• « Previous Entries

one by one - posts from

A Numbers Game

• 01.26.10
  RKS scale not dramatically increasing predictive accuracy
  A Numbers Game Comments Off

  If moving to the Ross K. Smith 100-point scale increases the accuracy of speaker points, and if speaker points accurately reflect a team's abilities, we might expect that the scale change would help speaker points predict future winners. To my surprise, there is not a dramatic increase in the predictive accuracy of speaker points in the three large tournaments that moved to the new scale while maintaining the same number of teams and preliminary rounds. I used the following model: Predictions are made for rounds five and later, using at least the first four preliminary rounds. The model makes no prediction ...
  
  
• 11.08.09
  RKS scale not dramatically increasing predictive accuracy
  A Numbers Game (0)

  If moving to the Ross K. Smith 100-point scale increases the accuracy of speaker points, and if speaker points accurately reflect a team's abilities, we might expect that the scale change would help speaker points predict future winners. To my surprise, there is not a dramatic increase in the predictive accuracy of speaker points in the three large tournaments that moved to the new scale while maintaining the same number of teams and preliminary rounds. I used the following model: Predictions are made for rounds five and later, using at least the first four preliminary rounds. The model makes no prediction ...
  
  
• 11.04.09
  RKS translation at Harvard
  A Numbers Game (0)

  The Harvard tournament this year had a very explicit and very simple translation from the 30-point scale to the 100-point (or Ross K. Smith) scale. Using the results packet, we can see how the judging pool interpreted the RKS scale:
  
  
• 10.11.09
  The Ross K. Smith scale and standards
  A Numbers Game (0)

  (Click here for more on speaker point scale changes) Judge scale variation In a post on edebate (mirror, mirror), Brian DeLong suggests that tournaments adopting the 100-point (RKS) scale provide an interpretation of the scale to judges to make sure points are allocated fairly. His motivation is based partially on a discrepancy he saw between judges in the Kentucky results from this year (mirror): "Some people are on this 87=average boat, while others place average at around 78-80ish". Here is a chart of the average points given out by judges at Kentucky this year:
  
  
• 09.11.09
  Topic side bias
  A Numbers Game (0)

  Every summer there is discussion about the side bias of prospective controversy areas and resolutions. Using the data from DebateResults.com, we can see what side bias past resolutions have exhibited. Under the Bradley-Terry model, the energy, China, and security guarantee topics had small, yet highly statistically significant (p < .001), negative bias. The other three topics show no statistically significant bias either way. The BT model suggests that the largest topic side bias in the past six years was 12.4%, on the energy topic. With a 12.4% neg bias, in an otherwise evenly matched round, the neg has a 52.9% chance of ...
  
  
• 07.28.09
  Update on speaker point scales
  A Numbers Game (0)

  In response to a question from cross-x.com, I checked to see if the point distributions are any smoother for teams that might clear. It turns out that they aren't, except to the extent that the distributions have a narrower range:
  
  
• 07.23.09
  Changing the speaker point scale
  A Numbers Game (0)

  The Georgia State tournament is moving to a 100-point speaker point scale next year. This will make them the third large [N.B.] tournament to use a non-standard scale. I have put up some charts of how changing the scale affected point distributions at Wake and USC. As you might expect, the number of distinct speaker points per round and per speaker both increased. On the other hand, judges didn't use the whole range of points. At Wake (100-point scale), points clustered around multiples of 5. At USC (30-point scale, finer granularity), points clustered around the old half-point scale. Are any other tournament ...
  
  
• 05.13.09
  CEDA Nationals vs NDT attendance
  A Numbers Game (0)

  I have put up some charts about CEDA Nats vs. NDT attendance. The summary: There was a sharp drop off in CEDA Nats attendance in 2009. Some coaches have suggested this was due to its placement in Pocatello, Idaho. From 2004-2008, 57% of CEDA Nats competitors debated almost exclusively in the open division at other tournaments the year in question. CEDA Nats 2009 had a novice breakout, but we won't be able to see if or how attendance changed until Bruschke's 2008-2009 database dump comes out. Even then, any analysis will have to contend with the decreased total attendance. Fewer than half of NDT ...
  
  
• 05.07.09
  Hybrid teams
  A Numbers Game (0)

  Liz Kim suggested that hybrid teams be allowed to debate at the NDT. I was curious about the number and nature of hybrid teams. Sample: All teams: Hybrid teams: Summary: In the average year, about 6% of debaters participate in a hybrid team. 23% of these only debate on hybrid teams. 50% of tournaments have some hybrid entries, but those tournaments generate 58% of the ballots. In addition to the charts, the raw data is also available.
  
  
• 05.03.09
  Charts of tournament win-loss networks
  A Numbers Game (0)

  I have posted charts showing win-loss networks of college tournaments from 2003 through 2008. Click on any image to view a full-sized version. You can browse through or download the charts and the source code used to create them.
  
  

• « Previous Entries

Using links provided by our partner Colloquy, this is the most comprehensive search for speech and debate on the internet.

recent posts

• Portland State Debate About to Lose Funding
• Vanderbilt Wins USA ADA Policy Nationals
• Woodward Novice Nationals to Give Disclosure Awards
• TOC 2010: Who Registered?
• TOC 2010: Who’s Applying At-Large?
• USA Pulls Ahead in Montgomery Cup UK Competition
• CEDA Nationals Update