March 27, 2009

ABA NAAC regional results up

The ABA has posted the regional results for the National Appellate Advocacy Competition on its Competitors Information Page. I won't link to it here, but only because the ABA has deemed it confidential and for competitors' eyes only -- I suspect that it's not that they don't want the general public lurking around, but rather that they don't want judges stumbling upon the site and then matching up team numbers with school names. In the past, the ABA has released its regional results to the public along with the national results once the competition concludes. So, if you really want to know the identity of the seventh-best advocate from the St. Louis regional, just sit tight a few weeks.

My post of a month ago revealed that at last year's ABA regionals, brief and oralist awards didn't necessarily translate into regional championships. This year's results? Almost identical to last year's.

Of the 24 regional champions, only 7 finished in the top five of briefs at their respective regional competitions. That's the same number as last year. Only one advancing team -- Seton Hall University School of Law -- won regional best brief. No second-place-brief teams advanced to Chicago. At the San Francisco regional, none of the five top briefs claimed championships.

Of the 60 students winning oralist awards, just 23 were on regional championship teams. That's up a bit from last year, when only 19 of the 61 regional winners (one regional had a tie for tenth place) enjoyed trips to Chicago. That's almost a seven percent increase, but still far short of a majority.

Last year's national results didn't seem to favor the regional brief and oralist winners, so it will be interesting to see if this year follows suit. The national finals take place April 2-4 in Chicago. I'll be there and will blog results at the end of each day. Although I've posted the regional champions in three separate posts, here they are all in one place:

Boston Regional:
Chicago Kent-College of Law
Marquette University Law School
University of Florida Levin College of Law
University of Oklahoma Law Center

Brooklyn Regional:
Michigan State University College of Law
New York Law School
Seton Hall University School of Law
Temple University Beasley School of Law

Miami Regional:

Samford University Cumberland School of Law
Texas Tech University School of Law (2 teams)
University of Texas School of Law

St. Louis Regional:
Faulkner University Thomas Goode Jones School of Law
Loyola University Chicago School of Law
St. Mary's University School of Law
Washington University in St. Louis School of Law

San Fransisco Regional:

UC Hastings College of the Law (2 teams)
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
University of San Diego School of Law

Washington, D.C. Regional:
American University Washington College of Law
Duke University School of Law
Liberty University School of Law
South Texas College of Law


Anonymous said...

I don't get the significance of "only" 23 top speakers being on advancing teams.

There are only 24 advancing teams. That means each advancing team bagged an average of about 1 speaker award. Yeah, 37 top speakers weren't on advancing teams, but there were 163 teams that didn't advance. So each non-advancing team averaged less than .25 speaker awards.

Which means the teams that advanced put top speakers on the board at a 4x greater rate than the rest of the field.

And that seems to go a long way toward explaining why they weren't part of the rest of the field.

Robert T. Sherwin said...

I think you make a good point, but I do think the numbers are counterintuitive. One would figure that given the de-emphasis of the brief (in particular, it's elimination from consideration in the break rounds), the teams with the top oralists would dominate in the elimination rounds. Otherwise put, I would expect nearly every oralist on an advancing team to win an oralist award, or at least a majority of them to win. But the numbers don't really reflect that. It's true that a fair share are winning; I just expected the number to be higher.