Note: The following post is my editorialized opinion on Georgia Debate.

If you have any questions / comments, you can either comment here or email me at jmiller@gaforensics.com

The following is coming from me as the GFCA Treasurer:

As I discussed with some prior to the election, the GFCA has no incentives right now which is bothering considering I’ve spent the last year researching incentives for alternative energy. I spent some time coming up with ways we can incentivize membership in the GFCA other than voting. One option is we can do what South Carolina does and just have schools pay dues at the GFCA State Tournament – I do not agree with this because not all GFCA Members attend the State Tournament (ironic, yes.)

The incentives I believe we should offer include nixing the school fee at the GFCA State tournaments. The fees are the same – $25 for school fee, $25 for membership. If the extra $25 was extremely crucial to the GFCA Tournament why can we not just add it to the dues? Another possible incentive is to waive the school fee at NFL District tournaments. I thought of this after someone mentioned to me that the NFL may be the best viable option for debate right now. This could probably lure some of the smaller schools into joining the GFCA simply to get rid of that school fee at another tournament. In the Southern Peach district, we had a $35 school fee – that’s a little absurd for the quality of food we had. The final incentive could be coaching conventions/workshops that the GFCA has already thought about holding. We wouldn’t make them member-exclusive, but we could just advertise them as GFCA Coaching Conventions, etc. They could be held during tournaments, maybe once a month.

The GFCA is one of the only debate organizations that do not reward their students. Each NFL District has now added “Student District of the Year” but the GFCA has yet to add anything. All students can get from the GFCA is a trophy at the State Championship. I propose that we create student scholarships (maybe for member schools only?). Texas has four scholarships – two $500 and two $300 and Wisconsin has 1-2 $ 300 scholarships. These scholarships do not have to be too weighty but any type of financial help will assist people in these tough times. I believe the only way we can fairly have a scholarship system is to have 2-4 scholarships [1 female debate, 1 male debate, 1 male speech, 1 female speech].

The final suggestion for the state is that we create some type of system online to be able to pay dues online. This would help encourage payment A LOT! Imagine being able to just punch in credit card information rather than looking for X person at a tournament with your checkbook while you’re trying to coach 30 kids. Exactly, online payment is genius. It can also assist towards the end of the season when people are wanting to vote but realize that they haven’t paid their dues.

The next section is coming from me, the Fayette County Debate coach:

First of all, we need to actually implement Ms. Willoughby’s coaching mentoring system.  Coaches need mentors. I’ve been advocating this for a while – it’s time we actually do it.

Second, we need to vote on switching GHSA Policy State to two person like it was said at the All State Meeting. I don’t want to see another year go by and nothing happen from the All State Meeting.

Third, as discussed at the All State meeting briefly I suggest more tournament directors change the second tiebreaker in TRPC Set Up Settings in debate divisions from Hi/Lows to Opp Wins + High Low. If you were in the tab room this year, you saw how many thirties were being dispersed in every division. I’m sorry but I had an LD debater at the GFCA State Tournament who received 4 30′s in the prelims – that’s uncalled for, even if he did win the State Championship. No one can be that perfect. We need a system to try and correct these statistical outliers.

Fourth, the common thirties in the debate division is actually a problem. It can mess up brackets and speaker awards. I believe we need to train judges for each tournament better. Maybe as an association, we establish speaker point guidelines for every GFCA Tournament.

Fifth, the amount of schools with debate programs are shrinking rapidly in almost every league. Jeremy Attaway, coach at Stratford Academy, contacted me about a month ago to see how the GFCA was doing. He reported that GISA is substantially growing and is in a very healthy condition right now. This could be fantastic news if we could involve them somehow. Jeremy and I spent about a week trying to come up with solutions to present and nothing came to mind. Finally I think I found a “loophole” in the GHSA Constitution.

Section 2.62(b) of the GHSA Constitution says explicitly

“Member schools are permitted to compete against non-member schools in activities not listed in the GHSA Constitution and By-Laws.”

I imagine this section exists for Quiz Bowl, Academic Teams, etc. However if you read the GHSA Constitution and By-Laws, you will notice that the only GHSA activities are Policy Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking and Dramatic Interpretation. Policy debate only mentions Varsity debate in the point qualification system [although the association changed that rule before last season]- which to me means that Varsity Policy is the only policy related GHSA activity. I also assume Varsity is the only GHSA activity considering I’ve had students not eligible to debate Varsity, but they could still debate JV. If you remember, we also dealt with this at the Fayette Tournament with Martin Haleck from Starr’s Mill.

Finding this loophole and actually discussing it can have great implications for our activity. Instantly we’ve added teams to the JV/Novice policy divisions, Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, and other IE divisions without actually having to recruit any schools. However if the association were willing to accept this loophole and move forward with allowing GISA schools to compete in these other divisions, we have a responsibility as an association and as tournament directors to become aware of each entry in the divisions. As a tournament director for three years now, I try and go through all my entries at my tournament and make sure they are following eligibility guidelines. For instance, I try and find 3rd year debaters who are entered in Junior Varsity divisions. This requires more time and can make tournament preparation tedious but it improves debate for EVERYONE at the tournament. Directors will need to be aware of the Varsity, Extemp, and DI divisions and make sure (double-checking, triple-checking, etc) that no GISA school is involved – hefty fines can come with a violation. A suggestion I make to the committee is possibly make an executive committee member responsible for checking up on each tournament. Just as GHSA Coordinators attend most athletic competitions to make sure GHSA rules are being followed, the GFCA can become a helpful watchdog to help the school and association avoid fines and problems. In my opinion, schools will not mind the watchdog in this instance.

If the association does not want to try and exploit the clear loophole, Jeremy suggested a couple other options. As an association we could propose an amendment to the GHSA Constitution to exclude debate in the Section 2.62(b). This will be met with lots of opposition and probably is not a realistic alternative. The final idea Jeremy had was to apply for “tournament waivers” from the GHSA to allow GISA to compete at GFCA tournaments. Again this increases paperwork for tournament directors on top of every issue discussed above.

No matter what happens with this loophole, the GFCA needs to discuss GISA Exclusion v. Inclusion. As an association who’s goal is to improve debate around the state of Georgia to the best of ability, we must be INCLUSIVE of the entire state. This means we need to make sure we’re improving all divisions of forensics and all schools in Georgia. Remember we are the Georgia Forensics Coaches Association, not the Public Schools in Georgia/GHSA Member Schools Debate Coaches Association.

GISA schools usually have policy oriented programs only so some may see this movement to only assist policy programs in the state but I see it as the opposite. I wondered why they only typically policy – and the answer is simple – their association doesn’t offer a State Championship for any of the other divisions – so why participate in them? Each event has value, not just policy – we need to accept this although some of us probably don’t agree. As great as Stratford Academy is in policy, imagine some of their students who are just left behind because they “don’t get” policy. PF and LD provide teams like Stratford another alternative for students than policy. As an association we need to be promoting these events to policy-only programs as other alternatives to kids who “don’t get it”.

Finally, the last thing in the state on my agenda that needs attention is All State. There are a lot of facets of All State that puzzle me. I do not understand why IEs, PF, and LD lost their All State? I understand that the Policy All State offers schools to debate different classifications. Totally makes sense- however IE All State would provide IE students to compete against the very best in the State – and honestly, GFCA IE State Championships are not that. The GFCA State tournament has NO QUALIFICATIONS for Individual Events – and since it’s offered on a weekend where no Varsity Policy events are offered, I could realistically put all 10 of my Varsity debaters in Extemp. Is this right, for a student who doesn’t compete in the event at all to compete in the State Championship? We’d never let a Public Forum team enter our Varsity State Championship because it would “hurt competition.” Does someone see a double standard? Honestly I think some of my Varsity debaters would be great competition in Extemp for the others, but some wouldn’t – which proves the injury of the activity. If adding an All State Tournament for LD, IEs, PF would be too much of a hassle and “just add another weekend” on the schedule – I propose we do something about GFCA State – and create some type of qualification system for it. It may just be me but I want the State Champion in Extemp to be a person who has demonstrated excellence ALL YEAR and not just at one tournament where they drew easy topics.

As far as Policy All State goes, the current bid allocation system is outdated. There is one thing to say for history & tradition in an activity but its another thing when you can see it hurting the activity. The semifinal teams at Carrollton are NOT the same quality as the semifinal teams at Northside. This isn’t just a one year thing – it’s been like this for a while now. Teams know about the “easy” All State bids – and again, do we want teams that don’t necessarily deserve to go to All State to sneak a bid. In my first year coaching, I had a team get an All State bid through the GHSA State Tournament system and I was offended. The team didn’t deserve to go to All State. They did no work and weren’t great debaters. As a coach, you are presented a double bind – do you allow your students to attend because they were invited, or do you decline the invitation because they don’t deserve it? That’s not a double bind i want to face because honestly I will most likely side with the whatever is my student’s best interest and not in the activities best interest – because I have to face the student’s parents, etc. I think the Association recognized this as a problem and removed the State Tournament as a qualifier, but that still doesn’t fix the current problems – why do tournaments that have existed forever and that provided excellent competition in the early 90′s still have a bid even if they don’t provide great competition?

My solution for bid allocation solves another problem I see as well in the community. If you attend other activities around the nation – we are the ONLY activity that stops after quarterfinals. This is ridiculous? Is it truly because of time constraints – most of the time yes, but I also blame it on tradition. We’ve been stopping tournaments after Quarterfinals since at least 2003 when I really took notice of debate. I did not want my tournament become one of these “quarterfinal” casualties and have moved 3 rounds to Friday night to provide me enough time for a Final Round in Varsity Policy on Saturday. The teams debating in Semifinals are the teams that want to keep debating usually. The ones who want to stop probably haven’t made it to elim rounds – so why do we let them decide the future of our tournaments. Plus how can we create history in Georgia if we ask who won the 2007 Chattahoochee Tournament. You can ask 4 schools and get 4 different answers because each semifinalist will say they won the tournament.

I want to go through each of the current bid tournaments and describe my issue with each [this may come across as pessimistic but honestly as a person who has attended every GA tournament, some tournaments are taking advantage of history in my opinion].
a) Warner Robins: This is a tournament I don’t find any problem with. I understand it’s bid and the tournament still respects the bid. It’s a great southern location for a bid with five active schools in the county. I think All State bid locations should also be a reward to the local community & schools. As the largest school in the area, Warner Robins certainly does deserve the bid tournament.

b) Calhoun: Another deserving tournament, maybe the most deserving. I do not know of another tournament in the state that prides itself on as much history as the Sandra Silvers Classic does. It also provides the Northern area of the state a bid tournament.

c) Carrollton: Okay, 3 tournaments so far, 3 deserving. Clearly Carrollton provides the state some of the best competition and deserves to give the semifinalists a bid to the All State Tournament.

d) Northside: This will be the first tournament I address that probably doesn’t deserve an All State bid (at least at the current level). My easiest argument is that if the tournament cannot even field a proper quarterfinal round (at least 8 teams with a winning record) they certainly do not need an All State bid. This has been the case for the past two seasons to my knowledge. An argument for the tournament is that the area is growing and deserves incentives to grow – a possible incentive is an All State bid. However is that incentive too much?

e) Cairo: I understand why this tournament exists. Teams like TCC, Bainbridge, Valdosta, etc would never be able to stay home and debate – but a Semifinals bid? They have had “weak” competition the last couple of years and dwindling numbers annually are not a good sign. However with this same logic [provides GA a southern bid] – only 1 school in the south travels to it – Bainbridge. They also attend Carrollton, therefore what purpose is it holding right now?

f) Milton: Does it strike anyone as odd that probably the STRONGEST county in the NATION has 1 All State bid tournament? A tournament that promises a final round. A tournament that annually provides some of the best competition. Still the only one in the county that offers a bid.

g) West Georgia: I probably don’t even need to make an argument against this one – they need to simply have the tournament. There is one other argument that comes to mind – why does Carroll County deserve two semifinal bid tournaments? A county that has 1 active debate team gets 2 tournaments? What about the Cobb, Fayette, Fulton, etc counties? This is a slap in their face.

h) Lincoln County: This was one of the best decisions the GFCA has made in a while – adding a bid tournament to a one day tournament. I knew it could be done and the Robinson’s have demonstrated this. It provides an East tournament with a bid. My only concern was when the GFCA added the Policy CFL Qualifier to the tournament. I’m sorry but the Robinson’s do not need any help incentivizing their tournament – Claude’s cooking was enough for the first five years. Adding All State & CFL gives teams two HUGE reasons to attend [in addition to the food ]. Is this fair? Why does a tournament deserve multiple incentives when some programs who have been around longer still have no real incentive for their tournament.

Tournaments that have demonstrated bids in my opinion:

a) Fayette County: I’m biased, yes I know. But I will state facts. Every team in Semifinals had reached a TOC bid round or better at a National Tournament. Calhoun reached Ohio Valley Quarters. Grady reached Samford Semis. Marist reached Samford Semis. Mountain Brook had 4 TOC bids. Fayette County used to be the centerfold for Georgia debate – it offered SEVERAL different programs all with great success – but never an All State bid? Is that odd? Again, shouldn’t we incentivize certain areas with bids?

b) Chattahoochee: I’ve been confused about this tournament for years now. It used to easily be the best tournament in the state. Sure registration fees are high, but they always provide great competition. They are in the strongest county and the county needs another bid. Another plus, Chattahoochee doesn’t compete. A problem some schools face is that Chattahoochee “closes out” too many of the above tournaments becasue of sheer numbers. What about create a bid tournament where they can’t attend? That’s mean.. wait – just have it at their school!.

I think I’ve come up with a system that can solve my the above issues and still give tournaments an “incentive to attend.” The solutions involves a two step tier for allocation. We will have certain tournaments with semifinal bids and certain tournaments with finals bids. There are 32 bids in the status quo, so my solution simply redistributes the 32 bids.

Semifinals Bids
Calhoun – North Georgia
Carrollton – Central / West Georgia
Milton – Metro Georgia
Warner Robins – South Georgia

Finals Bids
Cairo – South Georgia
Chattahoochee – Metro Georgia
Fayette County – Central / Metro Georgia
Grady – Metro Georgia
Johns Creek – Metro Georgia
Lincoln County – North / East Georgia
Northside – South Georgia
West Georgia – Central / West Georgia

Bids by Region
South Georgia – 8 bids (12 bids in 08)
Metro Georgia – 12 bids (4 bids in 08)
West Georgia – 6 bids (8 bids in 08)
Central Georgia – 8 bids (8 bids in 08)
North Georgia – 6 bids (8 bids in 08)
East Georgia – 2 bids (4 bids in 08)

It’s a little ridiculous that the strongest region for debate in Georgia has the fewest amount of opportunities for bids. Some will argue this solution will kill debate outside the metro area. I think the answer is two fold – either 1) This is inevitable or 2) We create more opportunities for Metro Area, ie the Metro Area schools would not have to attend southern tournaments for a “bid.” The second answer then feeds back into our original problem. But I think this scenario can better solve for the easy bid tournaments.

I think that the system should be monitored by either a Richard B. Russell All State Committee or the GFCA every two years. After two years, each tournament should be reevaluated to fit the current Georgia debate environment. Another idea is to place tournaments on a probationary status for their tournament – this way they make sure they can make their tournament better to keep the incentives. Tournaments CANNOT keep incentives if they do not deserve them, we must have tournaments on a quid pro quo basis.

I feel an argument against this is that it would cause confusion among coaches if we change the bid levels – but I honestly think we’re just as smart as the national circuit coaches – who change bid levels for TOC tournaments annually. If we had a website and proper communication, no confusion would exist.