Tournaments

Thank you to everyone who sent information. I'll try to look it over and post the "rankings" tomorrow night.

If anyone has information about ASU's Revolution, Pitt's Steel City or Harvard's Crimson Classic, those are the only three major invitationals that I have little or no information about how the field is shaping up. All PM's are confidential.

Check the "Coaching" forum. Of particular interest might be the topic "Founding a MT Program" about four or five topics down. Check out the posts, obviously, but maybe PM Don (if he doesn't mind) if you need more advice.

I'd be happy to help. About to begin the process of starting from scratch for the 3rd time. I hope I have picked up an insight or two into that tedious process along the way.

When do you think you'll have these rankings up?

When do you think you'll have these rankings up?

I think I've gathered all the relevant information (except for ASU's Revolution, where I only have a few scattered reports of teams that will attend), so later tonight.

Oh, boy! I hope these rankings come out very soon...I marked it on my calender...seriously.

[That being said, this is the opinion of one anonymous perjuries poster based on limited information. Most tournaments do not have set fields yet. Take it for what it is.]

Like any good piece of testimony, I will first try to lay the foundation for my opinion. The sole basis of these rankings is anticipated field strength. I consider quality of judging, facilities, registration fees, and area attractions only insomuch as I feel that they will affect field strength (which, in most cases, is not that much). Obviously, the best indicator of field strength is a preliminary list of committed teams. I was able to obtain such a list for 2 of the 3 “Tier I” invites, 5 of the 8 “Tier II” invites, 3 of the 7 “Tier III” invites and 1 of the 4 Spring Invites. In the absence of such a list, I looked at competing tournaments, strength of host team, geography, and past history of attracting top teams. This information was collected through perjuries PM’s, perjuries posts, ’07 tab summaries and team websites.

That being said, this is the opinion of one anonymous perjuries poster based on limited information. Most tournaments do not have set fields yet. Take it for what it is.

Also, please keep in mind that any tournament that has announced dates (as all the tournaments on this list have) and started planning this early will likely host an excellent tournament with a competitive field in the fall.

That being said, here are my rankings:

Fall Tier I Invitationals
These tournaments feature the best of the best from around the country. Most programs are only allowed to bring one team, and their fields are truly national in scope.

1.   Derby Challenge (Bellarmine)
2.   GAMTI (UVA)
3.   Downtown (NYU)

Given that these three “elite” tournaments will be back-to-back-to-back weekends in November, a program’s “A” team is unlikely to attend all three. Bellarmine’s Derby, despite an absence from the Mock Trial world, seems to have locked up the best field, and has insisted that programs send their “best” teams (according to two different sources). Bellarmine can also afford to be the most selective of the three since it has the smallest field. GAMTI’s field is excellent as always. NYU will feature a stellar field, but if teams do decide to avoid the back-to-back-to-back weekends, NYU is the logical tournament to skip because it is in the middle and also because it is the most expensive to attend. That being said, looking at Bellarmine’s website, it seems as if the Downtown is the only elite invite which will host both Bellarmine and NYU, the two early favorites for the championship. 

Fall Tier II Invitationals
These tournaments also attract some of the best teams in the country, though their field is more regionally-based than those in Tier I. Most of these tournaments have a two-team limit per program. 

1.   The Revolution (ASU)
2.   Tobacco Road (Duke)
3.   Steel City (Pittsburgh)
4.   Beach Party (Irvine)
5.   Marcus Pohlmann Invitational (Cornell College)
6.   Sanders (EKU)
7.   Cornshucker (Iowa)
8.   Crimson Classic (Harvard) 

I’ll start from the bottom-up. I know little about the Crimson Classic’s field, aside from the fact that some of the top Northern schools do not have it on their itinerary, and that it is forced to compete with both the most selective (Derby) and most innovative (Beach Party) tournaments in the nation, which doesn’t bode well. They get in as a Tier II only because Harvard itself is such a strong program. Sanders and the Shucker are both established tournaments with excellent fields so far, but both have let in a few teams that are not quite up to par with the rest of the field (though they may well be included in the ‘up and coming’ category). Sanders is ranked above the Shucker because the Shucker is so late in the year, when some top programs have already shut down shop for the fall. The top five in Tier II are bunched quite tightly. The top three don’t have to compete directly with any Tier I invite, which is the main reason they get the nod over the Pohlmann Invite and the Beach Party (though really, who can resist a tournament named “the beach party”). Instead, The Revolution, Tobacco Road and the Steel City will compete against each other. For the most part, geography has been the determining factors in divvying up the best teams between the three. The Tobacco Road Invitational has the best of the South/Appalachia; The Steel City Invitational boasts the best of the Rust Belt/Great Lakes region; The Revolution has the best of the West. Of the three, the decision between Tobacco Road and Steel City hinges on the fact that most of the best DC area mock trial programs (which are approximately equidistant between Duke and Pittsburgh) have chosen Tobacco Road, which gives it a slight edge. Based on past history, I anticipate The Revolution will have the most geographically diverse field, which justifies its top ranking in this tier. The Revolution is also run by a well-liked coach, and connections with other programs can be important when assembling an invitational field.

Fall Tier III Invitationals
The fields of these invitationals seem to be less selective, though many of them may be excellently run. Many of the preliminary lists for these invites also have several top-flight teams committed, though there is a general lack of depth when compared to the Tier I and II invites. These invites are not ranked, but rather listed in chronological order.
- Scarlet and Gray
- Carolina Classic
- Happy Valley Invitational
- Justice Louis Brandeis Invitational
- Great Sonoran Showdown
- Spartan Throwdown
- Illinois State
- University of St. Francis

Spring Invitationals
Ranking spring invites is really a completely different ballgame since a) The dates of the tournament are so far away and b) Some of the most popular Spring invites have not officially announced dates on either perjuries or the AMTA website (such as Georgia Tech and UCLA). I have therefore created a separate category for spring invites, though I have indicated where they would be ranked if included with the rest of the fall invites.
1.   DDIT (Tier I, Number 2)
2.   BRIC (Tier II, Number 7)
3.   CUBAIT (Tier II, Number 10)
4.   Polar Bear (Tier III)

I think two things would be interesting to note.

1. What would the field strength of these invitationals be, if the regional field strength (i.e. the PPP) formula is applied right now.

2. Which tournament will host the most Super Regional and Championship teams?

I ask both of those questions, because let's say the Downtown has half of its field break into supers, yet Pitt has 80% of its. At that point, I'd venture to say Pitt had a better tourney, regardless of how "national in scope" the field is.

I think this is an interesting, albeit incomplete exercise, and that we cannot truly know who had the "best" or "toughest" invitational, until the A) the new BBR is published, B) know all of the fields at these invites C) see how many of teams at these invites move onto to Supers and Gold.

I also think it is interesting that Steel City, CUBAIT, and Pohlmann are listed as tier II invites, when they had three of the four toughest fields in invites last year.

Bellarmine's reintroduciton of the Derby, probably gives them a leg up.

I think two things would be interesting to note.

1. What would the field strength of these invitationals be, if the regional field strength (i.e. the PPP) formula is applied right now.

GOOD IDEA. However, I think its best to hold off on statistical calculations until final fields are published though. I toyed with the idea of calculating the average number of ballots won at Golds last year among committed teams, but some invites are half full, some are completely full, some have only recruited only a handful of teams...statistical calculations would be misleading at this point.

2. Which tournament will host the most Super Regional and Championship teams?

HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT SUPER-REGIONAL TEAMS YET?

I think this is an interesting, albeit incomplete exercise, and that we cannot truly know who had the "best" or "toughest" invitational, until the A) the new BBR is published, B) know all of the fields at these invites C) see how many of teams at these invites move onto to Supers and Gold.

AGREED, especially on point B. 

I also think it is interesting that Steel City, CUBAIT, and Pohlmann are listed as tier II invites, when they had three of the four toughest fields in invites last year.

PATENTLY FALSE. I can think of three invites off the top of my head: Downtown, GAMTI, DDIT, that had tougher fields than Steel City, CUBAIT, and Pohlmann last year.

The rankings are fun and the reasoning makes sense.  Boingo, since you considered field strength, would you mind posting what you know about which teams are attending which invitationals?  That would help us better evaluate the rankings.

Also, to respond to Bigscooper, it's not just about the number of great teams in attendance or the number that reach nationals -- it's also about the number that don't reach nationals.  For example, several tournaments included an equal number of excellent teams as the old Rhodes tournament.  But what made Rhodes the best tournament was that it invited ONLY the best teams.

Finally, while I don't agree that Pittsburgh, Cornell College and Columbia hosted three of the four toughest fields last season, a review of their tab summaries made me realize that their invitationals were much tougher than I thought.  In particular, Pittsburgh and Cornell College had very strong teams in attendance.

The rankings are fun and the reasoning makes sense.  Boingo, since you considered field strength, would you mind posting what you know about which teams are attending which invitationals?  That would help us better evaluate the rankings.

Unfortunately, every list I got from a tournament director was with the proviso that the list not be shared. I suspect that those that did not have that proviso came from some source other than the tournament director, which makes me hesitant to release them.

You can always ask the tournament directors if you'd like to see their preliminary list of competing teams! Also, the Cornshucker and Carolina Classic have posted their respected fields (to date) on their websites (an open way off dealing with the list that I hope other tournaments will adopt).

bump ^

List has been updated (on first page) with 4 newly announced tournaments.

The University at Buffalo is holding a tournament on November 1st and 2nd. For more information you can contact Eric Pawlak and Steve Klein at ubmocktrial @ gmail .com

UMKC is having its annual Kangaroo Court tournament on January 17-18, 2009 in Kansas City.

Yale Mock Trial will be hosting its annual invitational on December 6-7, 2008 at Yale University.

For more information, feel free to contact this year's tournament directors: Jaclyn Delligatti (jaclyn.delligatti@yale.edu) or Kyle Skinner (kyle.skinner@yale.edu). More details will also be posted on the AMTA website shortly.

We look forward to hosting you.