point in time, essentially one person’s brainchild that has been a service and a tool. Politics? Seriously?
How does it make it any worse for anyone else? There is a diminishing return for tournaments. Anything over your best 5 tournaments is almost meaningless anyway. Why does POI HAVE to stay Cali focused? Might the form benefit from learning what happens on other coasts? Wouldn’t more national exposure mean closer to potentially becoming an NFL recognized debate form?
Please explain how this free service people put hours and hours of their life in to help OTHER PEOPLE for no reason other than love of the form is DISGUSTING because it includes an east coast tournament? I’m honestly baffled.
For reference:
http://www.pointofinformation.org/files/results/other/belton-tx/
http://www.pointofinformation.org/files/results/other/whitman-wa/
http://www.pointofinformation.org/files/results/championships/idea-tournament-of-champions-willamette/
http://www.pointofinformation.org/files/results/championships/osaa-state/
http://www.pointofinformation.org/files/results/championships/npdl-parli-grand-nationals/
Ben, those don’t count. Bishop O’Dowd didn’t go there.
I find this to be an interesting discussion in that the concern seems to be focused on Bishop O’Dowd attending a tournament at Yale (where Audrey Carson & Nathalie Dierkx did avail themselves quite well). However, if you really want to look at who benefited most from including this tournament, it wasn’t O’Dowd, but Connecticut’s Wilton High School. Wilton broke several teams to the outrounds, won the tournament, and find themselves occupying the number six spot in the rankings. Do Audrey & Nathalie benefit from the tournament’s inclusion? To some degree, but its effect is diminished, as Ms. McGuinn and Artem have pointed out, by the diminishing return formula incorporated into the rankings.
Remove Yale, and Carson & Direkx drops from second to ninth, a bit of a hit, but nothing obscenely substantial. However, we completely erase not only Wilton, but Westview high school as well because of geographic provincialism.
Now, what is the mission of the site? It’s not insular. The current California-centric focus is based upon current accessibility of results and greater access is achieve through awareness. In a short period of time this site has gone from being focused on Norcal to all of California and the hope is that POI will continue to grow and take on more of a national focus. This cannot happen if the site adopts an only-in-California attitude.
Wilton has notified me they’re very excited to be included on the rankings. New England does not have a lot of parli tournaments, but they’ve stated they’ll try to get in as much info to POI as possible. This is progress. And If POI receives the results, they’ll be incorporated into the rankings. The same holds true for Oregon invitationals as well.
Will this upset the ranking system? Not really. California schools have the advantage of having far more parli invitationals than other parts of the nation. But the inclusion of out-of-state schools does make the ranking system more interesting, and there is the chance that Wilton may qualify for the Cal Cup instead of having to apply at-large. Does this mean they’ll come? Not necessarily, but the Cup hopes to attract schools from out-of-state into the tournament, and this hope is better achieved through inclusion over exclusion.
And as for the rich-schools going East thesis? Come on. A rich Cali school could achieve the goal of amassing points more economically by competing at every parli invitational in-state. It wouldn’t help much though, since returns are diminished.
A. Points eligibility
1. Only results from varsity divisions will be used.
2. Only California invitationals that are open to all schools and the CHSSA State Qualifiers shall award POI points.
3. Any club and any tournament in California is eligible. Out-of-state teams that attend California invitationals shall be ranked, but shall not count as authentic.
4. Only two-person teams are eligible. Teams with a different number of persons shall be ranked, but shall not count as authentic.
Look at 2nd bullet point. Only CALIFORNIA tournaments are recognized. Yale is not in CA. Thus, by your own point system, it cannot be recognized…
Here is the ultimate question. Do you want to expand Parli or do you want to keep Parli as small? The former seems to be the best option if Parli wants to gain any respect on a national circuit.
@Anonymous The rules are being changed to expand the scope of Parli, so obviously the old rules no longer apply.
Just because we expand coverage nationally won’t mean that other tournaments will start hosting Parli or start caring.
And, from what I can ascertain, the only real national tournament was Yale, and they hosted a modified (4-5-5-5-3-4) version of Parli. Is this called “expanding”? Seems to be more like picking and choosing.
I agree, partially, with the first Anonymous. This seems less like expansion and more like favoritism.
There was a comment that being anonymous is not legitimate but please know that I am anonymous because I don’t want to embarrass my daughter.
I have a few comments.
1. The rich-schools going East thesis is entirely accurate. A struggling Cali school absolutely could NOT achieve the goal of amassing points by going to every tournament in the state because believe it or not, it’s expensive for a SoCal team to fly or drive up to NoCal for UOP the Banana Classic or Windsor Invit’l or O Dowd invitational and vice versa. Schools are really hurting and many of them just can’t afford it! If another school is sending teams to Yale and Harvard and what not (I really hope O Dowd does not feel slighted, they are the only team going out of state), they have a higher chance at getting more points (there’s a higher probability of winning an invitation if you attend 7 instead of 5) so the teams that go out of state for tournaments do have a bigger advantage, one that most public schools most certainly can’t pay for.
2. As for the idea of making POI a national site, it does not seem very clear what the goal here is. It seems as if the most coherent description of what it would be like if POI were to include tournaments around the nation is, “the hope is that POI will continue to grow and take on more of a national focus.” That seems quite vague to me. A national focus. Does that mean that we include EVERY SINGLE invitational? In Oregon there are lots of invitationals, as well as those in Illinois and Texas. If we are trying to take on a national focus, shouldn’t we include the results of those tournaments and rank those debaters as well? That’s a ton of teams, a ton of tabulation, and it kind of just seems to me like the local-fun-people know each other POI is becoming joyoftournaments with an added ranking caveat. I personally don’t feel like this is the goal of POI at all.
Also, I believe the style of debate at Yale was not exactly parli debate. The speech times were different as well as the use of theory. So are we now including the rankings and legitimacy of hybridized forms of parli? What about HSPDP? That is essentially parli + another member per team, different speech times, and heckling.
If POI is going to expand it should be clear about it’s goals or not expand at all.
And expanding on what the parent said above: maybe it’s hard for the wealthier schools to imagine, but it is VERY expensive both in terms of money and time to be able to fly around or drive around, even within California’s borders.
And it’s weird how Yale was included, considering how different. The speaking times are shorter and NOT the same as the speaking times in Cal Cup. So why include it? If you’re going to include national tournaments, might as well include those that are similar to the debate style at Cal Cup.
Smh.
Repated from other thread: CFL recently changed its rules to allow offline laptops during prep. Does anybody know if this is a CFL rule or a CAHSSA rule?
Probably just a CFL rule, but just in case, bring a laptop to the tournament and ask whoever is in charge, or email the tournament director of whatever tournament you’re attending.
You could call half of the debates that go on in CHHSA not parli. It takes a skilled debater to adapt to different rule sets and still succeed.
If the criteria is adaption, why don’t we include public forum wins in the point calculations? Heck, why not even policy debate?
Any tournament with structures similar to the POI-recognized structure (7-7-7-7-5-5 or 6-7-7-7-4-5) should be recognized. All other formats should not. Simple as that.
Just for clarification, “Ranch” MD should be West Ranch MD
Point clarified!
Was a decision ever made on whether or not POI will include tournaments like Yale, Harvard, Oregon, etc.?
From what I can ascertain from the discussion, POI won’t include out-of-state tournaments with the tentative exception of Oregon.
When will POI rankings include pepperdine?
As soon as someone gets us the result of the 1v.8 Octofinal round.
Updated.
Can someone please clarify the CHSSA rule on laptops?
At Stanford apparently they are not placing a cap on the number of laptops you can use, which they say is diff from the state rule, so does that mean for CHSSA you can only use one laptop?
Do the rankings include the third GGSSA tournament?
When do the points from pepperdine reflect on this list?
Never mind above comment^
So I see that the pepperdine results were updated, but when are the rankings going to be updated.
Calm down: it takes time.
Does anyone know if Claremont is already factored in here?
Just realized they already were- no points given for novice?
Apparently, all of the higher-ups on POI have stopped responding… for weeks.
All right, everything should be up-to-date now, including the points details. If you think you’ve found an error, post or email, and we’ll do a double-check.
Novice will never get POI points, just like how TOC bids aren’t given to JV Policy teams.
I believe Mr. Morris had said that 4-1′s who did not break at Claremont would get some POI points, however I do not see that reflected in the rankings…….
Good call, I’ll fix that now. Claremont 4-1 is worth 5 POI points, just like last year.
With the addition of Claremont 4-1′s, PVP moves into 5th on the team list, behind BOD, Windsor, Leland, and Los Gatos.
SOCES VS, it is semon not semar
thanks
I swear I thought we corrected that. Must have been on the Details page. Should be fixed now.
There were 9 4-2 teams that didn’t break at pepperdine, should they get points as well? Considering how close the the decision was between which 4-2′s broke and which ones did not.