2015-16 Tournament Toughness
Thanks to Tim Alderete, coach at The Meadows School, for compiling all this data! This should be of use to debaters and coaches thinking about what tournaments to attend, to tournament directors who want to know how their tournament stacks up, to TOC Committee members for future use in determining bid allocation, and to debate nerds who like lots of data.
Comment below what tournaments you think are the toughest and why! Is it easier to bid at a big national tournament where the top talent is diluted by several hundred competitors or smaller more regional tournaments?
We’ll be releasing these throughout the summer so be sure to check back!
Read Me First
Here are a few notes from Tim Alderete on his work:
1- This is data – ONLY data. I am not making arguments or recommendations based on this data. It can be read several different ways – I am not sending it with a reading, and will DISAVOW any agenda ascribed to me.
2- There are errors. I have double checked it and had it proof read, but I am certain that there are probably still errors, either in math, transcription or attribution. If you find any, tell me and I can correct them. They are not done with malicious intent.
3- None of these metrics are perfect, by themselves. They all tell a part of a story. Even together, the story is incomplete, and sometimes misleading. I have included as many metrics as I can gather data on/have been suggested to me. If you think this contains flawed metrics, please suggest better ones, and be willing to collect and organize them.
Octas Bid Tournaments
Table 1 measures the teams with one or more bids, the percentage of the total pool of entries with one or more bids, the number of bids per entry, the total number of wins all the entries who attended TOC got, and the number of those TOC wins per entry.
| Tournament | Pool | Teams w/ Bid(s) | % of Pool w/ Bids | Total Bids | Bids/Team | All Teams | Wins/Team |
| Apple Valley | 132 | 39 | 0.295 | 109 | 0.825 | 117 | 0.886 |
| Berkeley | 260 | 44 | 0.169 | 141 | 0.542 | 136 | 0.523 |
| Bronx Science | 178 | 39 | 0.219 | 113 | 0.634 | 126 | 0.707 |
| Glenbrooks | 157 | 60 | 0.382 | 171 | 1.089 | 191 | 1.216 |
| Greenhill | 104 | 44 | 0.423 | 144 | 1.384 | 140 | 1.346 |
| Harvard | 322 | 48 | 0.149 | 119 | 0.369 | 123 | 0.381 |
| HWL | 116 | 40 | 0.344 | 132 | 1.137 | 129 | 1.112 |
| St Marks | 99 | 38 | 0.383 | 114 | 1.151 | 99 | 1.001 |
| Valley | 134 | 47 | 0.351 | 110 | 0.821 | 102 | 0.761 |
| Averages: | 166.9 | 44.3333333 | 0.3017 | 128.1111 | 0.8835556 | 129.2222 | 0.8814444 |
Table 2 measures the number of teams that lost in the bid round who also got one or more bids and which teams, if any, got their only bid at that tournament.
| Tournament | Teams w/ Bid(s) that Lost in the Bid Round (BR) | Only Bid Here | |
| Apple Valley | 10 | 0 | |
| Berkeley | 13 | 2 | PV IG, Dougherty CR |
| Bronx Science | 11 | 1 | Bryam SC |
| Glenbrooks | 12 | 0 | |
| Greenhill | 11 | 0 | |
| Harvard | 12 | 3 | Harrison SO; Hawken NK; Hunter NP |
| HWL/VBT | 12 | 3 | Interlake AL; Los Altos JN; Apple Valley GH |
| St Marks | 13 | 1 | Loyola NR |
| Valley | 8 | 1 | Bronx Gmi |
| Averages: | 11.33333333 | 1.222222222 | |
Quarters Bid Tournaments
Table 1 measures the teams with one or more bids, the percentage of the total pool of entries with one or more bids, the number of bids per entry, the total number of wins all the entries who attended TOC got, and the number of those TOC wins per entry.
| Tournament | Pool | Teams w/ Bid(s) | % of Pool w/ Bid(s) | Total Bids | Bids/Team | Total TOC Wins | TOC Wins/Team |
| Blake | 147 | 29 | 0.197 | 64 | 0.435 | 82 | 0.557 |
| College Prep | 112 | 29 | 0.258 | 90 | 0.803 | 73 | 0.651 |
| Cypress Bay | 62 | 10 | 0.161 | 20 | 0.322 | 16 | 0.258 |
| Emory | 86 | 25 | 0.291 | 76 | 0.883 | 76 | 0.883 |
| Lexington | 133 | 39 | 0.293 | 124 | 0.932 | 115 | 0.864 |
| Meadows | 75 | 27 | 0.359 | 78 | 1.039 | 64 | 0.852 |
| Presentation | 99 | 24 | 0.242 | 63 | 0.636 | 58 | 0.585 |
| Stanford | 168 | 25 | 0.148 | 82 | 0.488 | 74 | 0.441 |
| Sunvitational | 105 | 18 | 0.171 | 59 | 0.561 | 49 | 0.466 |
| Yale | 164 | 26 | 0.158 | 55 | 0.335 | 72 | 0.439 |
| Averages: | 115.1 | 25.2 | 0.2278 | 71.1 | 0.6434 | 67.9 | 0.5996 |
Table 2 measures the number of teams that lost in the bid round who also got one or more bids, the number of bids those entries had, the number of TOC wins of those losing in the bid round who attended TOC, and which teams, if any, got their only bid at that tournament.
| Tournament | Teams w/ Bid(s) that Lost in the Bid Round | # Teams w/ Bid(s) Losing in BR | # Bids of Teams Losing in BR | # TOC Wins Losing in BR | Only Bid Here | Total |
| Blake | Scarsdale RG; Bronx ID; Hopkins SG; Evnston CT; Roosevelt EW; Valley GS; Lex. DA; Greenhill VA | 8 | 25 | 28 | Apple Valley PH; Bronx Science DR; J. Graham Brown BD | 3 |
| College Prep | Brentwood JC; PVP JZ; Harker KQ; LAMP RR; Miramonte AB; Brentwood JL | 6 | 19 | 17 | Brentwood JR | 1 |
| Cypress Bay | Byram Hills PE; Lake Highland MC; Hawken NK | 3 | 4 | 4 | Univ. SK; Dowling CK; Univ. AF; Univ. JR; Univ. KC; Winter Springs JL | 6 |
| Emory | HWL CC; Valley TG; Bronx GM; Hawken NK; University JR; Kinkaid TG; Harker PR; Bronx ID | 8 | 19 | 23 | 0 | |
| Lexington | Oxbridge NV; HWL CC; Scarsdale MB; Scarsdale RG; Bronx GM; Sacred Heart AT; Byram Hills AJ | 7 | 25 | 34 | Walt Whitman LK | 1 |
| Meadows | Loyola NR; Greenhill GB; Kinkaid TG; Oakwood JW; LaCanada AZ; Torrey Pines AI; Torrey Pines SS | 7 | 15 | 21 | Peninsula JL; Torrey Pines SS | 2 |
| Presentation | Oakwood JW; Marlborough AG; Miramonte TK; MSJ AB; LaCanada AZ; HWL CC | 6 | 16 | 18 | Harker KQ; Torrey Pines AI | 2 |
| Stanford | LaCanada AZ; Miramonte TK; Hawken NK; Oakwood JW; PVP JL; Interlake AL; Lynbrook DW | 7 | 13 | 18 | 0 | |
| Sunvitational | Strake AlT; Roosevelt EW; Law Magnet DD; Oxbridge NV; Scarsdale RG | 5 | 12 | 12 | 0 | |
| Yale | Hawken NK; Bronx ID; Valley GS; Scarsdale RG; Lexington AS | 5 | 14 | 16 | Princeton DE | 1 |
| Averages: | 6.2 | 16.2 | 19.1 | 1.6 |
Semis Bid Tournaments
Table 1 measures the teams with one or more bids, the percentage of the total pool of entries with one or more bids, the number of bids per entry, the total number of wins all the entries who attended TOC got, and the number of those TOC wins per entry.
| Tournament | Pool | Teams w/ Bid(s) | % of Pool w/ Bid(s) | Total Bids | Bids/Team | Total TOC Wins | TOC Wins/Team |
| Beltway Classic | 71 | 7 | 0.098 | 19 | 0.267 | 17 | 0.239 |
| Dowling Catholic | 48 | 8 | 0.166 | 14 | 0.291 | 22 | 0.458 |
| Golden Desert | 122 | 19 | 0.155 | 39 | 0.319 | 32 | 0.262 |
| Grapevine | 111 | 23 | 0.207 | 57 | 0.513 | 49 | 0.441 |
| Hendrick Hudson | 83 | 12 | 0.144 | 33 | 0.397 | 36 | 0.433 |
| Houston Memorial | 79 | 16 | 0.202 | 42 | 0.531 | 46 | 0.582 |
| Iowa Caucus | 44 | 7 | 0.159 | 11 | 0.251 | 13 | 0.295 |
| Isidore Newman | 38 | 8 | 0.211 | 29 | 0.763 | 25 | 0.657 |
| Loyola | 73 | 22 | 0.301 | 78 | 1.012 | 64 | 0.831 |
| Princeton | 122 | 10 | 0.081 | 20 | 0.163 | 22 | 0.181 |
| Strake Jesuit | 58 | 14 | 0.241 | 28 | 0.482 | 17 | 0.293 |
| Puget Sound | 47 | 8 | 0.171 | 12 | 0.255 | 7 | 0.148 |
| USC | 29 | 13 | 0.448 | 42 | 1.448 | 28 | 0.965 |
| Univ of Texas | 147 | 15 | 0.102 | 34 | 0.231 | 35 | 0.238 |
| Averages: | 76.57 | 13 | 0.1919 | 32.71429 | 0.4945 | 29.5 | 0.4302143 |
Table 2 measures the number of teams that lost in the bid round who also got one or more bids, the number of bids those entries had, the number of TOC wins of those losing in the bid round who attended TOC, and which teams, if any, got their only bid at that tournament.
| Tournament | Teams w/ Bid(s) that Lost in the Bid Round (BR) | # Teams w/ Bid(s) Losing in BR | # Bids of Teams Losing in BR | # TOC Wins Losing in BR | Only Bid Here | Total |
| Beltway Classic | Harrison KK | 1 | 4 | 3 | 0 | |
| Dowling Catholic | Evanston JS; Valley TG; Valley GS | 3 | 5 | 10 | Oxbridge NV | 1 |
| Golden Desert | Torrey Pines KK; Logan CS; JMHS DD; Harker KQ | 4 | 12 | 6 | 0 | |
| Grapevine | Strake AlT; Greenhill BE; Calhoun Home AC | 3 | 12 | 9 | Marcus LH | 1 |
| Hendrick Hudson | Harrison KK; Hunter College BL | 2 | 7 | 6 | 0 | |
| Houston Memorial | Strake JZ; Dulles KS | 2 | 5 | 4 | 0 | |
| Iowa Caucus | Valley GS; DesMoines Catholic CK | 2 | 3 | 5 | Barrington SN; WDM Valley TG | 2 |
| Isidore Newman | Calhoun Home AC; Greenhill GB | 2 | 6 | 8 | 0 | |
| Loyola | Miramonte TK; Torrey Pines VB; Lynbrook DW; HWL NS; (+12 bid teams lost before the BR) | 4 | 22 | 15 | 0 | |
| Princeton | none | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Strake Jesuit | Kinkaid TG; Marcus LH | 2 | 4 | 5 | Cypress Falls KS; Law Magnet DD | 2 |
| Puget Sound | Centennial ZM | 1 | 1 | 0 | Sprague CG | 1 |
| USC | Torrey Pines SS; JMHS DD; Loyola NR | 3 | 8 | 3 | La Canada AZ | 1 |
| Univ of Texas | KatyTaylor NY; Dulles KS; Woodlands AC | 3 | 8 | 10 | Westwood SaN | 1 |
| Averages | 2.285714286 | 6.928571429 | 6 | 0.6 |
Finals Bid Tournaments
Table 1 measures the teams with one or more bids, the percentage of the total pool of entries with one or more bids, the number of bids per entry, the total number of wins all the entries who attended TOC got, and the number of those TOC wins per entry.
| Tournament | Pool | Teams w/ Bid(s) | % of Pool w/ Bid(s) | Total Bids | Bids/Team | Total TOC Wins | TOC Wins/Team |
| Central Valley | 45 | 3 | 0.066 | 3 | 0.066 | 0 | 0 |
| Colleyville Heritage | 63 | 11 | 0.174 | 24 | 0.381 | 12 | 0.191 |
| Columbia | 74 | 6 | 0.081 | 17 | 0.229 | 19 | 0.256 |
| Federal Way | 28 | 2 | 0.071 | 5 | 0.178 | 3 | 0.103 |
| Florida Blue Key | 65 | 3 | 0.046 | 5 | 0.076 | 3 | 0.046 |
| Harvard Westlake | 53 | 9 | 0.169 | 22 | 0.415 | 20 | 0.377 |
| Myers Park | 77 | 6 | 0.077 | 8 | 0.103 | 3 | 0.038 |
| Newark | 83 | 10 | 0.121 | 18 | 0.216 | 18 | 0.216 |
| Omaha Westside | 32 | 4 | 0.125 | 7 | 0.218 | 14 | 0.437 |
| Ridge | 83 | 8 | 0.096 | 18 | 0.216 | 21 | 0.253 |
| St James | 20 | 3 | 0.151 | 3 | 0.151 | 0 | 0 |
| Scarsdale | 63 | 10 | 0.158 | 23 | 0.365 | 25 | 0.396 |
| SWSDI @ Mesquite | 45 | 3 | 0.066 | 4 | 0.088 | 3 | 0.066 |
| UPenn | 60 | 5 | 0.083 | 5 | 0.083 | 3 | 0.051 |
| Vestavia Hills | NO INFO | ||||||
| Wake Forest | NO INFO | ||||||
| Whitman College | 31 | 4 | 0.129 | 7 | 0.225 | 3 | 0.096 |
| Winston Churchill | 54 | 5 | 0.092 | 13 | 0.241 | 13 | 0.241 |
| Averages: | 54.75 | 5.75 | 0.1066 | 11.375 | 0.2031875 | 10 | 0.1729375 |
Table 2 measures the number of teams that lost in the bid round who also got one or more bids, the number of bids those entries had, the number of TOC wins of those losing in the bid round who attended TOC, and which teams, if any, got their only bid at that tournament.
| Tournament | Teams w/ Bid(s) that Lost in the Bid Round (BR) | # Teams w/ Bid(s) Losing in BR | # Bids of Teams Losing in BR | # TOC Wins Losing in BR | Only Bid Here | Total |
| Central Valley | Bainbridge JM | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Colleyville Heritage | FMHS JS* | 1 | 1 | 0 | FMHS JS | 1 |
| Columbia | Byram Hills AJ; Byram Hills PE | 2 | 3 | 5 | 0 | |
| Federal Way | none | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Florida Blue Key | Warm Springs JL | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Harvard Westlake | PVP JZ; Oakwood JW | 2 | 5 | 9 | 0 | |
| Myers Park | Southside RR | 1 | 1 | 0 | Southside RR | 1 |
| Newark | JGrahamBrown BD | 1 | 1 | 3 | Byram Hills PE | 1 |
| Omaha Westside | none | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Ridge | Byram Hills PE | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| St James | CANNOT FIND RESULTS | HWG WT* HWG LM | 2 | |||
| Scarsdale | Bronx DR | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |
| SWSDI @ Mesquite | Brophy MC | 1 | 1 | 0 | Brophy MC Brophy SP | 2 |
| U Penn | none | 0 | 0 | 0 | FMHS AA FMHS AZ FMHS JT | 3 |
| Vestavia Hills | CANNOT FIND RESULTS | 0 | ||||
| Wake Forest | CANNOT FIND RESULTS | North Allegheny GR | 1 | |||
| Whitman College | Eastside Catholic TD | 1 | 4 | 3 | Centennial ZM; Lincoln BY | 2 |
| Winston Churchill | none | 0 | 0 | 0 | Adam Calhoun AC | 1 |
| Averages | 0.5 | 2 | 1.5 | 0.8 |
*FMHS = Flower Mound
*HWG = Henry W. Grady
4 Comments
One of the stats is inaccurate for the finals bid tournaments. I (Dino De La O from Law Magnet) lost in the bid round at Colleyville as well while already obtaining a bid. Theres two online results (result packet and warm room) that show contradictory results, but Law Magnet DD advanced and lost in semis.
Apologies – I used the data from the Warm Room, that had Hockaday advancing to semis.
Just a random thought perhaps unrelated to the article, but maybe we should consider only giving tournaments a finals bid status as a temporary one-year standing to test the waters with new tournaments. To use Loyola as an example, they would’ve passed this test having been upgraded to semi’s status after showing promise as a finals bid. It seems like the tournaments perpetually stuck at the finals bid level are usually just lay tournaments, which is somewhat of a waste since they’re hardly enough justification for top circuit debaters and judges to travel to them. And since this would open up more bids to upgrade tournaments to semis or quarters bid levels, those upgraded tournaments would greatly improve because more bids generally attract better competition and judging.
So for instance, Washington, North Carolina, Texas, and Alabama all have two finals bid tournaments. Why have two primarily lay tournaments for each state when each state could have one semi’s bid that fosters genuine circuit competition?
I don’t necessarily disagree, but I think part of the reasoning is it should be possible for a competitor to get two bids in state. You can’t qual from a single semis bid no matter how good you are, but you can from getting to finals twice or finals once and get a ghost bid.
That seems like a unique reason to have 2 finals bids at least in alabama and washington. Texas has other bid tournaments, maybe you could consolidate federal way and central valley so that washington had 2 semis bids but idk if having 2 opportunities at 4 possible bid slots is better than 1 at 4 and 2 at 2.
Based on this data you had a 4/47 at puget sound (around 8.5%), 2/28 (7.1%) at federal way, and 2/31 (6.4%) at whitman. your rough and abstract odds are 0.6% to bid at UPS + FW but obviously this would change with skill. Given totally random results (perhaps the noise we associate with lay judging) a competitor has less than 1% chance of qualifying to toc attending just in-state tourneys in WA. Let’s be generous and say the combined federal whitman or whit-way tournament would draw the same as UPS. That gives you around a 0.7% chance but miss once and you’re done. Miss once with 3 tournaments and you have basically the same difficulty of task ahead of you but you get one do-over (I’d imagine all probabilities under .01 are about the same at this tiny size of sample).
My math is probably wrong but if I’m a coach or competitor I want 3 chances instead of 2 chances with a negligible increase in my chances (maybe a decrease based on strength of competition). Ideally everyone should have bids from outside their state to prove they can hang but no one ever side eyes ppl who exclusively qual off cali bids.