Best Invitational of 03-04

[Arpan]

I wanted to initiate this discussion for several reasons. First, since the year is over and we all have an adequate opportunity to look back and judge how the year went, we can appreciate which tournament experiences worked, and which ones did not.  Second, I perused the Tournament threads, and wasn't able to find a thread of this nature, which is really a shame.   Finally, it'd probably help all programs in deciding which tournaments to go to, in terms of finding a tournament that suits their level.

So, in terms of the invites you've been to this year:
1. Which invite was the best run (in terms of e.g. time management, tab rooms, awards, etc.)?
2. Which invite prepared you the best for regionals/nationals?
3. Which invite had the highest caliber of teams?
4. Which invite had the best format (ranking,  challenges, etc.)

My vote goes to Rhodes' Blues City Challenge. Top-flight competition. Very cleanly run. Use of courthouses all throughout. First round challenge format was novel and fun. I also liked the fact that it ran during Christmas break, which allowed us to actually go.

(Sorry if i left some invites out ... the computer told me that poll had too many options.   )

[Big Dave]

What?  Mac isn't on here?

[crialkilru]

I voted for the Columbia invitational, for obvious reasons.

That said, the best invitational we went to outside of the city would have to be Rhodes.  The courthouse in Memphis was very nice, there was excellent competition (we hit Bellarmine, UCLA, Rhodes, and Miami-OH--and if we had hit those four teams over the course of the SEASON we would have been more than happy), the challenge format was well-run and the judging pool was excellent.

Coming in a close--very close--second is the Shucker. Kris, Beau, et. al always do an awesome job putting that tournament together.  It's fantastic early on in the year to get coach judging, and they do a wonderful job of putting it together and ensuring good facilities for each round.  Everything is run on time, which is a huge plus.  I also have to give them props for having the guts to try out something new this year--the fourth round side constraint waiver--which I LOVE since it really does help to determine a true champion.  I of course would love to see a challenge round at the Shucker because I love them, but they do a fine job nonetheless.

I didn't get to go to them this year, but Bellarmine and Northwestern are also fantastic invitationals.  Bellarmine was my first-ever tournament and it had an amazing field and amazing facilities.  I really learned a lot from that one weekend and had a lot of fun doing it.  Northwestern is also a fantastic tournament--the courthouse is wonderful and it always seems to run without a hitch.

Out of curiosity, will all invites be staying the same next year, or are any tournaments considering switching dates/hosts?  I've heard some rumors but nothing substantial . . .

[TenaciousDRB]

Rhodes.  Courthouses, challenge round, and the most concentrated group of contenders anywhere (including in Des Moines).

[Try This]

The cross section of the top teams from across the country represented at the Rhodes tournament is unmatched.  They maintain as strong standards as to the teams allowed and limit the number of teams so every round is a strong, tough round.

[Mock Captain]

I fear this thread will be more of a popularity contest.  How can I consider voting for the MTSU or Columbia Invites (for example), if I have not been there?  I can only vote for Yale, or Brown.  (Which by the way, Brown has my vote).  
I am willing to bet that the "winner" here will be the invite with the most # of teams at it...and the most # represented here on P.com.

Bottom Line:  There should be no poll....just a discussion on why it was a good tourney.

Nuff Said.

Hicks

[The Mind Of Spinoza]

As always, I was a big fan of Loras this year.  Especially since we got to hit those delightful mockers from Kansas.  

However, I think the rounds in the library stacks significantly detracts from the experience, especially when it involves arguing with people from another round about which way "East" is...

[madisongirlie]

I picked northwestern as the best tournament we went to this year. I loved the courtrooms, felt most of the judging was really strong, and in general we hit decent squads. Additionally, it ran on schedule and the information provided by those running the tournament was helpful (for hotels, eating, directions, etc). Admittedly, the challenge round at loras was fun and I'd love to see more tournaments do it, but it's not enough to boost Loras to overall best.

[Jaggers27]

Notre Dame only went to two tournamnets this year, and of the two I would have to say that Northwestern was the better.  However, me voting for Northwestern simply on this basis seems to overlook the fantastically competetive fields at the Shucker, MTSU, Rhodes, and others.  If anyone is interested, I have a link to a spreadsheet I complied to use with individual awards, listing the amount of power bid points by invitational.  If two invitationals took place on the same date, they will be highlighted on the spreadsheet in the same color, and the bonus bid points for that school will be divided up proportionately by the amount of teams that school sent to the particular tournament.  Enjoy!

http://www.nd.edu/~manders8/Power%20Bids%20by%20Invitational.xls

Oh, I also have to give some props to Columbia for having the best tab summaries ever created.  Hopefully other invitationals are taking notes.

[Golden Skull]

Notre Dame only went to two tournamnets this year, and of the two I would have to say that Northwestern was the better.  

Northwestern was great, but there really wasn't any competition for that distinction.

[cute centered taxi]

Yeah, I'm gonna write in Mac. We didn't go to any of the other ones, and Mac was the best we did make it to.

And bless Dick's heart for making sure awards start at least on time if not earlier, and getting us the hell out of there.

[SalB918]

I also have to give them props for having the guts to try out something new this year--the fourth round side constraint waiver--which I LOVE since it really does help to determine a true champion.  

When I pointed this out on the "beating the side constraint horse" thread I was crucified by Columbians.  What gives?

[crialkilru]

I've quoted my post from that thread below:

I don't find Sal's comments offensive--I just think it's ridiculous to say we have an asterisk.  What about all the other teams in tiebreakers--does the one who came out on the top of the tiebreaker get an asterisk as well?  The system is set up a certain way, and we won within that system.  No asterisk is necessary, or even called for.
 
 But I will say that I have no doubts that Berkeley is a great team, and we would have loved to face them in the fourth round.                                                        

First of all, you were not crucified.  People from our program expressed displeasure over your assertion that our Baker championship was somehow tarnished.  If you read my post, you'll see that I in fact expressed a desire to face you in the final round.  You in turn pointed out that you made this impossible by side-constraining yourselves against us in the third round.

I like the waiver of fourth-round idea in theory.  But in practice, there is an inherent value to both sides going twice.  I'm still sort of on the fence about this one.  

Bottom line, we would have liked to face you in the fourth round.  The suggestion offered instead, that we have another round during awards, was ludicrous--it would have put either of us at an unfair disadvantage against UCLA.  What was my point?  That the system we all play by determined that we won the tiebreaker, and that to suggest that there was an asterisk on our record was annoying.  That was what I took offense to--and to the extent that you were "crucified" that's what I was referring to.

[BeFortunesFool]

Hey, this is embarassing, but which was the tournament in Missouri?  We just called it "Missouri" all year.

[The Gelf]

As Hicks noted, it's kind of silly to vote for "best invitational" when most people here didn't attend all the invitationals on the list.  I think a somewhat more constructive activity might be to post the attributes of invitationals we did attend that should be retained and copied.  

I have mixed feelings about nixing the side constraints in the fourth round.  While this initially seemed appealing (which is I have a post supporting it) to determine a "true" champion, is a team really a "true" champion if it did not have to compete twice on both sides like all the other teams did?