New York 2014

[caseyotis]

This is interesting, especially because I used to be a part of the Lower Hudson region and it was a lot more competitive than Southern Tier. That might only be Division B, though, where Scarsdale would consistently get top 10 at states. I don't know why they aren't as good in Division C.
I also don't know why they're not posting results. They did and currently do for Division B.

I'm going to say that Lower Hudson is probably on the bottom of the list because they attract a lot more teams to their region, and might qualify many more mediocre teams for the state competition than the other regions. I'm finding it hard to believe that there are less-competitive regions than us.

[YUSO]

This is interesting, especially because I used to be a part of the Lower Hudson region and it was a lot more competitive than Southern Tier. That might only be Division B, though, where Scarsdale would consistently get top 10 at states. I don't know why they aren't as good in Division C.
I also don't know why they're not posting results. They did and currently do for Division B.

I'm going to say that Lower Hudson is probably on the bottom of the list because they attract a lot more teams to their region, and might qualify many more mediocre teams for the state competition than the other regions. I'm finding it hard to believe that there are less-competitive regions than us.

Adding more inexperienced/bad teams to the region doesn't make the better teams that make it to states any worse. You're confusing the two facets of competitiveness, inter-region (i.e., state) and intraregion. NYC has been growing by a couple of teams every year, and yet Cardozo and Stuyvesant place almost the same every year at states (21, 10 respectively).

[YUSO]

Couple of things I thought of while doing the analysis:

1. 1. "Competitiveness" comes in two forms: within regions (i.e., how close the raw scores are amongst the schools, especially the advancing state teams), and across regions (i.e., which region sends the best-performing teams to states?). These are two very different questions involving very different analytic methods and conclusions. I did not explore the former question at all, as I believe the debate here currently focuses on the latter.

• 2. Which measure to use? Averages or medians? Perhaps some other measure (e.g., weighted indices)? Averages give the big outliers distortion power, but the median does not always make sense analytically. e.g., look at the "median" and "rank" columns and how different the results are.

• 3. Variation among years. Maybe I'll do a longitudinal analysis when I have time.

• 4. What's the framework? What are we looking for? Due to yearly variation and the WLI split, it honestly makes zero sense to aspire to a clear-cut 1, 2, 3, etc. rank system of all the regions. What would be the point?

• 5. Statistical significance. I'm betting most of the differences between means (hence the call for ANOVAs) are not significant due to sample size, meaning that the null would likely be upheld, and that there is no significant difference across groups of regions (see below).

However, based on the rudimentary analysis in my last post, one can try to tier all the regions:

1. ST, LEN, LH, AD seem like the weakest regions. Notable exceptions here are Plattsburgh and Maine-Endwell for 2013.

• NYC, MS, MW seem like the middle tier. Lots of notable top 15 exceptions.

• ELI, WLI, CAP, MH constitute the top tier, but not very clearly. Together, these 4 regions accounted for 7 of the top 10 teams in 2013.

Again, I think attempting to establish clear ranks WITHIN those regions is a futile exercise and wouldn't add anything to the conversation.

[caseyotis]

This is interesting, especially because I used to be a part of the Lower Hudson region and it was a lot more competitive than Southern Tier. That might only be Division B, though, where Scarsdale would consistently get top 10 at states. I don't know why they aren't as good in Division C.
I also don't know why they're not posting results. They did and currently do for Division B.

I'm going to say that Lower Hudson is probably on the bottom of the list because they attract a lot more teams to their region, and might qualify many more mediocre teams for the state competition than the other regions. I'm finding it hard to believe that there are less-competitive regions than us.

Adding more inexperienced/bad teams to the region doesn't make the better teams that make it to states any worse. You're confusing the two facets of competitiveness, inter-region (i.e., state) and intraregion. NYC has been growing by a couple of teams every year, and yet Cardozo and Stuyvesant place almost the same every year at states (21, 10 respectively).

But having more teams adds to the number of teams that do qualify from that state. Those teams (6th/7th/etc. place qualifying for states) will most likely bring the results of the region down. At least, that's what I'm thinking.

[YUSO]

But having more teams adds to the number of teams that do qualify from that state. Those teams (6th/7th/etc. place qualifying for states) will most likely bring the results of the region down. At least, that's what I'm thinking.

That's correct, except LH has consistently sent only 4 teams to states since 2000 (as per http://newyorkscioly.org/SOPages/CStateHistory.html; LH schools are in green, simply move down a column for single year and see how many schools participated and had a rank), so this isn't the case for LH.

In any case, you just can't base your judgments from Division B LH and map them onto the C landscape that you haven't competed in. The data says it all – LH is down there, but it's a difficult argument to say it's outright the worst one.

Also, I disagree with your prediction that Maine-Endwell won't hit top 20. The only year they haven't been in the top 20 since 1990 was 2012. Maybe they're not the consistent top 10 contender they used to be, but 9, 19, 24, 12, over the past 4 years certainly isn't a death sentence.

[syo_astro]

But having more teams adds to the number of teams that do qualify from that state. Those teams (6th/7th/etc. place qualifying for states) will most likely bring the results of the region down. At least, that's what I'm thinking.

That's correct, except LH has consistently sent only 4 teams to states since 2000 (as per http://newyorkscioly.org/SOPages/CStateHistory.html; LH schools are in green, simply move down a column for single year and see how many schools participated and had a rank), so this isn't the case for LH.

In any case, you just can't base your judgments from Division B LH and map them onto the C landscape that you haven't competed in. The data says it all – LH is down there, but it's a difficult argument to say it's outright the worst one.

Also, I disagree with your prediction that Maine-Endwell won't hit top 20. The only year they haven't been in the top 20 since 1990 was 2012. Maybe they're not the consistent top 10 contender they used to be, but 9, 19, 24, 12, over the past 4 years certainly isn't a death sentence.

As far as death sentences go in theory we shouldn't even be a top 10 placer. Along with some other Li schools because if you look in history we've had some MUCH worse years. Never know how results go until they happen. The whole competitiveness thing has come up before too I believe for many reasons (eg. Whether LI should split, NY should get another team to nats, which state is most competitive, etc). I think the end point is it doesn't really matter . I'm more worried about getting to nats right now -_-.

[caseyotis]

But having more teams adds to the number of teams that do qualify from that state. Those teams (6th/7th/etc. place qualifying for states) will most likely bring the results of the region down. At least, that's what I'm thinking.

That's correct, except LH has consistently sent only 4 teams to states since 2000 (as per http://newyorkscioly.org/SOPages/CStateHistory.html; LH schools are in green, simply move down a column for single year and see how many schools participated and had a rank), so this isn't the case for LH.

In any case, you just can't base your judgments from Division B LH and map them onto the C landscape that you haven't competed in. The data says it all – LH is down there, but it's a difficult argument to say it's outright the worst one.

Also, I disagree with your prediction that Maine-Endwell won't hit top 20. The only year they haven't been in the top 20 since 1990 was 2012. Maybe they're not the consistent top 10 contender they used to be, but 9, 19, 24, 12, over the past 4 years certainly isn't a death sentence.

Okay.
Unless Maine-Endwell improves, they're going to have one pigeon of a time, though. I was surprised that they did as poorly as they did at our regional. Again, unless they really improve between now and the 15th, they'll have trouble.

[islipscioly]

But having more teams adds to the number of teams that do qualify from that state. Those teams (6th/7th/etc. place qualifying for states) will most likely bring the results of the region down. At least, that's what I'm thinking.

That's correct, except LH has consistently sent only 4 teams to states since 2000 (as per http://newyorkscioly.org/SOPages/CStateHistory.html; LH schools are in green, simply move down a column for single year and see how many schools participated and had a rank), so this isn't the case for LH.

In any case, you just can't base your judgments from Division B LH and map them onto the C landscape that you haven't competed in. The data says it all – LH is down there, but it's a difficult argument to say it's outright the worst one.

Also, I disagree with your prediction that Maine-Endwell won't hit top 20. The only year they haven't been in the top 20 since 1990 was 2012. Maybe they're not the consistent top 10 contender they used to be, but 9, 19, 24, 12, over the past 4 years certainly isn't a death sentence.

As far as death sentences go in theory we shouldn't even be a top 10 placer. Along with some other Li schools because if you look in history we've had some MUCH worse years. Never know how results go until they happen. The whole competitiveness thing has come up before too I believe for many reasons (eg. Whether LI should split, NY should get another team to nats, which state is most competitive, etc). I think the end point is it doesn't really matter . I'm more worried about getting to nats right now -_-.

I think as of right now, there isn't really a debate as to which state is the most competitive at the national level: Ohio. The past 5 years in C division and the past 6 years in B division have gone to either Solon or Centreville. New York has more teams competing at States (40 vs 54), but just look at the number of invitationals that Ohio have leading up to their Regionals next month. It's insane and ultra-competitive between a few powerhouses in Ohio. California had a good run for awhile with Troy HS. New York has only won Nationals once (2004). It would be nice to see other schools from NYS go to Nationals this year... It's been the same two for the past 5 years.

[caseyotis]

I think as of right now, there isn't really a debate as to which state is the most competitive at the national level: Ohio. The past 5 years in C division and the past 6 years in B division have gone to either Solon or Centreville. New York has more teams competing at States (40 vs 54), but just look at the number of invitationals that Ohio have leading up to their Regionals next month. It's insane and ultra-competitive between a few powerhouses in Ohio. California had a good run for awhile with Troy HS. New York has only won Nationals once (2004). It would be nice to see other schools from NYS go to Nationals this year... It's been the same two for the past 5 years.

Oh, absolutely. No question.
And I don't know what you mean by "it would be nice". Ultimately, it's up to the competitors to study and practice so they can beat out Gelinas/Eagle Hill and Ward/F-M.

[syo_astro]

I mean I think there are at least multiple schools that can have a competitive spot. The Ohio thing I think some people tried arguing it depends on how you define it and etc etc like YUSO said. My point wasn't to point them out just to say that competitiveness is subjective and not much point to arguing it. As far as top teams this year looks at least will be as interesting as any. Also heck I swear that teams can always work surprises given enough time, there's still definitely some. I do wonder whether also it does come down to the students or how much a good coach and all play in (I've certainly heard of it helping). Also I'd love to go but it's definitely not easy.