ESSDC Squared

Grid Explanation

 Saad Bin Amjad
Tournament Advisor
ESSDC Squared: BSDC 2012

The WSDC Grid is based on the idea that it “simplifies the process of the random draw” and “ensures balance across various important aspects of the draw”. In simple terms, “the Grid allows the draw to be random while also ensuring a basic equality in various dimensions of the draw." Now for the BSDC 2012 Grid I tried to implement and maintain those key features of the WSDC Grid.

Randomness:
For BSDC, we have 16 teams that were split into 4 groups based on the Pre-Tourney Rankings. Group A now will have the top 4 teams but not necessarily MAD is A1, since it would be an over the hat draw to see who, becomes A1 from the four teams.

Balance across opponent quality:
We have modified the basic WSDC structure, so that each team will have slightly more debates against other teams of their own standard; we think that this is important to improve, value of BSDC as a learning experience. Therefore, each team will debate with all of their group members once, so that they would be
facing the teams similar to their strengths.

Across Pools:
Furthermore, debates would also be across pools, where each team would then debate with 2 teams from adjacent group (e.g. A with 2 Bs, C with 2Ds) and 1 team from the last two groups. So far we have 7 rounds of debate, with one debate left.

Joint balance across Proposition and Opposition and across prepared and impromptu:  In the last round (not necessarily 8th), we randomly pitted them in such a way that every team have debates in 4 Prop and 4 Opp positions and 4 Impromptu and 4 Prepped motions.  But it results one team to debate with 2 strong and 2 weak OR 3 strong or 1 weak, but it was thus made into a prep round (ie Round 5) to even this out.

To make a grid with 16 teams is difficult. We are open to feedback about this grid and after this tournament is done, if changes are required, we all sit and discuss and have a new grid next year.

Thanks a ton to Simon Quinn, who was kind enough to guide through the process of the rankings, came up with the methodology and finally guided the process of making the grid for the tournament.

  Groupings

1.  The rankings are based on the local school tournaments of the past year, i.e 2011.
2. Only those tournaments that maintained an electronic tab were taken into consideration.
3. The results of the preliminary rounds were taken, not the performances of the break rounds.
4. When multiple teams from the same school participated in one championship, the result of the best team was taken. (i.e the team which have highest number of wins in that tournament amongst the other teams of the same school. For example, MAD 3 had 4 wins and MAD 1 with 1 and MAD 2 with 3 wins in one single tournament, the result of MAD 3 was taken for this rankings..)
5. The teams were sorted first by win (largest to smallest) and then by rounds (largest to smallest) so as to take participation into account.

The registered teams are first sorted according to the Pre-Tournament Rankings:

1. MAD
2. MLIS
3. ESS
4. ADC
5. DT
6. SIS
7. SD
8. AKS
9. SRU
10. JDC
11. UT
12. VNS
13. SF
14. RAJUK
15. BIS
16. Swing Team (With no breaking status)

Then they are sorted into 4 groups:

After they are sorted into groups, there would be an “over-the-hat draw” so to decide each team position in the group. For example, Team BD may be A4 or A3 or A2 or A1.

 

The ‘over the hat draw’ results, that was held on 28^th August:

Group A	Group B	Group C	Group D
A1- MAD	B1- SIS	C1- UT	D1-SFDC
A2- MLIS	B2- SD	C2- SRU	D2-Swing
A3- ESS	B3- DT	C3- JDC	D3-RCDC
A4- ADC	B4- AKS	C4- VNSC	D4-BIS

TEAM CODE	PROPOSITION TEAM	OPPOSITION TEAM	VENUE
A1 vs B1	MAD	SIS
C1 vs D1	UT	SFDC
A2 vs B2	MLIS	SD
C2 vs D2	SRU	SWING
A3 vs B3	ESS	DT
C3 vs D3	JDC	RCDC
A4 vs B4	ADC	AKS
C4 vs D4	VNSC	BIS

TEAM CODE	PROPOSITION TEAM	OPPOSITION TEAM	VENUE
A1 vs A2	MAD	MLIS
A3 vs A4	ESS	ADC
B1 vs B2	SIS	SD
B3 vs B4	DT	AKS
C1 vs C2	UT	SRU
C3 vs C4	JDC	VNSC
D1 vs D2	SFDC	SWING
D3 vs D4	RCDC	BIS

TEAMCODE		PROPOSITION TEAM			OPPOSITION TEAM			VENUE
A1 vs C2		MAD			SRU
A2 vs C1		MLIS			UT
A3 vs C4		ESS			VNSC
A4 vs C3		ADC			JDC
B1 vs D2		SIS			SWING
B2 vs D1		SD			SFDC
B3 vs D4		DT			BIS
B4 vs D3		AKS			RCDC

TEAM CODE			PROPOSITION TEAM			OPPOSITION TEAM		VENUE
A1 vs A4			MAD			ADC
A2 vs A3			MLIS			ESS
B1 vs B4			SIS			AKS
B2 vs B3			SD			DT
C1 vs C4			UT			VNSC
C2 vs C3			SRU			JDC
D1 vs D4			SFDC			BIS
D2 vs D3			SWING			RCDC

TEAM CODE	PROPOSITION TEAM	OPPOSITION TEAM	VENUE
B2 vs A1	SD	MAD
B4 vs A2	AKS	MLIS
B1 vs A3	SIS	ESS
B3 vs A4	DT	ADC
D2 vs C1	SWING	UT
D4 vs C2	BIS	SRU
D1 vs C3	SFDC	JDC
D3 vs C4	RCDC	VNSC

TEAM CODE	PROPOSITION TEAM	OPPOSITION TEAM	VENUE
A2 vs B1	MLIS	SIS
A4 vs D3	ADC	RCDC
B2 vs C1	SD	UT
B4 vs A3	AKS	ESS
C2 vs D1	SRU	SFDC
C4 vs B3	VNSC	DT
D2 vs A1	SWING	MAD
D4 vs C3	BIS	JDC

TEAM CODE			PROPOSITION TEAM			OPPOSITION TEAM		VENUE
D1 vs A1			SFDC			MAD
C1  vs B1			UT			SIS
D2 vs A2			SWING			MLIS
C2 vs B2			SRU			SD
D3 vs A3			RCDC			ESS
C3 vs B3			JDC			DT
D4 vs A4			BIS			ADC
C4 vs B4			VNSC			AKS

Round 8 – Prepared Debate

TEAM CODE		PROPOSITION TEAM			OPPOSITION TEAM			VENUE
A3 vs A1		ESS			MAD
A4 vs A2		ADC			MLIS
B3 vs B1		DT			SIS
B4 vs B2		AKS			SD
C3 vs C1		JDC			UT
C4 vs C2		VNSC			SRU
D3 vs D1		RCDC			SFDC
D4 vs D2		BIS			SWING