Running list of teams qualifying for ORCs

[DrillbitTaylor]

No, they'd just be 0-8-1

At any other tournament perhaps, but it's Jamaica and they're used to New Haven...
 

[MiaWUCU]

There are many ways to determine field strength.  It is an extremely difficult job given that AMTA tries to keep regionals, well, regional, and there are many factors to balance.  I respect the relevant committee members very much.
 
I thought this was one of many possible interesting metrics to look at: number of teams in last year's National Championship Tournament Top 10 and Honorable Mention.  I fully embrace that the choice of this metric is influenced by my own biases.
 
Three Top 10 Finishes
Jamaica (Columbia A, NYU A, Penn A)
 
Two Top 10 Finishes
New Haven (George Washington A, Yale A)
Los Angeles (Irvine A, UCLA B)
Orlando (Furman A, Furman B)
Spokane (Stanford A, Cal A)
 
One Top 10 Finish; One Honorable Mention
Chapel Hill (Duke A; Washington and Lee A)
Louisville (EKU A; Tennessee A)
Cincinnati (Miami B; Miami A)
 
One Top 10 Finish
Fresno (UCLA A)
Syracuse (Cornell A)
Baltimore (Richmond A)
Topeka (Iowa A)
Princeton (Georgetown A)
South Bend (Northwood A)
 
Zero Top 10 Finishes; Three Honorable Mentions
Columbia (Wash U A, Rhodes A, Rhodes B)
 
Zero Top 10 Finishes; Two Honorable Mentions
Milwaukee (Northwestern B, Northwestern A)
 
Zero Top 10 Finishes; One Honorable Mention
Providence (Boston University A)
Joliet (Michigan B)
 
Zero Top 10 Finishes; Zero Honorable Mentions
Davenport
Houston
Superior
Worcester
Birmingham

[Plymouth Djinn]

But a top ten (X2) is only 20; that is less than the number of regionals (23), no? Even with honorable mentions you only have 30 possible teams to spread across 23 places. Inherently, there will be some regional qualifiers that have more than others.

If AMTA views the ORCS + "Gold" as a "unified national system" ("UNS"), then wouldn't a more accurate metric be the distribution of ORCS bids per regional?

Also, the UNS only allows two teams per school whereas there is no limit for regionals.

[MiaWUCU]

But a top ten (X2) is only 20; that is less than the number of regionals (23), no? Even with honorable mentions you only have 30 possible teams to spread across 23 places. Inherently, there will be some regional qualifiers that have more than others.

Yes.  My issue is that geographically it doesn't make sense.

Example: Jamaica has 3 top ten teams.  Princeton has 1 top ten team.  Penn A travels (literally) through Princeton, NJ to get to Jamaica.  Assigning Penn A to Princeton rather than Jamaica increases balance.

Another example: Providence and Worcester are both roughly 3 hours from NYC and 1.5 hours from New Haven.  Why are there 5 top ten teams (including GW, which drives through many regional sites to get there) in the NY-New Haven area and zero in Worcester-Providence?

If AMTA views the ORCS + "Gold" as a "unified national system" ("UNS"), then wouldn't a more accurate metric be the distribution of ORCS bids per regional?

Wouldn't that just mean that the optimal is the exact same regions as last year?

[Quotequeen]

I think the number of teams that qualified to/placed at gold is important, but as a metric by itself is far too simplistic.  At the point that a "C" team is finishing 8-0 at a region, that team needs to be given significant weight, even though it can't qualify to or place at golds, and doesn't have a BBR (for example).

When I examine the strength of a region, I am mostly concerned with the number of teams that "ought" to make it out, and the number of teams that stand a good chance of being able to take ballots from those teams.  How good the best couple of teams are matters less than the number of teams that pose a threat, because the latter has a large impact on the likelihood of a team being kept out of ORCS that would have made it out of a different regional, which is really the relevant factor, IMO.

[Plymouth Djinn]

Wouldn't that just mean that the optimal is the exact same regions as last year?

Well not necessarily; some teams have conflicts with certain weekends and so the power could shift. Which could account for the geographic irregularities of which you speak.

However, you did catch an error. Essentially, you're right b/c the ORCS bids are always 8. I meant to say ORCS bids to Nationals or as you focus on, the top finishes at ORCS. This is what AMTA considers when balancing ORCS.

The entire system has issues because it always relies on April to say who is strong the following February; moreover, it's all predicated on "Good Faith" for C's to be C's and A's to be A's, etc.

Travis and I were talking to today... [this is slightly off-topic] we favor a new case at Nationals or ORCS. Although this would probably require pushing ORCS up to give adequate time. The collegiate level is the only level I know that doesn't give a new case. I understand the burden of two cases on the committees and volunteers in those committees (being one of them) but it would make things more interesting. It would also be a better gauge of power/talent then a team that just pillages.. I mean scouts other teams and uses it as their own.

[Exact]

I wonder what a new case for ORCS would do to the invitational season.  Would teams still give invitationals the same weight, or would testing out a case that'll be scrapped in a few months seem like a waste of time?  Obviously the quality of the postseason environment is more important, but I think it's an effect worth considering.

[PJG2001]

Travis and I were talking to today... [this is slightly off-topic] we favor a new case at Nationals or ORCS. Although this would probably require pushing ORCS up to give adequate time. The collegiate level is the only level I know that doesn't give a new case. I understand the burden of two cases on the committees and volunteers in those committees (being one of them) but it would make things more interesting. It would also be a better gauge of power/talent then a team that just pillages.. I mean scouts other teams and uses it as their own.

Is that really what the current system does? I mean, I hate scouting too, but I can't think of a single national champion in the 7 years I've been involved with AMTA (I sat out the Maryland championship in the Dawn Francis year) that won because they "pillaged other teams and use[d material] as their own." I was privileged to have seen the champions from Northwood, Virginia, UCLA, and Iowa, and I would say that all of them won due to their own talent and creativity. Do you and Travis disagree?

[Plymouth Djinn]

Is that really what the current system does? I mean, I hate scouting too, but I can't think of a single national champion in the 7 years I've been involved with AMTA (I sat out the Maryland championship in the Dawn Francis year) that won because they "pillaged other teams and use[d material] as their own." I was privileged to have seen the champions from Northwood, Virginia, UCLA, and Iowa, and I would say that all of them won due to their own talent and creativity. Do you and Travis disagree?

I'm not saying Championships were won by scouting; I'm saying that teams that succeed based on scouting will be less effective. I should clarify the scouting rant is mainly me; Travis doesn't really care about scouting. We both agree that a new case would lessen the impact of scouting though.

[Plymouth Djinn]

I wonder what a new case for ORCS would do to the invitational season.  Would teams still give invitationals the same weight, or would testing out a case that'll be scrapped in a few months seem like a waste of time?  Obviously the quality of the postseason environment is more important, but I think it's an effect worth considering.

The case would be used at Regionals. This is the system used in Law school, High school, etc. Once you move on from the Regional qualifier, it's a new case on the National level.

[Nur Rauch]

The case would be used at Regionals. This is the system used in Law school, High school, etc. Once you move on from the Regional qualifier, it's a new case on the National level.

I see ORCS are more like the high school equivalent of "State," which uses the same case everyone has used for the year. It would be pretty exciting to change the case after ORCS, I think. Last year's ORCS have shown that any team, no matter how good, still has to work their ass off to make it out, so it would still show off the pinnacle of a season's work, and then everyone who makes it out would have one month to work even harder and come up with a new case in the best way possible, all to be tested in one single awesome tournament.

[Mockinfordummies]

I agree that changing the case between ORCS and the Championship Tournament would be pretty great.  However, i would have the concern that it would be a large  disadvantage for teams who cannot find the means to be coached.  For example, teams who don't have a coach end up at Nationals Caliber level by using the invitationals to realize where they need the work.  Now, I agree that this is also the same for those who have great coaches, but I do fear that if a team is given a month to plan a new case, and this is the final case for the National Tournament, and you have no tournaments to test your strategy, then it would give teams with great coaching an unfair advantage.  In addition some coaches may then take a larger role in writing directs and with crosses and such because they want their team to win. 

Now, I would agree that any dedicated and talented mocker would be fine in a month, with or without a coach, it does give a small unfair advantage to those who have great coaches.  Sadly, not all schools have teachers or anyone who want to be affiliated with their mock trial program.
But, again you can't fault a team for having a coach- it would just lead to more complaining.  Regardless, you'll never escape the cycle of complaining. 

[MiaWUCU]

At the point that a "C" team is finishing 8-0 at a region, that team needs to be given significant weight, even though it can't qualify to or place at golds, and doesn't have a BBR (for example).

IMO, at the point that a "C" team is finishing 8-0 at a region, by and large it means the region did not have its fair share of top teams.  Granted, we are a regional system and some regions may not have a top team.  But an 8-0 "C" team in Region A could very well be a 4-4 or 3-5 team in Region B.

[Nur Rauch]

IMO, at the point that a "C" team is finishing 8-0 at a region, by and large it means the region did not have its fair share of top teams.  Granted, we are a regional system and some regions may not have a top team.  But an 8-0 "C" team in Region A could very well be a 4-4 or 3-5 team in Region B.

Well, and it also has to do with CS. Two 6-0 teams aren't going to see each other in the fourth round of regionals.

[Quotequeen]

IMO, at the point that a "C" team is finishing 8-0 at a region, by and large it means the region did not have its fair share of top teams.  Granted, we are a regional system and some regions may not have a top team.  But an 8-0 "C" team in Region A could very well be a 4-4 or 3-5 team in Region B.

Even when that C team beat the A team of what would likely have been considered the best program in the region and a strong national contender?

Well, and it also has to do with CS. Two 6-0 teams aren't going to see each other in the fourth round of regionals.

Actually, with high-high bracket two this year there's a decent chance they will.