PF Rankings

This is a ranking of Public Forum debate teams.

Recently, we have received a lot of feedback that our rankings system has been disproportionately weighting smaller tournaments and high win-loss ratios for teams that haven’t competed much. We take feedback very seriously, and we have made a series of changes that we believe will make the rankings more accurate:

  • We are only including tournaments that have an octos or quarters bid to the TOC.
  • We will include player-decay in our rankings. The rating of a team that competes less often will slowly diminish.
  • For a team to be included in the rankings, they must have competed at at least two tournaments in their career. This increases the likelihood that a team’s rating is representative.
View information about the rankings.
The algorithm used for these rankings is the Glicko-2 ratings system, a variation of the Glicko system.  The basics of the system are simple: each team starts out with a rating of 1500. Your rating is based on the result of every round you debate, weighted by the rating of your opponent and (for elimination rounds) by the margin of victory. If you win a round, your rating increases; if you lose a round, your rating decreases. Defeating a high-ranked opponent provides a larger boost than beating a low-ranked opponent, and losing to a low-ranked opponent yields a larger drop than losing to a high-ranked opponent. Every round counts.

We switched from the Elo system to the Glicko-2 system for the 2016-2017 season. While the two systems are quite similar, Glicko-2 system weights the effect of each round based on the reliability of the ratings of each debater. This change will correct for problems that arise in Elo when some teams compete in rated tournaments more often than others. More details are available here.

Ratings do carry over from season to season for partnerships that stay together as long as they continue to compete. New partnerships (a team where the two debaters have not debated together previously) are counted as an entirely new team.

These rankings do not claim to be a definitive ranking of all debaters, and are, admittedly, simply a minor contribution to the speculation and conversation that exists among some “national circuit” debaters and coaches. While we try to stick to data instead of opinion in our rankings, we do understand that the nature of debate is subjective and sometimes random.. So, enjoy the idle discussion and potential entertainment that rankings can bring, but please do not put too much stock into their reflection of the accuracy into the quality or ability of any given debater.

If you think you see an error, please let us know at rankings@victorybriefs.com!

 

View the list of tournaments included from this season.
Wake Forest
Grapevine
Yale
Harker
Bronx
Apple Valley
Cypress Bay
Glenbrooks
Alta
Princeton
La Costa Canyon
Blake
Arizona State
Lexington

Come work with the best Public Forum staff in the country at VBI. With a 4:1 staff-student ratio, our curriculum focuses on one-on-one mentorship and drill-based lab instruction, supplemented with the widest variety of modular elective offerings. To learn more, visit VBIdebate.com.

Our other PF services include the Card of the Day and our classic topic handbooks.

Rank Team Rating Record
1 Samuel Wood and Harish Korrapati (Ardrey Kell) 2069.94 28-5
2 Mengarelli and Salah (Nueva) 2040.73 24-5
3 Kaley Pillinger and Joshua Moriarty (Hunter College) 2035.98 18-3
4 Ammar Lone and Ozan Ergungor (Hawken) 2031.50 39-10
5 Lipkin and Oestericher (Bronx HS Of Science) 2026.45 33-6
6 Ellie Grossman and Connor Yu (Blake) 2024.00 27-3
7 Palor and Balasky (Green Valley) 2000.29 16-3
8 Ella Fanger and Nate Odenkirk (Oakwood) 1996.32 23-5
9 Michael Xing and Hazeldine (Ardrey Kell) 1989.56 17-4
10 Max Wu and Keshav Kundassery (Mission San Jose) 1974.35 15-8
11 John Nahas and Crawford (La Salle) 1970.73 16-3
12 Alex Karpf and Asher Spector (Horace Mann) 1967.96 36-10
13 Miranda Nutt and Marina Leventis (Colleyville Heritage) 1966.46 27-8
14 Evan Rosenbaum and Unger (Byram Hills) 1966.33 22-7
15 David Yaffe and James Chen (Millburn) 1944.60 32-11
16 Garg and Sridhar (Newton South) 1942.59 22-6
17 Zachary Ginsberg and Rohrig (Stuyvesant) 1941.67 42-14
18 Devesh Kodnani and Robert Chen (Mission San Jose) 1935.50 20-6
19 Nighot and Vigil-Frazier (Albuquerque) 1930.90 13-3
20 Kraebber and Amala Karri (Hunter College) 1925.38 27-8
21 Pe’er and Ju (Stuyvesant) 1924.44 37-15
22 Lizzie McCord and David Maluf (Hunter College) 1919.47 24-11
23 Daniel Siegel and Kevin Hautigan (Ft. Lauderdale) 1918.18 27-10
24 Aysola and Tarpenning (Nueva) 1914.34 12-4
25 Rebecca Shaar and Malcolm Davis (Newton South) 1908.20 26-9
26 McCartin and Mehrotra (Walt Whitman) 1904.89 26-9
27 Will Cozadd and Alex Chin (Nueva) 1898.01 18-5
28 Danny Polissky and Conrad (Nueva) 1895.77 19-6
29 Manush Mobarhan and Talla Khelghati (Presentation) 1894.55 17-5
30 Will Cozadd and Tarpenning (Nueva) 1887.61 8-1
31 Medina and Sheerer (Flanagan) 1886.30 16-4
32 Dylan Hopen and Korn (Dr. Michael M. Krop Sr.) 1882.12 12-4
33 Austin Kim and Gurveer Singh (Fairmont Preparatory) 1881.34 24-11
34 Michael Li and Rohan Patel (Durham Academy) 1880.09 16-8
35 Liu and Moreno (Albuquerque) 1878.79 12-5
36 George Alarcon and Kyleb Bello (Nova Sr) 1871.76 20-6
37 Honor Allen and Brady (Evanston) 1868.45 12-6
38 Aguilar and Albert (Newton South) 1866.87 16-8
39 Khanolkar and Zhao (Plano Senior) 1862.17 4-2
40 McCrary and Momin (St Mary’s Hall) 1861.81 12-4
41 Elisa Lopez and Eva Motolinia (Blake) 1859.61 20-8
42 Brandon Schletzbaum and Madnawat (Milpitas) 1857.54 13-4
43 Ellis London and Justin Baker (Walt Whitman) 1855.45 26-11
44 Liam Torpy and Connor Fraundorf (Marist) 1852.00 16-8
45 Jones and Li (Regis) 1846.43 20-10
46 McCarthy and Tripathi (Horace Mann) 1846.22 30-13
47 Jacob Weinstein and Rohan Shankar (Lincoln-Sudbury) 1842.74 27-9
48 Josef Horwath and Sun (Hawken) 1840.55 17-8
49 Alex Federick and Jackie Prokopeas (Southlake Carroll) 1838.97 16-7
50 Baskar and Silver (Princeton Independent) 1838.91 14-5
51 Anna Cloud and Aneesha Raj (North Mecklenburg) 1833.11 7-2
52 Ayush Upneja and Mitchell Gamburg (Newton South) 1829.85 26-10
53 Bansal and Zhu (Millburn) 1829.83 22-11
54 Place and James Toscano (Trinity Prep) 1827.05 31-12
55 Emma Smits and Paul Snyder (Pinecrest) 1824.97 12-7
56 Giovannelli and Koch (Bronx Science) 1821.96 12-3
57 Jordan Parker and Jonah Platovsky (American Heritage Plantation) 1821.33 15-7
58 David Christensen and Serr (Grantsville) 1818.79 10-5
59 Austin Meek and Sam Bonham (Southlake Carroll) 1818.03 11-4
60 Philip Maniscalco and Will Amorosana (Byram Hills) 1817.73 22-10
61 Rai and Chao (Princeton) 1813.51 6-3
62 Baskar and Chao (Princeton Independent) 1810.86 11-4
63 Nicholas Lindseth and McCordick (Regis) 1804.53 22-12
64 Jack Vovata and Peter Yang (James Madison Memorial) 1804.29 22-11
65 Young and Dwyer (Walt Whitman) 1803.76 9-5
66 Brusie and Linck (Oxbridge Academy) 1801.74 28-12
67 Patel and Pace (Columbus) 1801.11 12-4
68 Jack Swartzentruber and Russell Legate-Yang (Strath Haven) 1800.61 21-8
69 Nguyen and Schulman (Chaparral) 1800.24 7-3
70 Grace Isaacman and Gormley (Dalton) 1799.38 10-5
71 Rajan Gupta and Brandon Lu (Ridge) 1796.78 22-10
72 David Wornow and Park (College Prep) 1796.45 15-6
73 Leyla Remh and Estrada (Timber Creek) 1793.67 9-6
74 Ramakrishna and Aggarwal (Saratoga) 1790.98 7-2
75 Lin and Yang (Plano West Senior) 1790.70 10-6
76 Asthana and Joshi (Acton Boxborough) 1784.27 32-12
77 Julian Freiberg and Udell (Dalton) 1783.54 22-10
78 Connor Wilke and Seth Tilliss (Hackley School) 1782.26 17-9
79 Cho and Supran (Summit) 1776.93 20-10
80 Coleman and Gupta (Milton) 1776.25 5-3
81 Yang and Lu (Plano West Senior) 1775.94 8-5
82 Meyer and Rashid (Western) 1775.76 9-5
83 Konstan and Katz (St Paul) 1773.65 9-5
84 Abadeer and Divola (Riverside STEM) 1770.46 13-6
85 Feiner and Raab (Horace Mann) 1768.90 19-9
86 Kareem Danan and Sauren Khosla (Hawken) 1768.30 10-5
87 Nair and Ramesh (William Mason) 1768.12 10-5
88 Tierney Egan and Sage O’Toole (Freehold Township) 1766.93 5-2
89 Barnwal and Mandadjiev (Edgemont Jr./Sr.) 1766.91 11-6
90 Mehta and Morales (Plano Senior) 1764.94 4-3
91 Cardellini and Coben (Brophy CP) 1760.85 5-2
92 Matthew Bonanno and Owen Friesen (Hackley School) 1760.21 18-11
93 Tong and Xiang (Livingston) 1759.93 12-5
94 Francisco Nodarse and Ford (Lake Highland) 1758.71 20-11
95 Han and Wang (Leland) 1758.69 5-3
96 Nick Ritter and Kennedy (Summit) 1758.52 16-8
97 Tao and Anderson (Boston Latin) 1758.15 4-3
98 McCoy and Damian (Nova) 1757.90 14-8
99 Shahid and Opsahl-Ong (McLean) 1757.19 9-6
100 Sabrina You and Unger (Byram Hills) 1754.22 16-7
101 Arik Wolk and James Chen (Millburn) 1752.09 4-3
102 Nick Stratigakis and Fernandez (Poly Prep Country Day) 1748.28 28-15
103 Suchir Bhatt and Shyam Mani (Brookfield East) 1747.53 5-2
104 Carlos Gregory and Boley (Hendrickson) 1746.96 2-3
105 Harralson and Wright (LC Anderson) 1746.89 9-4
106 Morrison and Schouten (Regis) 1746.79 10-6
107 Isabelle Bavis and Genevieve Wade (Evanston) 1742.72 10-5
108 Peter Lawrence and Harrington (Lexington) 1740.10 11-5
109 Patel and Anderson (Columbus) 1739.59 9-5
110 Mahima Chander and Carlos Freyre (Western High) 1736.53 5-2
111 Zephy Chang and Gil Alon (Newton South) 1733.68 12-8
112 Jesse Brandt and Peter Zhu (Davis) 1730.19 11-4
113 Kevin Bi and Alicia Zhang (East Ridge) 1727.71 6-3
114 Reddy and Ji (Plano West Senior) 1727.05 8-5
115 Daniel Wang and Pierce Hollier (Strake Jesuit College) 1725.25 12-6
116 Jack Schroeder and Szymanski (Delbarton) 1723.88 9-5
117 Raj Purohit and Rylee Smith (Eagan) 1723.34 14-8
118 Manahan and Townsend (Delbarton) 1722.02 9-5
119 Clark and Kholwadawala (Albuquerque) 1721.88 10-5
120 Gant and McGain (Trinity Prep) 1719.67 14-7
121 Johanna Crowl and Aashney Shah (Desert Vista) 1718.97 8-6
122 Fried and Thomas Benson (Hunter College) 1718.55 18-12
123 Bhasin and Dovichi (College Prep) 1717.09 9-6
124 Hom and Kim (Cambridge) 1713.95 11-5
125 Rachel Schwartz and Kewalramani (Summit) 1712.23 7-5
126 Alexander Sherer and Tali Peretz (Miami Beach Senior High) 1710.41 9-7
127 Pampati and Wang (Unionville) 1709.64 15-8
128 Mann and Mason El-Habr (Holy Ghost) 1709.58 9-5
129 Levin and Thompson (Potomac) 1707.86 10-5
130 Harry Bagenstos and Powel Kazanjian (Greenhills) 1707.37 19-11
131 Anindu Rentala and Christian Soenen (Anderson) 1705.76 10-5
132 Leede and Kim (Valor Christian) 1703.70 5-2
133 Sabrina You and Danny Cigale (Byram Hills) 1698.69 13-9
134 Manuali and Sheehan (Regis) 1696.21 9-6
135 Liraz Stilman and Mackenzie Hirsh (Cypress Bay) 1696.18 4-3
136 Kim and Mehrotra (Horace Mann) 1695.20 20-14
137 Meles and Chase (University) 1694.88 13-9
138 Josh Millin and Anna McGuire (Walt Whitman) 1690.08 3-3
139 Sarah Branse and Cory Riegelhaupt (University School FL) 1689.86 13-9
140 Ullah and Mahesh Saha (Stuyvesant) 1687.11 9-5
141 Steirman and Santhanam (Nueva) 1686.52 4-3
142 Alsuqi and Gerdes (Riverside STEM) 1685.54 10-6
143 Atticus Nelson and Silas Nelson (DeSoto) 1684.58 3-3
144 Abiden and Hotchman (Stuyvesant) 1681.58 18-12
145 Harrison Schlossberg and Dominic Schlossberg (Poly Prep Country Day) 1680.38 23-14
146 Santhanam and Waytena (Nueva) 1680.37 3-3
147 Linares and Boisvert (NSU University) 1679.90 13-9
148 Charles Nenichka and Ruff (Charlotte Catholic) 1675.15 9-6
149 Evan Rosenbaum and Danny Cigale (Byram Hills) 1674.55 8-6
150 Lucy Ritzmann and Katherine Ottenbreit (Nightingale Bamford) 1673.64 4-3
151 Mason and Mason (Millburn) 1673.34 5-3
152 Cornelia Fraser and Khan (Nova Sr) 1672.26 11-10
153 Alex Radick and Dominguez (Miami Beach) 1670.48 9-7
154 Carol Metzger and Coggin Galbreath (Geneva School of Boerne) 1669.73 3-2
155 Dawson Ray and Ross Walker (Morristown West) 1669.66 15-9
156 Fried and Bressler (Millburn) 1667.63 13-9
157 Dubey and Shalizi (Mission San Jose) 1665.45 3-4
158 Stern and Harrelson (Ransom Everglades) 1664.32 12-9
159 Owens and Posner (Horace Mann) 1662.75 13-8
160 Tierney Egan and Vaysblat (Freehold Township) 1662.12 9-6
161 Olivia Fisher and Frielich (Dalton) 1659.52 5-3
162 Manfredi and Tutt (Lake Mary) 1656.11 3-3
163 Scott Franklin and Sanal (Eagan) 1656.00 7-6
164 Herrick and Su (Riverside STEM) 1654.59 10-5
165 Jack Kelly and Sam Lincoln (Waring) 1653.92 7-6
166 Ben Hanson and Brendon Bultman (duPont Manual) 1653.23 18-12
167 Alvarez and Wang (Chaparral) 1652.76 6-6
168 Owens and Daniel (Durham) 1651.33 12-9
169 Shamanna and Bandlapalli (Westwood) 1647.97 8-6
170 Castellano and Li (Delbarton) 1647.28 8-5
171 Ma and Zhu (Edina) 1646.62 15-11
172 Barnwal and Saha (Edgemont Jr./Sr.) 1645.51 12-8
173 Vives and Munce (Presentation) 1642.34 16-12
174 Turkel and Kim (North Hollywood) 1642.09 8-5
175 Hunschofsky and Anise (St. Thomas Aquinas) 1641.58 11-8
176 Trang and Curtis (Carlsbad) 1640.04 6-1
177 Travis Hazelett and Singh (Bettendorf) 1638.97 8-5
178 Mendoza and Garcia (Riverside STEM) 1636.40 9-6
179 Daisy Chaudruc and Sofia Chaudruc (Evanston) 1632.59 10-10
180 Maeghanan Fitzgerald and Sharan Sawlani (Cypress Bay) 1630.10 9-5
181 Hagan and Timony (Regis) 1627.91 12-9
182 Lively and Segal (Needham) 1626.40 7-6
183 Hallward-Driemeier and Hazan (Walt Whitman) 1625.04 3-3
184 Horowitz and Ripley (Oakwood Secondary) 1624.53 12-10
185 Poler and Gomez (Nueva) 1624.27 9-5
186 Yoo and Charney-Beck (Bronx Science) 1622.33 11-9
187 Hazan and Katherine Sylvester (Walt Whitman) 1621.54 12-9
188 Connor Jolley and Sheng-Jie Lim (Millard North) 1619.36 3-4
189 Carter Squires and Mann (duPont Manual) 1619.16 9-5
190 Seth Tilliss and Tucker Wilke (Hackley School) 1617.59 4-3
191 Palmer and Ong (Fairmont Preparatory) 1617.39 14-12
192 Zhou and Yang (La Cueva) 1616.56 4-3
193 Saloni Singhvi and Zhang (Ridge) 1614.02 15-10
194 Griffin Badalamente and Amelia Peck (Capitol Debate) 1613.90 9-6
195 Adam Shugar and Richard German (Oak Hall) 1613.05 3-3
196 Smith and Gawankar (Kingwood) 1610.13 4-2
197 Jason Grill and Ari Neugeboren (Walt Whitman) 1609.02 3-3
198 Zhu and Yu (Livingston) 1604.47 2-3
199 Hipp and West (Lake Highland) 1603.68 7-6
200 Albano and Galanaugh (Freehold Township) 1602.39 8-6
201 Kessel and Shapiro (Seattle) 1602.11 3-3
202 Mann and Sandireddy (James Madison Memorial) 1601.38 16-12
203 Sakineni and Jamal (Dougherty Valley) 1600.84 9-9
204 Maunder and Gupta (Mission San Jose) 1600.28 10-5
205 Cho and Cho (Catalina Foothills) 1599.40 4-3
206 Moreno and Reutter (Boca Raton) 1599.08 6-6
207 Andress IV and Stapleford (South Anchorage) 1598.90 6-2
208 Abbott and Sen (Quarry Lane) 1597.86 7-6
209 Connor Yeackley and Caramen McDaniel (Wellington) 1597.69 4-3
210 Ramachandran and Koneru (Saratoga) 1595.81 3-3
211 Portela and Wertheimer (Regis) 1594.66 9-7
212 Goli and Velraj (St Francis) 1594.46 8-6
213 Patterson and Gramopadhye (Riverside) 1594.15 3-3
214 Benjamin Rothschild and McCormack (Dalton) 1593.70 11-10
215 Elizabeth Beeli and McKayle Bradford (Roy) 1592.59 3-3
216 Castaldi-Moller and Mignano (Regis) 1590.81 7-6
217 Gorantla and Kotni (Cupertino) 1588.41 7-6
218 Sneha Pandey and Dodge (Princeton) 1587.38 9-6
219 Wesley Shattenkirk and Gordon (Nova Sr) 1587.10 8-5
220 Lin and Shen (Canyon Crest) 1585.99 4-2
221 Lauren Lamar and Sarah Navid (Northland Christian) 1585.17 12-9
222 Nick Cuesta and Aramis Bello (Nova) 1582.78 8-6
223 Sidapara and Niu (BASIS Scottsdale) 1579.95 3-3
224 Dhuper and Jilani (Klein) 1578.79 3-2
225 Mai Rubin and Tatiana Butkevits (Boca Raton Community) 1578.70 7-5
226 Du and Chen (Canyon Crest) 1577.37 3-3
227 Fletcher and Marhoffer (Horizon) 1576.20 5-3
228 DeMann and Lam (Poly Prep Country Day) 1574.86 15-12
229 Hoque and Yoes (Bronx Science) 1574.26 3-3
230 Nissen and Teske (Edina) 1574.06 14-11
231 Landon Dinger and Hayden Cole (Harrisburg) 1573.34 7-6
232 Khankari and Clement (Maple Grove Senior) 1572.14 4-2
233 Katz and Ruskin (Schreiber) 1569.87 9-6
234 Andrew Briceno and Silvey (Cypress Bay) 1569.44 10-5
235 Clarissa Wang and Cindy Wang (Harker) 1568.72 3-3
236 Miller and Larimer (Southlake Carroll) 1568.13 6-6
237 Donowho and Dowdall (Strake Jesuit CP) 1567.95 6-6
238 Dahmani and Iyer (St Francis) 1567.77 3-3
239 Kyllian Vong and Nathan Master (St. Josephs Prep) 1566.21 15-11
240 Kim and Witsken (Cambridge) 1566.10 4-3
241 Philip Bonanno and Tucker Wilke (Hackley) 1565.75 12-9
242 Kelie Schmalenbch and Vanessa Pierce (McDowell) 1564.84 16-12
243 Tababovic and Shah (Lakeland) 1564.04 6-6
244 Wallock and Foster (Anderson) 1563.19 6-6
245 Carly Goldsmith and Lai (Montville) 1561.84 10-10
246 Abey Philip and Nuguse (Dupont Manual) 1558.02 7-6
247 Mehra and Sreeprakash (Lexington) 1556.82 7-6
248 Powell and Fager (Millard West) 1554.68 3-3
249 Barat and Tai (Milpitas) 1554.40 8-6
250 Sarp and Surkanti (West Orange) 1552.13 7-6
251 Tyler Duek and John-McClean (Charles Flanagan) 1549.73 7-6
252 Nicholas Brancatella and Elias Kropela (Delbarton) 1548.86 6-6
253 Nikit Shingari and Saxena (Mission San Jose) 1547.06 4-3
254 Nayak and Parida (Westview) 1546.72 4-2
255 Kiran and Pillarisetti (Dougherty Valley) 1545.08 9-10
256 Mac Craig and Calton (Charlotte Latin) 1543.95 3-4
257 Terchek and Steer (Delbarton) 1543.63 7-6
258 Reitman and Stewart (Oxbridge Academy of the Palm Beaches) 1542.49 6-7
259 Manikkutiyil and Reiter (Nova) 1542.15 4-3
260 Keane and Murdy (Regis) 1541.48 7-6
261 Koyyada and Joshi (Amador Valley) 1541.07 7-6
262 Ou and Kumar (Lake Highland Prep) 1540.71 11-10
263 Vaysblat and Wohl (Freehold Township) 1538.37 4-3
264 Jordan Botknecht and Pavon (Ft. Lauderdale) 1537.54 15-13
265 Jeffrey Swift and Daryl Naquin (Holy Cross) 1537.07 7-6
266 Nair and Friedman (Edgemont) 1536.88 9-10
267 Dunteman and Menke (Harrisburg Tigers) 1535.50 6-6
268 Kimberly Haft and Jaime Harn (American Heritage Plantation) 1535.18 7-6
269 Daniel Tremblay and Zachary Sumislaski (North Broward Prep) 1533.25 5-3
270 Currey and Reboul (Chagrin Falls) 1532.94 3-3
271 Brown and Murray (Regis) 1530.94 7-6
272 Agrawal and Jajoo (Ardrey Kell) 1529.64 8-8
273 Brumer and Lee (Montville) 1529.14 12-9
274 Nicolas Barra and Anika Mirza (Blake) 1529.04 14-17
275 Findley and Neuner (Boca Raton Community) 1528.30 7-7
276 Matthews and Zuccalmaglio (Regis) 1528.20 8-6
277 Ho and Shi (Canyon Crest) 1526.63 5-2
278 Leila Rozos and Schoenfeld (Hunter College) 1524.72 7-7
279 Bawa and Kapadya (Hamilton) 1520.26 4-3
280 Mavrides and Mayo (Horace Mann) 1519.45 7-8
281 Shafer-Sull and Sokoloff (Riverdale Country) 1518.79 9-6
282 Lee and Zhao (Mission San Jose) 1518.05 6-6
283 Tan and Girke (Riverside STEM) 1516.80 7-6
284 Karagueorguiev and Chander (American Heritage School – Plantation) 1516.16 7-6
285 Ma and Garimella (Edina) 1513.80 7-5
286 Gery and Lee (Syosset) 1513.59 7-6
287 Megan McCormick and Aditya Rao (Phillipsburg) 1513.57 4-3
288 Alina Shivji and Aleena Jamal (Colleyville Heritage) 1513.38 10-9
289 Nicholas Brancatella and Terchek (Delbarton) 1513.37 7-6
290 Kasar and Shah (Acton Boxborough) 1513.28 7-6
291 Razzak and Huang (Fairmont Preparatory) 1513.06 6-6
292 Mallett and Schaeffler (Hackley) 1511.71 6-7
293 Choi and Vaze (La Canada) 1511.23 4-3
294 Fleissig and Abeyweera (Stuyvesant) 1510.37 6-7
295 Kukunoor and Amin (BASIS Scottsdale) 1506.98 4-3
296 Sorrentino and Hanley (Chaminade) 1505.75 7-7
297 Riley Albertson and Collin Kepner (Ottumwa) 1505.63 5-8
298 Meeran Ismail and Kishimoto (Fairmont Preparatory) 1505.46 10-10
299 Ishani and Kuznecoff (Edina) 1504.52 13-12
300 Zhang and Jeong (Dougherty Valley) 1503.02 6-6
301 Lu and Huang (Leland) 1502.91 7-6
302 Connor Jenkins and Brewton (Pinecrest) 1502.81 8-6
303 Wu and Wen (Ridge) 1501.47 10-10
304 Ben Tutt and Nick Rychlik (Walt Whitman) 1500.85 9-10
  • Jeremy

    When is James Logan being added?

    • pf debater

      ^quarters bid so it meets the requirements

  • K

    Where is James Logan? It’s a quarters bid tournament with one of the highest team-bid ratios in the nation.

  • Adam Weaver

    Y’all should put in MLK it had 175 teams for a quarters bid it was pretty competitive too

  • Korn Onthe Cobb

    When will sunvite be in?

  • upset

    wheres gmu and bk?

  • alin abo0t

    how u gonna take la salle nc from 7th to not even on the list rip 🙁

    • David Wornow

      My boys.

      • alin abo0t

        uh no… they’re MY boys.

  • Fred Soosh

    you must add blue key

  • KDB8

    Is Crestian in for everyone?

  • ?

    wasn’t this list longer a little while ago?

    • AWEG

      Yes. However, when they reduced the quantity of tournaments and increased the required tournaments to 2, the number of teams who were ranked decreased. The site only puts up people who are above 1500 (the starting point), which as of right now is only 235.

  • grumpy

    where is gmu

  • Salty

    Where’s bluekey and GMU?!

  • Will Arnesan

    I know I do not run this anymore but I highly suggest you add Blue key

    • lol

      Will Arnesen spelled his own name wrong???

  • yeet jordan foster

    I love Harish and Keshav is my best friend

  • the pfer

    Do you guys have historical rankings, like rankings from 15-16 and 14-15?

  • alex

    Did you already remove tournaments like Heart of Texas and Tim Averill?

  • DW

    Dham and Walzer-Goldfeld are listed twice at 148 and 237

  • sandeep

    the first name of Shankar from Lincoln Sudbury Shankar/Weinstein and Shankar/Howell is Sandeep, not Rohan.

  • st josephs vm

    St Joseph’s VM (Vong and Master) is included twice, at 247 and 363

  • Barry

    Wasn’t the list longer a while ago?

    • Zach Kirsch

      For a while, the number of teams that we post has been all the teams above a rating of 1500, up to 400 teams. There are less teams now than there used to be, because we are not including smaller tournaments anymore.

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yep, sorry- there was a glitch

  • glitches?

    there seem to be a few glitches- there only 183 teams on the list, and some teams that were previously in the top 200 are simply not there despite the records not being updated…

    • Zach Kirsch

      We only show teams who have a ranking above 1500. Please see the update at the top of the page – we have decided to no longer include some of the smaller tournaments.

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yep, sorry about that. All fixed!

  • GBX AND PRINCETON

    add Glenbrooks and Princeton!

  • Tom

    Hi, thanks for doing these rankings in the first place. However, there is a pretty big problem that many circuit debaters have noted. The new system to suggest tournaments is cool, but some of them are wayyy too small to be counted. These are national rankings, NOT local rankings. In addition, calculating these smaller tournaments takes time, and this just postpones bigger tournaments like Glenbrooks from being posted sooner. Both problems would be solved by calculating less tournaments. Last year, the rankings were confined to quarters bids or bigger. My suggestion is doing all semis bids (or finals if you have extra time) or bigger. Please consider, thanks.

  • exdee

    when will results from Glenbrooks be posted?

  • Rohit

    Yang and Lin, currently ranked 169, are from Plano West Senior High and not Plano Senior High. Would it be possible to fix that? Thank you

  • lmao

    Why is Tim Averill included? That was such a tiny tournament

  • RENGO4MOD

    THIS LIST IS A TRAVESTY WHERE IS RENGO2212 WE AS HIS LOYAL FOLLOWERS DEMAND PLACEMENT NOW!

  • mandy

    is long beach going to be added? it was a finals bid

  • New year?

    Will this list be updated for 2016-17?

    • Yes. Updates to the rankings will begin shortly. We will also be announcing a small improvment soon.

  • nats?

    When will NSDA Nats for PF be up???

    • Zach Kirsch

      Unfortunately, I tried to include the NSDA’s in the rankings, but there is no place that lists the schools of the teams that competed. If thee is anywhere (non-PDF) that you can find that matches the competitors to their schools, I can definitely update the rankings.

  • Debater

    Will this include NSDA Nats16?

  • jkl;j;klj

    When will NCFLs be posted?

  • jon

    The season is pretty much over except for NSDAs, could you please add semis bid tournaments? I mean you added NDCA which had 26 teams..and it’d make ELO more accurate too!

  • NDCA WHAT THE HECK

    WHY DID U INCLUDE NDCA IT HAD 26 TEAMS IN IT THAT IS NOT RIGHT

    • Zach Kirsch

      We included NDCA for LD so it was trivial to add it for PF as well

  • Plz Reply Zach

    If you’re not going to do the semis tournaments, can you atleast add both TOCs for PF and International PF (lots of top 200 teams with 1+ bid, will help ELo accuracy) along with NSDA nats??? Thanks!

  • Dave

    now that the season is over for bid tournaments, could you please upload semis bid tournaments? More results = more ELO accuracy, right?

  • VSlowly

    So semis tournaments are next, right??

  • Jamal Charles

    Any chance Bellaire will ever be put up?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Unfortunately, they’re not on Tabroom so it’s unlikely we will be able to add Bellaire.

  • Patient but real talk

    fam I hate to bug you but real talk this needa be updated

  • Columbia

    Put Columbia in!

  • itstime

    It has been almost a month. I understand that it takes a long time to sort the rankings, but for the majority of the circuit this is the only way for us to see how we stand amongst each other. Please update Penn and Berk.

  • AWEG

    BERKELEY PLEASE

  • AWEG

    Berkeley, UPenn, Millard North results?

  • IMPATIENT

    UPDATE RANKINGS !!!!!!! OR PLEASE RESPOND PLESSSSSSSZZZZ WE ARE IMPATIENT

  • UPDATEITPLZ

    PLZ UPDATE THE RANKINGS OR REPLY TO US ATLEAST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • MidwestDebater

    yo throw up that milo cup @ millard north when you have the chance

  • debate

    when will u add penn

  • ImpatientDebater

    When will Berkeley be up?

  • Charles Brady

    Can we get an updated total number of competitors this year?

  • ResultsAwaiter

    When will you add Berkeley?

    • AWEG

      Yeah I agree. Please upload!

  • db8

    Will UPenn LBC 2016 be posted?

  • debater123

    Are you going to add Upenn on here?

  • ConcernedDebator

    Please, for the love of god, do not put in the Beckers loss to Whitman MC. That round was a clear win for the better team.

    • debate3333

      Get over yourself

  • John

    why are all the records screwed up? It seems like they don’t include the W-L from the first half of the school year, which they should also include.

  • Doowmas

    Is there any reason in particular why Emory – a tournament that is on Tabroom – is taking so long to be put in?

    • Suresh

      I think it is because some of the teams that are very close to Whitman AA (such as Poly EH) did very well at Emory and that could potentially put them at #1 in the rankings… Look at who compiles these rankings and maybe that’ll help guide you to the answer…

      • Doowmas

        Just so you know, Will Arnesen no longer enters tournaments due to a change in programming, so it has nothing to do with this fake conspiracy theory…

  • pfdebater98

    Is James Logan being ignored this year? It was a quarters bid and has been counted for rankings for every prior year.
    Results on joyoftournaments.

  • Joan

    Semis bids pls

  • Daniel Redden

    Winston Churchill…

  • Christian

    Ya please add all the semis bids and Emory asap because >75% are tabroom.

  • homie im coolin

    Churchill ETA?

  • Paul

    Can you release an update for DebateHelper that supports Office 2016 for Mac?

  • Daniel Redden

    churchill

  • andrew

    can you expand the list to top 500 (or however mant debaters are above 1000 elo rating)? because of how many debaters there are in PF?

    • Zach Kirsch

      For now we are going to stay at 400, but always feel free to email us at rankings@victorybriefs.com if you want to know your rank and rating!

  • homie im coolin

    Bellaire plz

    • Zach Kirsch

      Bellaire results are not online!

  • homie im coolin

    Bellaire

    • Zach Kirsch

      Bellaire results aren’t online!

  • Alex
    • Doowmas

      It’s not a matter of the ease, more so that those tournaments are considered less legitimate, meaning less top 100 teams go there, which translates to some really odd ELO rankings.

    • Zach Kirsch

      There actually isn’t a problem with including more tournaments – including more results will always make an Elo ratings system more accurate. We haven’t gotten to these tournaments because we have been focused on other aspects of the rankings, but we will hopefully input them soon. Thanks for the links!

      • Villcp

        Sounds like a really really good idea. Do u have a plan on if you will actually add them/when they would be added?

      • Joan

        I think this is a really good idea. Do you have any idea when you’ll get to them?

      • plssss

        PLEASE do this soon it would be so helpful

        • Piper D’essee

          Yes. This would be a really good idea to do as soon as possible!

    • includesemibids

      @zachkirsch:disqus this is one of the most responded to comments on the site, and clearly there is a lot of interest to include these tournaments. I would really appreciate if you answered the questions below on the comment.

  • Helpful Debater

    Cypress Bay, Ardrey Kell, Flanagan, Nova, American Heritage, Coral Springs, and Ft. Lauderdale have duplicate teams on the rankings.

  • Will

    why are both ardrey kell teams listed twice even though they had the same partnership?

  • AWEG

    Are results for Arizona State up? Also will you put in Stanford after the tournament happens?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yes and yes!

  • homie im coolin

    Bellaire? It’s been like 3 or 4 months…

    • Zach Kirsch

      Bellaire results aren’t online!

  • Paul

    Can you guys put up Laird?

  • jmino

    are walkovers ignored as though it were a bye?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yep!

      • jmino

        University CM and University SW maybe messed up then. University SW walked over CM in octas at Laird

  • James

    How are points added if you get a win from a bye round?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Bye rounds are ignored – since it’s impossible to lose in a bye round you shouldn’t get a bump for “winning”

  • Charles Brady

    It looks like you added GMU into the rankings without adding it to the list of tournaments. It may be worth it to add it to the list so that people don’t come complaining.

  • AWEG

    Is there an e-mail address we can e-mail and find our rank?

  • Paul

    Can you put up GMU? It was a quarters bid and had nearly 200 teams.

    • Also wants GMU on the rankings

      He will. The problem is that GMU is a speechwire tournament and must be put in by hand. Will will need to type in every win loss manually in order to update the rankings. It just takes more time than it does for other tournaments, so just be patient, he will.

  • AWEG

    la costa canyon? results?

  • missiondebater

    Alta had more than 60 competitors and was a quarters bid. ETA?

  • Jamal Charles

    Dudes, post bellaire. I understand that getting the Cumes is the issue. However I think I have the solution, you can email Jay Stubbs the coach of bellaire at BellaireDebate@sbcglobal.net to get the cumes.

  • Loochen

    You should include Dowling Catholic

  • David

    when will princeton results be up??

  • top 400 sounds bad…

    how many PF teams are there total?

    • Zach Kirsch

      There are about 1100 so far this season

  • Confused

    Will you be posting Scarsdale or Ridge?

  • Evan Tong

    Will the top 400 teams be posted like last year?

    • Zach Kirsch

      The number of teams we post is dependent on how many total teams have competed. As the season goes on, we’ll post more and more. If you’re ever curious of your rating/rankings, shoot us an email at rankings@victorybriefs.com

  • Jamal Charles

    Hey guys. I don’t mean to pester you, but could we please add Bellaire. It was a quarters bid afterall. it happened in early October and has yet to be posted.

    • Kyle

      Bellaire and George Mason, too. Also, i’m really hoping that vbriefly can post top 500 like it did last year because that would definitely make things more holistic and interesting.

  • kiddpublicforum

    ETA on Alta?

  • kiddpublicforum

    Are results from Alta going to calculated in?

  • kiddpublicforum

    will results from Alta be put up?

  • Doowmas

    I think it’s kind of funny how people come on here and do nothing but complain about the rankings…if y’all don’t like them, either make your own rankings system or win more rounds so you can get a number next to your name. I don’t think y’all realize how much time it takes Will and Zach to keep up with all those rounds. Thank them for what they do, don’t criticize them for what they don’t do.

    • AWEG

      I agree.

  • ECO99

    Are you going to include Nova Titan? Its a quarters bid which is the terms at the top and had over 60 entries (the requirement for Debaterankings). Please add this soon!!

  • Josh

    Are you guys limiting the number of teams ranked to 100?

  • jack

    why is it only 100 teams? last year you guys included the top 400 teams or something. I think that was a lot more helpful

  • John

    Will Villiger results be added in soon?

  • ECO99

    Are the results from Titan going to be posted? They really should considering it’s in fact a quarters bid…..

  • SC17

    Is there going to be a TOC bid list for 2015?

  • Nightmare Joker

    Hey I would love you if you made this accessable to google docs me and my partner use google docs to write our cases

  • Joseph Arocha

    Blue key please please please

  • KBello

    Blue Key please

  • Jasmine Liu

    Put up Blue Key ya scamps!

  • Will Arnesen

    Put Blue Key in!

    • Nate Odenkirk

      Yeah srsly!!!!! It’s been like THREE DAYS already! The us constitution was written in HALF the time

      • Sebastian Ix

        Hey, wasn’t your dad on “Mr. Show With Bob and David”?

  • Matt Redler

    PUT UP BLUE KEY!!!

  • Eric Beilin

    Put up Blue Key already!!

  • Questioner

    Out of curiosity, will the data from last year be deleted at the end of this debate season?

  • Thomas Ebenger

    Put up Blue Key!!!!!!!! :O —

  • Ryan

    Bellaire Please

  • Jamal Charles

    Put up bellaire!!!!

  • Stan

    When will Bronx results be up?

  • Beth Cohen

    Put in Crestian

  • Jamal Charles

    When are Harker and Crestian going to be put up?

  • newrankingcheese

    are you guys going to be expanding the list to more teams with every tournament?

  • Scott

    How many unique teams are there (ie: top 50 out if what?)

    • William A

      393 teams (that’s the number of teams who have competed this year at either Wake or Yale and are thus eligible for inclusion)

  • Newrankings

    These new rankings don’t seem to be making that much sense right now. Are they based on last year or something? Because for example, there are teams that dropped in triples at Yale and didn’t go to any other tournaments who are ranked higher than people who quartered at Yale with a new partner. If it is cumulative, I don’t think that’s really fair, considering there are partner switches, and I don’t think people should be punished for partnering with someone younger than them or for circumstances out of their control. It also basically puts a huge barrier for people with a new partner to even try to make it up the rankings, and there is no way to outrank people who did well last year, regardless of the new competition this year.

    • Charles Brady

      There’s a justification for it rooted in how the Elo system works. Basically, new teams will move up the rankings more quickly because they are new and therefore undervalued. For instance, if a new team with 1,000 points beats an old team with 1,200 points, they will gain a greater number of points and the 1,200 point team will lose more points.

      The biggest benefit of this is that keeps point values consistent between the different years. If they started the results fresh each year, it would put far too much emphasis on tournaments at the end of the year. Basically, beating a great team at the first tournament of the season would be a lot less beneficial than beating that same team later in the year. By carrying over points, it’s ultimately more fair and you’re more likely to get the points you deserve for beating good teams.

      • Newrankings

        I understand what you’re saying, but I still think it’s not entirely fair. For example, this means someone with a new partner loses all the points they accrued last year, so was all their work last year worthless? Not only that, but a new team that did well shouldn’t have to wait to start rising. For example, if you have a great first tournament (like octos or quarters at Yale), you should be ranked highly, not below teams that did worse. Especially if some teams that did well last year are doing poorly compared to a new team, but they just haven’t/won’t hit each other.

        • William A

          Charles explained it perfectly. What I would add is that mathematically it takes a while (roughly 100 or more rounds) for a team to reach its “equilibrium,” that is, the point where a team is equally likely to rise in point as it is to fall. The problem with resetting each season is that almost zero teams reach their equilibrium, meaning that everyone in underrated and that the results are especially screwy at the start of the year and still inaccurate at the end.

          As for teams with new partners, that is a legitimate concern. However, thanks to the way Elo works, a team that is significantly undervalued (a good team with a new partnership) will rise swiftly because they will be gaining more points per round than had they started at a higher score. While this may lead to more inaccurate results at the start of the year, it will iron itself out by the end (notably, resetting scores at the start of the year would lead to even more inaccuracies at the start of the year).

          As for teams deserving to be high for doing well at the start, I understand the concern. However, I figure that it makes little sense to “earn” a 5th place by quartering at one tournament if it is the first tournament whereas by the end of the year you have to final at a half-dozen in order to get that same 5th place.

        • pf12

          I agree with “newrankings”. I do not exactly see the merit in under-representing achieved teams in the hopes of diverting late-season ranking swings, as it only creates an uphill road for new debaters, old debaters with new partners, and people from schools only starting to attend circuit tournaments. If it really were a miracle that a team were to do exceedingly well at opening tournaments such as Wake/Yale, then the rankings, by that logic, would only resettle back to more accurate rankings by the end, if/when they incur more losses. This system makes sure that the teams at the top, stay at the top. This is especially harmful because the beginning of the year is crucially important for some debaters- with college apps and stuff, it becomes a problem when people aren’t able to see the full fruits of their hard work because of a lasting power structure. Those who were good last year don’t have to worry about this, because in this system they’ll retain their spot in the beginning. But those new teams that are performing well this year have a lot to worry about, especially since they’ll have chances to move up the ladder if they hit teams with huge amount of points; which isn’t guaranteed either. There’s a reason most rankings are year to year. New year = new rankings. I don’t see any justification in carrying forward old results, into a new year, and creating an uphill road for new students and debaters with new partners.

        • NatDebater

          Pretty convenient that the person who would most benefit from keeping last years results is the one running these rankings & justifying keeping them this way. hmm…

        • jnebel

          We decided to start with the Elo scores from last year because it increases predictive accuracy. Most rankings start over each year because they don’t depend on the prior scores of the participants. Elo does, and that’s why it’s so much more effective in the long term than at the beginning. I believe that some other leagues with a season-based structure and similar rating systems (e.g., the World Football Elo Ratings) also do it this way, although they don’t have to deal with new and changing teams. With that said, we will at some point look into a comparison of our current model and a year-restricted model, along with other possibilities for addressing the issues with new partners.

        • Nick P

          I understand your frustration, but even if you were to reset the rankings they would still be ranked number one, considering they are currently 12-0. Honestly, is there even an argument to be made that they should not be ranked number one?

        • Debater789

          What worries me about this is it feels like you’re contradicting yourself. You claim that “thanks to the way Elo works, a team that is significantly undervalued (a good team with a new partnership) will rise swiftly.” That exact same logic can be applied to an old team– if they do well they’ll rise in the rankings. Including results from last year only seems to perpetuate hegemony in debate, and rig the system in favor of the “incumbents.” It honestly just feels corrupt. If you killed it on the circuit last year, you should have to kill it on the circuit this year too in order to be considered one of the top teams in debate.

    • Kobe

      Tiffany one day you will be as good as me.

  • zach’s #1 fan

    when is 2015-2016 list going to come out?

  • Yo

    Will this page disappear for the 2015-16 season?

  • raorm

    Will you guys add the results from Nats?

  • debater

    what about ndca? a lot of top teams there.

  • NCFL

    Will you be including results from NCFL?

  • Toegdir

    Will you do a separate Elo rankings for the TOC like you did last year? or will the TOC be included in this ranking?

  • SickitySickity Fresh

    we should get carrolton up on here

  • concerned public forum debater

    Yo on the old website there was a giant google spreadsheet with round by round breakdowns of elo increase/decrease by tournament. Is that still available? Also, is there a place/document where we can see the winners and runners up of every one of the included tournaments so that we get a better since of where each team’s Elo comes from? thanks

    • AWEG

      Fairmont Prep runs a PF bid list, but it doesn’t contain the Elo rise/fall.

  • Debate

    What about Scarsdale? One of the most concentrated tournaments on the circuit this season.

  • Curious Debater

    What do you think were the biggest surprises of 2014-15 debate season? Comment below.

    • arnyfanz

      msjhs lmao

  • PFer123

    Please include Lakeland if possible. It was very competitive this year.

    • pfer456

      lol

  • Name Mixup

    Hey, I also sent an email but theres a name mixup in the rankings, number 385. It is not Elwell and Peshkin but rather Elwell and Park. Im guessing its because the rankings were off of the Harvard results, but Harvard also mixed up the names. If you want proof or what not, it states on the first ballot that it is supposed to be Elwell and Park.

    • Name Mixup

      Offtopic question: Are the rankings compiled year by year or are they cumulative? So would partners that are gone due to members graduating still be up on here?

  • lol

    When will Berkeley results be up?

  • Debater

    Will you be including results from the TOC itself? Also, will rounds at the TOC matter more than those at bid tournaments? For example, instead of prelim rounds having an ELO weight of 10, they could be 20 at the TOC and 15 and 30 for elimination rounds.

    • debater2

      it wouldn’t make sense to weight TOC rounds over other rounds – the value of a win/loss is already based off of how good your opponent is, and there’s nothing inherently more valuable about beating a good team at the TOC than beating the same team at any other tournament

  • Max

    I really don’t think that you guys should include results from Harvard. It is impossible to determine who breaks and who doesn’t in a tournament with 350 teams and 4 rounds. 1 terrible judge can ruin someone’s tournament because 3-1 teams, many of whom would have broken if the tournament was 6 rounds or they broke to triples. For example, the two finalists of the round robin didn’t even break. I just think that including this tournament would skew the rankings unfairly.

    • Nick Smith

      I may be mistaken but I think that your suggestion doesn’t make sense because ELO is a relative measure of participants in head to head activities. Your ranking and rating don’t improve based on (not) breaking, it is based off of head to head competition and how much a win/loss is worth against particular rated opponent (beating someone who goes super deep at tournaments will very likely result in a higher rating gain than beating someone who goes 0-6 everywhere).

      Not breaking just means that the debater didn’t have an opportunity to adjust their ranking more, but that ranking could go up or down after breaking based on their performance and their opponents rating. If someone was 3-1, broke, and then lost to their first elim opponent then their rating would have been better off if they hadn’t advanced at all.

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yeah, Nick said it perfectly! The number of prelim rounds or the steepness of the break won’t skew the rankings since it’s based on a round-by-round comparison.

  • PF

    When will Stanford results be included?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Very soon!

  • Jared H

    Rankings aside- who do y’all think the top 5 PF teams are in the country? Winner of nats/toc?

    • Joey Schnide

      Finals of the TOC is gonna be Stuyvesant and Evanston. I know next to nothing about national circuit PF, so I’m pretty sure I’m right.

      • nat circuit debater

        I wouldnt jump to conclusions. Ridge has two solid teams, theres boca gs and american heritage BB, Horace mann has a couple solid teams. Evanston is good, but princeton MO is better, as is Whitman AA (they DID win TOC last year…). I would say Stuy KU being in late out rounds/finals is a solid prediction though since Urda just broke the all-time bid record for any type of debate in one year (12 bids this year). Also Mella and Starr from Miami is really solid, as is Matt Feng from Plano. Basically, I wouldn’t just say with 100% certainty that any two teams will be in the finals at TOC.

        • Nat circuit debater

          Having competed with and against most of the teams you just talked about I think discounting Evanston to Princeton is a mistake. Also the amount of times you used the word solid probably lends itself to the doubts of credibility I experienced while reading your comment. Finally, telling us that there is no way to predict TOC Finals with 100% certainty? I’d suggest you watch some Captain Morgan advertisements.

        • nat circuit debater

          My comment had a lot of personal bias—I agree—but the message I’m trying to get across is objectively true: there are a crapload of amazing teams that all beat each other regularly. Yeah I probably shouldnt have discounted Evanston to Princeton, they are both really good. Also, the perfect example of the unpredictability of debate is the ToC results from last year. Absolutely NOBODY went into that tournament expecting the Arnesens to close-out, yet they still did. Also there’s the fact that Evanston and Stuy could hit eachother early in outrounds.

        • anonymous

          As valid as your points may be, you’re leaving out a bunch of superb teams. USchool CH has had a pretty stellar season, as have Bronx CD, Cypress GH, Durham, Poly Prep, Nova, and a laundry list of other teams. The best teams are not exclusive to the ones invited to the Harvard RR!

        • nat circuit debater

          Oh yea I did accidentally leave out a bunch, the specific teams weren’t really the focus as much as the message.

  • goc

    Will Golden Desert be included?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yep, soon!

  • Debater

    ETA on James Logan?

    • Zach Kirsch

      James Logan will be uploaded this weekend

      • Debater

        Update on this?

        • Zach Kirsch

          Sorry, James Logan’s results are in a format that is much harder to parse than other tournaments. It’ll be up ASAP!

      • Debater

        What format do you need for the James Logan results to be parseable?

        • Zach Kirsch

          Any sort of table format or plain-text comma separated values (.csv) format

  • dfgfgd

    Are the bolded ones already entered and the unbolded are yet to be added?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yep, exactly.

      • dfgfgd

        Let me know if you need Logan cumes, i have them on me and am willing to email them if necessary

  • ThatDebater

    ETA on Sunvite?

    • Zach Kirsch

      It’ll be up by tomorrow.

  • Curious

    ETA on adding Columbia?

    • Zach Kirsch

      It’ll be up later today.

      • ahmad_amireh

        Sylvania did have a teams to bid ratio of 31:1 and 17 ranked debaters were there. Is there a possibility that Sylvania gets added?

        • Zach Kirsch

          Sorry Ahmad, for now we’re using the TOC bid of the tournament as a basis, but if anything changes I’ll let you know.

        • ahmad_amireh

          Sylvania was a TOC bid tournament. They said so at awards. Btw did you go to Hawken

        • trynna beef?

          Zach, just change it. Give the people what they want.

        • get at me

          Cut you a deal. If winners of sylvannia win stanford you upload it. Sounds reasonable to me.

        • Nick Palmer

          It is a bid for IEs not for Public Forum or any other debate event. But based on your description it seems like a viable contender for a TOC bid in the future.

  • krawfy

    Why not Sunvitational?

    • Zach Kirsch

      Sunvite will be uploaded shortly. As Chris said, each tournament takes hours to correctly enter. We plan to include all quarters and octos bid tournaments as soon as possible. We recently added Lexington and GMU to the rankings.

  • Quentin Cooper

    Is this based only on TOC? My partner and I have a top record but we are in MO, where we cant get any bids for TOC. I’d like to see where we rank, though.

    • Zach Kirsch

      Yep!

  • trynna beef?

    For real though Sylvannia had upwards of 10 top 100 debaters competing. It deserves inclusion. Rough estimate says there are about 8 or 10 TOC bids floating around at that tournament.

  • trynna beef?

    You know I gotta say Sylvannia seems like a very reputable tournament that should be included. Many reputable teams including the first speaker from the team that won Yale. He got steamrolled in quarters which should tell you how competitive that tournament is. Really though it just shows how lucky Jack and Aman were to win Yale. Actually though how the hell did that happen. They are a minor league team at best.

    • Beef

      Yes, I can confirm that Sylvania is legit. Winners of Yale were absolutely demolished in their quarters round against an even better team. Moreover, the year before, a team of novices were so good that they beat a team that got Octas at TOC.

      • trynna beef?

        Most importantly the team that won the tournament beat the champions of Yale the following week proving it to be legitimate.

        • Night Hawk

          I heard the team that won was reaaaaaaaaaaal legit

        • trynna beef?

          I heard it was like they reinvented debate. Just straight fire.

        • Beef

          I heard they have a background in duo interp. Must help their speaking and eye contact

        • Night Hawk

          idk but the word transcendent was tossed around

        • Night Hawk

          never heard anybody call zach kirsch transcendent

          just saying

        • Michael DiMino

          I also heard rumors about “panacea”

        • trynna beef?

          Lets just say Hawken’s zone at that tournament was not safe.

      • trynna beef?

        on a 11 judge panel

  • Night Hawk

    zach homie bump ya boy schoon up a couple spots

    • Night Hawk

      free schoons included

    • Night Hawk

      just two spots

    • Night Hawk

      i’m tryna say i’m top 100

  • Arnold

    You should also include results from Logan.

    • Not Arnold

      Logan isn’t a real tournament. It’s a shitty one that “Arnold” goes to.

    • Ash

      I agree with Arnold, MLK at James Logan had over 140 teams in the field and was a quarters bid.

    • Frank Des Moines

      Logan has the second highest teams per bid ratio of any other quarters bid tournament with 142 competitors: 17 teams per bid. As a point of comparison, Manchester Essex, another quarters bid tournament that is included on this list, has the second lowest teams per bid ratio with just 66 competitors: 8 teams per bid.

      If anything, James Logan is more deserving of inclusion than existing tournaments.

      Source: Doug Miller’s TOC Bid List

      • We are not excluding Logan. It was a very recent tournament and each tournament takes hours to correctly enter. We plan to include all bid tournaments as soon as possible.

        • Frank Des Moines

          No worries; I was simply responding to Not Arnold’s assertion. You guys are doing an awesome job!

  • Jai

    I think you should include results from Ridge.

    • Jai Bansal

      I completely agree with this 100%. Ridge is a super legit tournament and deserves to be counted.

    • homie im coolin

      where is Churchill??

  • Joey Schnide

    Y’all should do a PF bid list if possible. There isn’t one currently, and there are probably a lot of people who would really appreciate it.