Polar Bear Invitational @ Ohio Northern University

[murraymocker]

The team have been announced. They are:

Ball State
Bowling Green State
Cal Poly Pomona
Case Western University
Eastern Michigan
Kenyon College
Loyola University
Miami of Ohio
Michigan State
Murray State University
Notre Dame
Ohio Northern
St. Bonaventure
St. Francis
St. Vincent
Cincinnati
Dayton
University of Illinois-Chicago
Dayton
University of Michigan
Western Kentucky
Western Michigan

For those of you who have done this for several years and seen lots of teams, do any of these teams stick out, and should be favored to carry the weekend?

[UMCane*GWB]

No way to answer that question without knowing what teams within each of the programs are being sent. There used to be a day when even the D team of a school like Miami Ohio could be considered a favorite to win a tourney like that, but those days are mostly gone.

[mtaddict]

does anyone know what St. Vincent that is?  Where they are from?

looks like a fun field though.

[arcticlawyer]

*FYI*  I am an individual and in no way are my posts the opinion of my team, program or school so anything posted is directly from me and no one else.

From what I remember the St. Vincents team is from Latrobe PA

Also the field from the team numbers submitted by the schools consists of mainly top teams. Miami OH is sending their fourth team, ND is sending their second and third teams, Cinci is sending either their second or third I believe, but the rest from the numbers we got are the top teams including Michigan which Murray seems to have forgot from the list.

The current weather on the tundra for those interested is Snowy and windy with a windchill of 0. Forecast for this weekend is  15 on Fri. night, 5 on Sat., and 11 on Sun. with 30% chance of snow the whole weekend. And I would expect wind the entire weekend as well so pack warm if you are headed this way.

I believe that this weekend should be very enjoyable and a good tuneup for your programs no matter the skill level with there being a mix of top teams and "baby" teams. My adviser has worked hard to put this tournament together and contacted 190 lawyers in the surrounding counties to judge as well as asking all of us in the program to ask locally while home on break so if coaches are needed it will not be for a lack of trying. I am looking forward to having everyone here to compete and hope you all have a great weekend and safe drive here and back before and afterwards.

 

[tylerperryisguilty]

(Unofficial) Results:
1. 525 Michigan 8-0
2. 372 St. Francis 7-1
3. 349 Illinois-Chicago 6-2 +19 (won tiebreaker)
4. 834 Murray State 6-2 +19
5. 495 Loyola 6-2 +15.5
6. 386 Eastern Michigan 5.5-2.5 +14.5
7. 992 Miami-Ohio 5.5-2.5 +13
8. 314 Case Western 5-3 +21.5
9. 507 Bowling Green 5-3 +19
10. 494 Loyola 5-3 +18.5 (won tiebreaker)
11. 524 Michigan 5-3 +18.5
12. 448 Ohio Northern 5-3 +18
13. 536 W. Michigan 5-3 +13.5
14. 509 Bowling Green 5-3 +12.5

Cal Poly won Spirit of AMTA

[Glassplate]

Will be interesting to see the final posted results. Lots of ties and a very interesting field.

Update-

Sheet is out
http://www.collegemocktrial.org/mock/tab_invitationals/ohio_northern_2008-108.doc

[Excited Utterance!]

This was a very well-run and competitve tournament. As the tab summary indicates, performances were all-over the board. Congrats to all teams, and thanks to ONU for running such a great tournament!

POLAR BEAR INVITATIONAL MOCK TRIAL TOURNAMENT
JANUARY 19-20, 2008
TAB SUMMARY


UNIVERSITY             R 1    R 2       R 3        R 4       TOTAL

Ball State                P. v 691     D. v 509     D. v 927     P. v 387     1-6-1
Team 474                  T     L          L      L        L     W        L     L         (-69)
                               0     -6        -11   -26     -5    +1      -12  -10

Bowling Green        D. v 495     P. v 524     D. v 494     P. v 449     5-3   
Team 507               L     W         W     L       L     W        W     W       (+24)
                              -25  +10     +2     -12   -1    +5       +30  +15

Bowling Green        D. v 891     P. v 495     P. v 691     D. v 834     3-4-1
Team 508               T     W        W     L        W     L        L     L           (-8)
                               0    +7       +5    -5       +14  -4     -3    -12

Bowling Green       D. v 702     P. v 474     D. v 544     P. v 386      5-3
Team 509              L     W        W     W       L     W        W     L        (+53)
                             -16   +28    +11  +26   -1    +4       +3    -2

Butler                    P. v 387     D. v 691     P. v 509     D. v 348      4-3-1
Team 544              W     T        L     W       W     L        L       W        (-14)
                             +3     0       -1    +6      +1    -4      -20    +1

Cal Poly                 P. v 690     D. v 386     D. v 992     P. v 927     1-6-1
Team 590              W     T        L        L       L      L         L     L          (-77)
                             +6     0       -27   -12    -20   -14     -8    -2

Case Western      D. v 524     P. v 927     D. v 536      P. v 525      5-3
Team 314             W     L        W     W       W     W       L     L         (+38)
                            +11   -1      +8    +17    +7    +2      -1    -5

Case Western      D. v 992     P. v 548     D. v 386     P. v 372      4-3-1   
Team 315             W     T        W     W       L     W        L      L          (-9)
                            +7    0        +7    +19    -14  +1      -15  -14

Eastern                D. v 927     P. v 590     P. v 315     D. v 509      5-2-1
Michigan               T     W        W    W       W     L        L      W          (+56)
Team 386             0     +5      +27  +12    +14  -1      -3     -2   

Eastern                D. v 544     P. v 992     P. v 495     D. v 474      3-4-1
Michigan               L     T         W     L        L     L          W     W        (+2)
Team 387            -3    0         +12  -13    -8    -8         +12  +10

Kenyon                D. v 590     P. v 891     P. v 348     D. v 495      3-4-1
Team 690            L     T          W     W      W     L        L     L           (-81)
                           -6    0          +3    +6    +6    -14    -28   -44

Kenyon                D. v 474     P. v 544     D. v 508     P. v 992      3-4-1
Team 691            T     W        W     L        L      W       L     L            (-9)
                            0     +6      +1    -6      -4     +14    -5    -5

Loyola                 P. v 525     D. v 955     P. v 507     D. v 936      5-3
Team 494            L     L         W     W       W     L        W     W      (+37)
                           -1    -8        +12  +15   +1    -5       +20   +3

Loyola                 P. v 507     D. v 508     D. v 387     P. v 690      6-2
Team 495            W     L        L     W        W     W       W     W      (+103)
                           +25  -10    -5    +5       +8    +8      +28  +44

Miami                  P. v 315     D. v 387     P. v 590     D. v 691      5-2-1
Team 992           L     T         L      W        W    W       W    W         (+38)
                          -7    0        -12   +13    +20  +14    +5   +5

Michigan State    P. v 926     D. v 449     D. v 702     P. v 536      3-5
Team 594            L     L         L     W        W     W      L     L          (-24)
                          -12   -2       -4    +4      +17   +1     -3  -25

Michigan State    D. v 536     P. v 494     P. v 840     D. v 644      2-5-1
Team 595            L     L         L     L         W     W       L      T          (-30)
                           -4   -8        -12  -15     +8    +6      -5     0

Murray State       P. v 644     D. v 450     D. v 525     P. v 508       6-2
Team 834            W     W      W     W       L     L         W     W        (+ 39)
                           +15  +14   +4    +6      -3    -12     +3    +12

Notre Dame        D. v 954     P. v 536     D. v 372     P. v 494       3-5
Team 926           W     W       W     L        L     L         L     L           (-36)
                          +12  +2      +3    -1      -13  -16     -20  -3

Notre Dame        P. v 386     D. v 314     P. v 474     D. v 590       3-4-1
Team 927           T     L          L     L         W     L        W     W         (-16)
                          0     -5        -8    -17     +5    -1       +8    +2

Ohio Northern    P. v 840     D. v 372     D. v 890     P. v 524       5-3
Team 448           W     W       L      W       L     W        W     L         (+13)
                          +16  +14   -17   +4      -9    +5        +3   -3

Ohio Northern    D. v 349     P. v 954     P. v 548     D. v 507       3-5
Team 449           L     L         W     L        W     W      L       L         (- 46)
                         -13   -10     +4    -4       +3    +19   -30  -15

Ohio Northern    P. v 841     D. v 834     P. v 349     D. v 891       4-4   
Team 450           W     W      L     L          L      L        W     W         (-9)
                          +6    +1     -4    -6        -2     -11     +4    +3

St.                      P. v 890     D. v 315     D. v 449     P. v 841       2-6
Bonaventure      W     L        L      L         L      L        W     L          (-51)
Team 548          +4    -9      -7     -19     -3     -19     +14  +12

St. Francis          D. v 348     P. v 448     P. v. 926     D. v 315      7-1
Team 372           W     W      W     L        W      W       W     W       (+79)
                          +4    +4     +17   -4     +13    +16    +15  +14

St. Vincent         D. v 548     P. v 702     P. v 448      D. v 349       4-4
Team 890          L     W         W     W      W     L         L     L           (+5)
                         -4    +9       +23   +1    +9    -5       -15   -13

St. Vincent         P. v 508     D. v 690     D. v 841      P. v 450       2-6
Team 891          T     L          L      L        W     T         L      L          (-17)
                         0     -7        -3    -6       +6     0        -4    -3

Univ. of              D. v 834     P. v 841     D. v 524      P. v 955      3-4-1
Cincinnati          L      L          W     W       L     L          W     T        (-3)
Team 644         -15   -14      +8    +22   -6    -3         +5     0

Univ. of              D. v 448     P. v 348     D. v 955      P. v 702      2-6
Dayton              L      L         L      L         L      L         W     W       (-80)
Team 840         -16  -14      -32   -15     -8     -6       +7    +4

Univ. of              P. v 450     D. v 644     P. v 891      D. v 548      1-6-1
Dayton               L      L        L       L        L      T         L       W       (-45)
Team 840          -6     -1      -8     -22     -6     0        -14    +12

Univ. of              P. v 348     D. v 840     D. v 690      P. v 544      4-4
Illinois-Chicago  L     L         W     W       L     W         W     L         (+68)
Team 348          -4    -4       +32  +15    -6   +14      +20   -1

Univ. of              P. v 449     D. v 525     D. v 450      P. v 890      6-2
Illinois-Chicago  W     W       L     L         W    W        W     W       (+47)
Team 349          +13   +10   -2   -15      +2   +11     +15  +13

Univ. of              P. v 314     D. v 507     P. v 644      D. v 448      5-3
Michigan            L     W        L     W        W     W        W     L        (+9)
Team 524         -11   +1      -2   +12     +6     +3      +3    -3

Univ. of              D. v 484     P. v 349     P. v 834      D. v 314      8-0
Michigan            W     W       W     W      W     W        W     W       (+48)
Team 525         +1     +8     +15   +2    +3    +12     +1    +6

Western            P. v 509     D. v 890     P. v 954      D. v 840       1-7
Kentucky           W       L        L      L         L      L         L      L        (-65)
Team 702         +16   -28    -23    -1      -17    -1      -7     -4

Western            P. v 955     D. v 926      P. v 314      D. v 954      5-3
Michigan            W     W       L      W        L      L         W      W      (+29)
Team 536         +4     +8     -3     +1       -7    -2        +3     +25

Spirit of AMTA:  Team 590, Cal Poly Pomona, 28 points.

Top Ten Team Finishers:

1.    Team 515, University of Michigan, 8-0
2.    Team 372, St. Francis University, 7-1
3.    Team 349, University of Illinois-Chicago, 6-2, 19, +3, +47
4.    Team 834, Murray State, 6-2, 19, +3, +39
5.    Team 495, Loyola-Chicago, 6-2, 15.5
6.    Team 386, Eastern Michigan, 5-2-1, 14.5
7.    Team 992, Miami University of Ohio, 5-2-1, 13
8.    Team 314, Case Western Reserve University, 5-3, 21.5
9.    Team 507, Bowling Green State University, 5-3, 19
10.  Team 494, Loyola-Chicago, 5-3, 18.5, +3, +37

Outstanding Attorneys:

Joe Carlasare, Team 495, Loyola, prosecution, 20 pts.
Garry Hartlieb, Team 954, Michigan State, defense, 20 pts.
Greg Jones, Team 386 Eastern Michigan, prosecution, 20 pts.
Paul Reaper, Team 494 Loyola, defense 19 pts.
Robert Campbell, Team 508, Bowling Green, prosecution, 19 pts.
Ryan Nolte, Team 348, Illinois-Chicago, defense, 19 pts.
Yasmin Ali, Team 349, Illinois-Chicago, prosecution, 19 pts.
Gavon Talwar, Team 525, Michigan, defense, 18 pts.
Alexandra Habbouche, Team 449, Ohio Northern, prosecution, 18 pts.
Thaddeus Henderson, Team 372, St. Francis, prosecution, 18 pts.
Justin Rex, Team 509, Bowling Green, prosecution, 18 pts.
Kyle Miletic, Team 525, Michigan, prosecution, 18 pts.
 Paul DiVincenzo, Team 890, State Vincent, prosecution, 18 pts.

Outstanding Witnesses:

Blaze Nichols, Team 536, Western Michigan, defense, 19 pts.
Erica Converse, Team 494, Loyola, prosecution, 19 pts.
Jessica Gunter, Team 548, St. Bonaventure, prosecution, 19 pts.
Dan Jones, Team 448, Ohio Northern, defense, 18 pts.
Jacob Levine, Team 992, Miami (OH), prosecution, 18 pts.
Stephen Kesler, Team 448, Ohio Northern, prosecution, 18 pts.
Matt McDonald, Team 495, Loyola University, prosecution, 17 pts.
Mike Kilgariff, Team 495, Loyola University, defense, 17 pts.
Dan Weckesser, Team 509, Bowling Green, defense, 17 pts.
Ryan Johnson, Team 387, Eastern Michigan, defense, 17 pts.
Neil Woods, Team 702, Western Kentucky, defense, 17 pts.
Kathryn Androni, Team 494, Loyola University, 17 pts.
Greg Jones, Team 386, Eastern Michigan, defense, 17 pts.
Ramsey Mesyef, Team 348, University of Illinois-Chicago, defense 16 pts.
Peter NeCastro, Team 691, Kenyon College, defense 16 pts.
Zach Park, Team 834, Murray State, prosecution, 16 pts.
Dan Gleixner, Team 890, St. Vincent, prosecution, 16 pts.

[Belili]

I don't think we can attribute the ties and splits to an "interesting field"

Rather, interesting judges.

Did any two judges use the same rubric to score teams? With the exception of Michigan's dominance, this looks like a result that could come from a giant game of rock, paper, scissors.

If I counted correctly - 30 rounds had splits.

30 - that must be an AMTA record.

[Leviathan]

In my opinion, much of the disparity comes from judges individual taste on the portrayal of the victim.

I saw the victim played 3 different ways, and no judge was ever satisfied with the way that Francis was played.  Francis is such a difficult character, and some judges love an emotional Francis and others hate it.  Some like a completely torn up Francis, some like a Francis who is stronger and more matter of fact.  Since every team calls Francis who is essentially a character witness, you run into the trap of always having the judge's opinion of the character you select.

The other character that I saw getting extremely disparate reviews was Darrow.  Again, difference between 10-10 on one ballot and 7-6 on the other came down to the character portrayal. 

I could be wrong, but after what I saw at ONU this weekend, I have to think this plays into it somehow.

[Belili]

Looking at the tab summaries from the AMTA website

18 splits at the DDIT
17 at Lafayette
13 at St. Francis

yet 30 at ONU?

I don't think it's something case related

[mtaddict]

What is it that everyone is insinuating about the results of this tournament?  That there was something shady? Judges weren't trained right?  Judges weren't knowledgeable?
There is almost an accusatory tone to those posts, and I don't think that's fair to ONU, to discuss such thoughts in a public forum.  I thought the tournament went fine.

[artemis_agape]

No it was just that the judges seemed to be at either one end of the spectrum of the other.
Hardcore knowledgeable mock trial coach  or  tax attorney off the street  or  first year law student.

There really wasn't anything inbetween and it really was shown in the spilt ballots and ties.
It was hard to judge how much weight to give to the commentary of some of the judges as well.

[Alan S.]

Looking at the tab summaries from the AMTA website

18 splits at the DDIT
17 at Lafayette
13 at St. Francis

yet 30 at ONU?

I don't think it's something case related at ONU. I also don't think it's chance.

If you look at it in comparison to how many teams were at each of the tournaments it appears to be a lot closer statistically.

DDIT - 32% of the rounds resulted in a split
Lafayette - 35%
St. Francis - 29.5%
ONU - 41.6%

While ONU is still higher it must also be noted that the teams could have just been of a more equal distribution in terms of skill level.

I don't think we can attribute the ties and splits to an "interesting field"

Rather, interesting judges.

Did any two judges use the same rubric to score teams? With the exception of Michigan's dominance, this looks like a result that could come from a giant game of rock, paper, scissors.

If I counted correctly - 30 rounds had splits.

30 - that must be an AMTA record.

I do believe this could be the result of a field of interesting teams...they were not simply all regional teams putting on the same exact case.  When that happens it is easy for judges to decide who was clearly the better team.  Rather because of the diverse regions teams had different takes on the case as well as different styles of presentation.  This resulted in judges having differences of opinion.

From the looks of the field it seems like it would have been a fun tournament.  If nothing else it was a tournament full of great teams and competitors.

*edit*

What is it that everyone is insinuating about the results of this tournament?  That there was something shady? Judges weren't trained right?  Judges weren't knowledgeable?
There is almost an accusatory tone to those posts, and I don't think that's fair to ONU, to discuss such thoughts in a public forum.  I thought the tournament went fine.

I whole heartedly agree!

[Belili]

Relax addict, no one is accusing anyone of anything. 

I think Artemis is on the right track. It was probably a mix of a different spread of teams and a different spread of judges.

There were judging teams of coaches and undergrad students, law students and lawyers, etc

I don't mean that as an excuse for teams that did poorly or the reverse for teams that did well. Any combination of judges could see that Michigan's teams were well put together for example.

[tylerperryisguilty]

If I counted correctly - 30 rounds had splits.

30 - that must be an AMTA record.

I checked one national from last year.  Vause Division.

32 splits by my count.  32 teams.   64 total trials.  What is that - 50%?     

ONU was a well-run tournament.  Teams knew going in that their coach would probably have to judge a round or two (since Ada is in the middle of nowhere - thank goodness it was only cold and not snowy).  I want to thank Dr. Scott (and crew and crew's sisters with the colors) for having us and for the pizza and awards...

Who has the "toughest" regional?  Wow the Joliet Regional is looking tougher and tougher after Ohio Northern results -   

U Michigan two teams - one just went 8-0 at Ohio Northern
St. Francis - just went 7-1 at Ohio Northern
Loyola two teams - went 6-2 and 5-3 at Ohio Northern
Western Michigan - two teams - who just went 5-3 at Ohio Northern (with their closing attorney not there on Sunday)
Illinois-Champaign - two teams - who has had at least one team qualify for Nationals (gold/silver) as far back as I can remember
Lewis - two teams - who has had at least one team qualify for Nationals (gold/silver) 7 or something straight years
ISU - two teams - who I think did not qualify for Nationals last year after something like 10 years in a row.
Then there are the teams that could sneak up who I didn't mention that have been scrimmaging all semester like Butler or Michigan State.

[Det.Brotha]

I think the Joliet regional will be incredibly difficult.  There is a good number of very strong teams in a small field.  I think there will be great parity among the "upper echelon" and their absolute dominance of the less experienced teams, especially given the small field (21 teams). 

[Det.Brotha]

Isn't having rank of 18 as the minimum for atty's relatively rare?  How about 3 20's? 

As far as the 30ish split rounds, I think that is indicative of the intense competition that will ensue at Joliet, and is not a sign of bad or corrupt judges. 

[Haskins]

No it was just that the judges seemed to be at either one end of the spectrum of the other.
Hardcore knowledgeable mock trial coach  or  tax attorney off the street  or  first year law student.

There really wasn't anything inbetween and it really was shown in the spilt ballots and ties.
It was hard to judge how much weight to give to the commentary of some of the judges as well.

Besides from some hard-to-work in rooms, it was a good tournament with good competition. I do think some of the judges did not score so accurately, but you get that at all tournaments and it's not really in anyone's control.