There are lots of ways it could work, though there'd have to been an extra day.
Here's one very simple formula, based on the fact that there are 5 prelim venues this year:
After two days of prelims, the top 50 poets advance to semis. There's a 10 poet bout in each venue, seeded by rank after prelims.
Each semi is 2 rounds long.
The top 2 poets in each bout advance to finals.
The actual content of the 2 rounds could be anything-- could be 2 additional 3 minute rounds, requiring a total of 5 to win-- could be a 5 minute round and a 30-second round, maybe-- maybe poets are paired and most write 2 duets and advance or fail as a pair?
Lots of options there, but the point is that cutting from 96 to 10 or 12 or whatever small number they have in finals these days does not seem rational. The steeper the cut, especially the more venues are involved-- the more random chance becomes a factor in who advances.
I would almost prefer to see something like 48 venue reps + 48 storm poets. Storm poets perform on night 1, pick the top 12, and add them to the 48 venue reps. Now you have 60 poets competing for 12 spots. Make the storms work harder, eh?
IWPs is my vacation so the new/old friends, the better. Not about the number of competitors. The problem isn't with expanding the field it's the utter lack of consequences. And then the annual wrist-smacking of no one did [whatever] on time so PSI is going to [do whatever]. Think the location of Nats2010.
There is an actively cultivate corporate culture of procrastination and lax deadlines and then a voiced condemnation of procrastination and missing deadlines.
Oh, I agree this is a problem, but my understanding is that the additional poets will mostly be people who were in before the deadline anyway. I think that tacking $25 on to late entries to fill out the field of 96 would be a good plan.
Seems less like iWPS and more like "anyone who can get the money in gets to go."
This doesn't make it so that the best poets will be on finals stage (they already would have been), but this will actually make it so that it is going to have alot more to do with the draw. Being as there is no way to weed out the "good" storm poets from the "bad" ones. Some bouts will be extra strong and some will be absurdly weak in comparison, and by allowing anyone who wants to read a spot, it weakens the field as a whole and the event's prestige in my opinion.
A national competition shouldn't be about everyone gets to play, it should be the best of the best going for the win.
i find this particularly amusing because our first iWPS winner didn't make it onto his slam team the first 5 or so years he tried. I don't know for sure, but I believe he was a storm poet when he competed at iwps, but you're trying to make it seem like storm poets are automatically worse than venue poets, to which I say - show me the statistics of that. I have seen some slam teams that were completely horrible in my opinion, yet they made it through a whole season of competition
( ... )
I am not saying Storm poets are worse. Far from that. I am saying that a) people who want to compete at iwps should be encouraged to compete in their venue's slam (if they have one) and b) geographic diversity is a bullshit way of determining who gets in from the Storm list.
Part of me: Hells yes, weaken the field, dilute the talent, yes.
Part of me: Wow, I mean, I'm a "storm poet," but I got up early in the morning to register. If there are more storm poets than actual winners, what's the point of winning your local iWPS finals?
Comments 44
Reply
Reply
Here's one very simple formula, based on the fact that there are 5 prelim venues this year:
After two days of prelims, the top 50 poets advance to semis. There's a 10 poet bout in each venue, seeded by rank after prelims.
Each semi is 2 rounds long.
The top 2 poets in each bout advance to finals.
The actual content of the 2 rounds could be anything-- could be 2 additional 3 minute rounds, requiring a total of 5 to win-- could be a 5 minute round and a 30-second round, maybe-- maybe poets are paired and most write 2 duets and advance or fail as a pair?
Lots of options there, but the point is that cutting from 96 to 10 or 12 or whatever small number they have in finals these days does not seem rational. The steeper the cut, especially the more venues are involved-- the more random chance becomes a factor in who advances.
Reply
I would almost prefer to see something like 48 venue reps + 48 storm poets. Storm poets perform on night 1, pick the top 12, and add them to the 48 venue reps. Now you have 60 poets competing for 12 spots. Make the storms work harder, eh?
Reply
There is an actively cultivate corporate culture of procrastination and lax deadlines and then a voiced condemnation of procrastination and missing deadlines.
Reply
Reply
This doesn't make it so that the best poets will be on finals stage (they already would have been), but this will actually make it so that it is going to have alot more to do with the draw. Being as there is no way to weed out the "good" storm poets from the "bad" ones. Some bouts will be extra strong and some will be absurdly weak in comparison, and by allowing anyone who wants to read a spot, it weakens the field as a whole and the event's prestige in my opinion.
A national competition shouldn't be about everyone gets to play, it should be the best of the best going for the win.
Reply
I have some other ideas on choosing storms, like past history of volunteering and things like that, but still, if you didn't win at your venue...
Reply
Reply
Reply
Part of me: Wow, I mean, I'm a "storm poet," but I got up early in the morning to register. If there are more storm poets than actual winners, what's the point of winning your local iWPS finals?
Reply
Reply
Reply
-alvin
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment