A few things

1. Early Tournaments - I'm all for this for Varsity debate.  I like with the UofM did last year with a two-day varsity and one-day novice event.  I have no clue what that did for tournament/scheduling/busing requirements and basically shuts out any non-metro team because of the over-night issues but I like the out of the box ideas.  We need to find a way to replicate and improve on ideas like this.  This only works long term if we find a way to not kill out state debate with ideas like this.
2. Bids for state - I think that is pretty much a non-starter as long as it's a MSHSL event.  I could be wrong, but we would most likely need an athletic event to have to bid system to replicate.  Somewhere I have a crazy ideas #2 document that details what a bid system could look like and it also included a 4-section final bid-in system.
3. I like the idea but would it actually be enough for a kid to stay.  Chris, I'm picking on you because you traveled a lot last year, but would a year long MDTA award actually do anything to convince you to stay in the state.
4. Sharing resources is good but I'm not sure how many coaches we have that can survive that kind of system.  I'll let you know after this years Cooper/Armstrong mess.
5. UDL - I don't know the specifics of how the UDL works in particular but if there are things that can replicated we should.
6. Those schools aren't in classic - they don't have debate as far as I know.

As for crazy ideas #1 and Ryan's post.  The "beef" is legit and I was really going for generic framework.  I would say if you limited travel (outside of MN, WI, IO, ND, SD) to only two tournaments from Sept to Jan would be my definition if someone asked for one right now.  That would be my "revised" from the hip idea of limit.  So that would allow bid hunting to the Iowa tournaments as free ones and then have a couple more shots.  And of course, you can do whatever you want after Jan under my plan.

DJ

1. I think the out state thing could be an issue but what if students at metro schools offered to house some out state kids sort of like we do for the Minneapple? I think that could ease that burden and allow us to offer higher quality tournaments at the same time.

2. I aknowledged that the MSHSL probably would not go for this idea. Like I said before though is there anyway we could have a community enforced norm for participating in the section tournaments that would be independent of the MSHSL? It does not even have to be a bid system but maybe a minimum amount of participation.

3. I don't think this is the strongest idea either. I think it would depend on how much importance is placed on the award by the community and for a lot of kids how sweet the trophy is or something...

4. It seems to have worked in some cases (Lakeville/AVLA) so I think we should at least look into it. I think it makes sense for established programs that are perhaps in the same district as a school with no program to at least explore the idea. It would ease budget problems because the expenses are spread across two schools and get more people involved so I think we should try to explore the option at least.

5. Agreed.

6. Why not? If any schools have the resources to do debate these schools should.

On the travel ban...

Lets make it 3 outside MN, WI, IO, ND, SD tournaments or add IL to that group and I don't think anyone would have a problem.

I think DJs plan (2 before January, however many you want afterwards) might be less limiting than the Aneesh/Pete proposal. 

The 600 mile limit seems to be a nonfactor, as it has literally no effect on any tournament I can think of. The only tournaments MN teams have attended in recent years before January outside 600 miles are St Marks, Greenhill, MBA, Glenbrooks and New Trier. If a team actually wants to go bid hunting, there are many more (easier) opportunities post January, as you also avoid some of the better competition. 

Under DJs proposal, you get, say, Greenhill, Glenbrooks, and then about 10 other tournaments if you actually wanted to travel every weekend. 

Just thinking out loud, what about conditioning travel on debating in state. You have to go to X number of tournaments in state to be able to travel to Y number of tournaments. 

Back to cutting cards....

I misread DJ's idea I though he meant an travel was ok starting in January not after. That makes a huge difference so I am back to not being cool with this.  We have five tournaments that we usually go to in that time (Greenhill, St. Marks, Glenbrooks, MBA and Emory) and last year michelle went to Meadows.

It seems to me the only discussion thus far has been about negative incentives.  What about offering a positive incentive, that in order to be eligible to debate at the State Tournament, you must first compete in x number of MDTA tournaments.  This seems like it solves everything:

1) Teams that want to ignore the state tournament can do so and travel an unlimited number of times

2) It doesnt punish teams for going to tournaments that are not overlapping MN tournaments (if teams want to go to Valley which happens before the MN calendar starts, they should not be punished)

3) It would create strong MN competition for at least a certain number of tournaments, which is incredibly valuable for programs that cannot afford to travel.

I agree with both of these points wholehardedly.  I just have a couple things to add -

in regards to 1 - it might even be possible to do something like this in one day.  Now granted, 6-7 rounds in one day is fairly draining, but if it was impossible to host a touranment over two days, it could be done.  Just sayin.

In regards to 2 - The idea that I had was kinda a hybrid between the current format and what you proposed.  I think if we have some sort of treshold of success at local tournaments (be it bids or points) that gives you a spot at state.  We then reduce the number of debaters that qual out of each section by 1 to compensate for this.  It's kinda like how the NDT does it except we wouldn't be voting for first round bids, it'd be a more objective process.  As everyone has already stated, the circuit kids and coaches all value state tremendously.  Minnesota State has always been a prestigious tournament that almost always (if not always) crowns a spectacular debater as the champion.  Even in LD, where there is a noticeable paradigmatic split amongst the "circuit" group and the "local" group of judges, I have found that the judging is fantastic regardless of which camp they fall in.  This allows us to reward those who succeed locally while still offering everyone else a fair chance to qualify to state.  Maybe this is something that would take a couple years to really set up, but regardless, I think it would result in some spectacular tournaments (a la U of MN), and would actually reward good teams who cannot/do not travel (easier path to state).  It also helps fix some of the potential issues with sections (ie competitive balance between sections which is probably just a fact of life like it is in every other sport so long as this format continues). 

Oh and DJ, it might not make someone like Chris or anyone else who travels a ton (Blake prolly fits this category) to give up an out of state tournament, but weekends like Sibley or Jefferson where there isn't a tournament people are attending out of state, they might be more tempted to attend one of these tournaments instead of taking the weekend off.  It's little things that combined with bigger changes that can make a difference. 

Rohan, who are you cutting cards for?

Joe

I would hope the U!  :)

Nah. He is cutting cards for Edina, his source of income.

Cort -

I've got this weird thing where if I'm excited for something that happens in the morning I'll wake up super-early and not be able to get back to bed. Thus why I was posting on the debate forums 6:00 AM the day I was about to leave for vegas.

Thought I should clear that up publicly.

Carry on.

Baseball is one of the sports the travel ban/limitation was created to restrict. Schools like Edina take their team down to Florida for spring break, giving them extra practice and training that schools with less resources can't get.