Most Competitive States

[Tailsfan101]

-Notoriously Extreme: NorCal, Michigan (-), New Jersey, Ohio(+), Pennsylvania, Texas
-Competitive: SoCal(+), Florida (-), Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Virginia (-), Washington (-)
-Simple: Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts (+), Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Wisconsin
-Passive: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado (+), Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, DC

Kinda subjective so sorry if you disagree.
For Notoriously Extreme I put in a criteria that the race for a nats bid was uncertain (why SoCal is not there). Differentiating between Simple and Passive was for the most part just nationals placings.

I feel Idaho is right between Simple and Passive. My high school team did get 35th last year at Nats, and our B teams can be very competitive (there were probably four teams in contention this year), even if they're not especially competitive at Nats. I also think Colorado is on the border of Simple, since their teams consistently get top 30 at Nats.

I think there are two ways of classifying states by competitiveness: Nats performance and in-state competition. For example, Idaho B is very competitive in-state, but at Nats, our B teams don't really perform that well.

[jaspattack]

I might be biased, but I would say that Missouri is more of a low competitive state than a simple state. Ladue and Pembroke are two very good, well-known teams and while they aren't consistently in the top ten at nationals, it's almost always a toss-up between them at state (at least in Div C). The gap between second and third place is something we don't need to talk about, though. In Div C last year, the second place team scored 94 and the third place team scored 161.

I guess it's more just competitive between Pembroke Hill and Ladue, while everyone else plays catch-up.

[Umaroth]

-Notoriously Extreme: NorCal, Michigan (-), New Jersey, Ohio(+), Pennsylvania, Texas
-Competitive: SoCal(+), Florida (-), Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Virginia (-), Washington (-)
-Simple: Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts (+), Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Wisconsin
-Passive: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado (+), Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, DC

Kinda subjective so sorry if you disagree.
For Notoriously Extreme I put in a criteria that the race for a nats bid was uncertain (why SoCal is not there). Differentiating between Simple and Passive was for the most part just nationals placings.

Not too familiar with other states, but I think SoCal Div. B qualifies for Notoriously Extreme. Div. B and C tend to be similar, so grouping them together makes sense, but not always.

Yeah, both NorCal and SoCal B are Notoriously Extreme, much more so in SoCal because there are three teams in the running for nats and average teams tend to be much stronger in SoCal than NorCal for B

[Name]

whoops I forgot IL. I'd put IL in probably the upper tier of competitive. I mostly just looked at div C although SoCal B I definitely agree would be Notoriously Extreme. You could argue that Missouri is a low competitive state, but I feel that it is less competitive then the other states in competitive, and that arguably Minnesota and Massachusetts are more competitive (again in Div C). I think it could be fair to push Minnesota and Massachusetts into low competitive and denote Missouri as high simple. Similarly, I think it would be fair to push Colorado into simple, and denote Idaho as high passive.

I agree there's two ways of classifying competitiveness, but I feel like the closeness of teams only really applies to states that are already competitive. This is because in a weak state with many close teams, if one team has a sudden and drastic improvement, the teams suddenly aren't close anymore.

[EwwPhysics]

I agree with jaspattack that Missouri (if not division C, then at least in division B) should definitely be Competitive. For the last few years, whichever team that makes nats in division B has usually placed somewhere in the low teens at nats, and the worst they've gotten in like 15 years has been 22nd. Also, when they had 2 bids, the second team also usually did quite well, usually placing in the teens or 20s. They've done better than some of the states that you've put in the Competitive category, such as Washington and Georgia, as well as having much closer gaps between 1st place and 2nd at states. Their division C teams haven't done quite as well but still good enough to be designated as low competitive imo.

[CPScienceDude]

-Notoriously Extreme: NorCal, Michigan (-), New Jersey, Ohio(+), Pennsylvania, Texas
-Competitive: SoCal(+), Florida (-), Georgia, New York, North Carolina, Virginia (-), Washington (-)
-Simple: Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts (+), Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, Wisconsin
-Passive: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado (+), Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, DC

Kinda subjective so sorry if you disagree.
For Notoriously Extreme I put in a criteria that the race for a nats bid was uncertain (why SoCal is not there). Differentiating between Simple and Passive was for the most part just nationals placings.

Indiana???? Or am I just blind. Personally, I'd say that div c is competitive, but div b maybe not as competitive, seeing that TJ has won for the past 11 years.

[Giantpants]

Name left Indiana out lol
tbh Indiana could go low competitive/high simple for me, at least for C, where there was some level of contention for a nationals spot this year? Obviously I miss some stuff from all the way here in New York but it seemed like there was some competition between Carmel and Munster? Not so sure lol

I may be biased, but maybe we could sneak New York into low notoriously extreme? There are three NY powerhouses that have been dominating the nationals qualifications and top 3 since 2014 for C (Columbia, Ward Melville, Fayetteville Manlius), and for B Gelinas and Eagle Hill consistently qualify, and all teams have been turning in strong showings at nationals each year.

Also, especially for NY C this year, it was extremely competitive among the teams in the top 7, and I really really can't say I had any confidence as to who would've gone to nationals for NY in 2020. I believe that a team like Syosset or Stuyvesant (or even Kellenberg with some insane luck!) could've snuck into the top 3 and broken the long-standing history of "the big three." Definitely a year that will be long remembered in the hearts of New York SOers for the right reasons!

This is by no means a comprehensive or extremely accurate list (perhaps I'll write another one when it's not literal 5 am haha) BUT maybe...

1. Notoriously Extreme: Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, NorCal, SoCal, New Jersey, Michigan, New York

2. Competitive: Virginia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, Indiana

3. Simple: Missouri, Washington, Nevada, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Connecticut

4. Passive: the other states

Notes:
I put SoCal in Notoriously Extreme because not only is it home to the best team in the country, but other than first place, the other top teams are extremely extremely close. In 2019, 3rd through 6th place were all within 10 points!

Also, for MA, although home to one of the nations best teams, the top scores are extremely spread out, especially skewed towards Acton-Boxborough, who won in 2019 by 74 points. However, it goes further, as they beat Newton North, who beat 3rd place by 52. 3rd place (Belmont HS) beat 4th by 58, so yeah, I put them in Passive.

Also if I got something wrong pls dont flame me lol my perspective is definitely limited as a New Yorker/East Coaster and this post was written with relatively speed so yeah lol

And yes the order in which they are listed is part of my ranking as well haha

Any thoughts?
Here is a visual representation of the list I made if it's easier to view in this format...

[anandymous]

Name left Indiana out lol
tbh Indiana could go low competitive/high simple for me, at least for C, where there was some level of contention for a nationals spot this year? Obviously I miss some stuff from all the way here in New York but it seemed like there was some competition between Carmel and Munster? Not so sure lol

I may be biased, but maybe we could sneak New York into low notoriously extreme? There are three NY powerhouses that have been dominating the nationals qualifications and top 3 since 2014 for C (Columbia, Ward Melville, Fayetteville Manlius), and for B Gelinas and Eagle Hill consistently qualify, and all teams have been turning in strong showings at nationals each year.

Also, especially for NY C this year, it was extremely competitive among the teams in the top 7, and I really really can't say I had any confidence as to who would've gone to nationals for NY in 2020. I believe that a team like Syosset or Stuyvesant (or even Kellenberg with some insane luck!) could've snuck into the top 3 and broken the long-standing history of "the big three." Definitely a year that will be long remembered in the hearts of New York SOers for the right reasons!

This is by no means a comprehensive or extremely accurate list (perhaps I'll write another one when it's not literal 5 am haha) BUT maybe...

1. Notoriously Extreme: Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Illinois, NorCal, SoCal, New Jersey, Michigan, New York

2. Competitive: Virginia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Florida, Maryland, Georgia, Indiana

3. Simple: Missouri, Washington, Nevada, Wisconsin, Hawaii, Connecticut

4. Passive: the other states

Notes:
I put SoCal in Notoriously Extreme because not only is it home to the best team in the country, but other than first place, the other top teams are extremely extremely close. In 2019, 3rd through 6th place were all within 10 points!

Also, for MA, although home to one of the nations best teams, the top scores are extremely spread out, especially skewed towards Acton-Boxborough, who won in 2019 by 74 points. However, it goes further, as they beat Newton North, who beat 3rd place by 52. 3rd place (Belmont HS) beat 4th by 58, so yeah, I put them in Passive.

Also if I got something wrong pls dont flame me lol my perspective is definitely limited as a New Yorker/East Coaster and this post was written with relatively speed so yeah lol

And yes the order in which they are listed is part of my ranking as well haha

Any thoughts?
Here is a visual representation of the list I made if it's easier to view in this format...

I definitely think a few states in the Simple category are more competitive than FL B (Missouri, Hawaii, Washington), but for FL C it seems about right. I would also say that you need a few Simple states for either B or C (Colorado, Kansas, Idaho) that place around 30th at Nats. But other than that it seems pretty good

[anandymous]

So when I come across stuff like this, I always feel like it's very difficult to be unbiased. So I went straight to the numbers!

Basically I took three core components of what makes a competitive state. Strength, closeness, and turnover. Strength, which I based off nationals scores because it's the most standard means of comparison, was my base, as it's the foremost measure for what makes a state competitive. I then adjusted it by closeness, which I considered as how close together the top few teams are to each other, and turnover, which is how often distinct teams place highly. If you want to see the finer details of how I came up with a ranking, click below:

Methodology details (Click to Show Hidden Text)

[b]Strength:[/b] I used a weighted average of the state's top score at nationals over the past four years:

S = 2019+2018*.6+2017*.3+2016*.1

[b]Closeness:[/b] I based this off of the difference between the scores of the 1st and 3rd placed schools at the state tournament, divided by the 3rd place school's score. I used 3rd because I think having 3 strong teams is more indicative of competitiveness than just 2. This is a complete judgment call, I could have done it differently based on 1 vs. 2 national bids but I didn't, so there. Ha.

This was a simple average between 2020, 2019, and 2018. If no 2020 state tournament was held, I used 2019 again. This definitely skewed results, but whaddaya gonna do?

[b]Turnover:[/b] This was a simple sum. I added up the total number of different teams that had placed first since 2016. I also added the total number of [i]additional[/i] teams that placed second in that range, divided by 2. If no 2020 state tournament was held, I just disregarded that year, except in Maryland when River Hill was the clear and obvious favorite to win. My ranking my rules!

And then to come up with a final ranking, I scaled the strength scores so that 1000 was "average", and so that closeness and tolerance were adjusting the strength scores up or down:

SQRT( S/1000 ) * SQRT( C+0.5 ) - ( T-1.5 )/50

Tada.

If you just want the "extreme", "competitive", etc, here they are. I separated this out by where tier breaks appeared to be. They are ordered by descending rank.

Division B
Extreme: California (North), Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California (South)
Competitive: Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Washington, Missouri, North Carolina
Simple: Wisconsin, Tennessee, Hawaii, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas
Passive Plus: Rhode Island, Delaware, Nevada, Connecticut, Minnesota, Florida, Alabama
Passive: Arizona, Oregon, Massachusetts, Montana, Maryland, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, New Mexico, Iowa, South Carolina, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kentucky
Low Passive: New Hampshire, Mississippi, South Dakota, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming

Division C
Extreme: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, California (South), California (North), Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York
Competitive: Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Washington, Florida
Simple: Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, Maryland, New Mexico
Passive Plus: Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, Alabama
Passive: Iowa, South Carolina, Mississippi, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Montana, Arizona, Rhode Island, Oregon, Nebraska, Idaho, Delaware
Low Passive: Oklahoma, Utah, Alaska, South Dakota, Maine, West Virginia, District of Columbia, Wyoming, Arkansas, Vermont

It should be noted that a lot of "Passive" states that may be unexpectedly high are because their state competitions have been quite close lately. This is the case for Arizona, Montana, and Maine in B, and South Carolina, Mississippi, and Montana in C. So while the states are not traditionally strong, they do represent high competitiveness.

Anyway, this is just one method, and I'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's a definitive ranking. But, it's all based on available numbers, so at the very least it's unbiased!

[pb5754]

So when I come across stuff like this, I always feel like it's very difficult to be unbiased. So I went straight to the numbers!

Basically I took three core components of what makes a competitive state. Strength, closeness, and turnover. Strength, which I based off nationals scores because it's the most standard means of comparison, was my base, as it's the foremost measure for what makes a state competitive. I then adjusted it by closeness, which I considered as how close together the top few teams are to each other, and turnover, which is how often distinct teams place highly. If you want to see the finer details of how I came up with a ranking, click below:

Methodology details (Click to Show Hidden Text)

[b]Strength:[/b] I used a weighted average of the state's top score at nationals over the past four years:

S = 2019+2018*.6+2017*.3+2016*.1

[b]Closeness:[/b] I based this off of the difference between the scores of the 1st and 3rd placed schools at the state tournament, divided by the 3rd place school's score. I used 3rd because I think having 3 strong teams is more indicative of competitiveness than just 2. This is a complete judgment call, I could have done it differently based on 1 vs. 2 national bids but I didn't, so there. Ha.

This was a simple average between 2020, 2019, and 2018. If no 2020 state tournament was held, I used 2019 again. This definitely skewed results, but whaddaya gonna do?

[b]Turnover:[/b] This was a simple sum. I added up the total number of different teams that had placed first since 2016. I also added the total number of [i]additional[/i] teams that placed second in that range, divided by 2. If no 2020 state tournament was held, I just disregarded that year, except in Maryland when River Hill was the clear and obvious favorite to win. My ranking my rules!

And then to come up with a final ranking, I scaled the strength scores so that 1000 was "average", and so that closeness and tolerance were adjusting the strength scores up or down:

SQRT( S/1000 ) * SQRT( C+0.5 ) - ( T-1.5 )/50

Tada.

If you just want the "extreme", "competitive", etc, here they are. I separated this out by where tier breaks appeared to be. They are ordered by descending rank.

Division B
Extreme: California (North), Ohio, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, California (South)
Competitive: Virginia, New York, Texas, Washington, Missouri, North Carolina
Simple: Wisconsin, Tennessee, Hawaii, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas
Passive Plus: Rhode Island, Delaware, Nevada, Connecticut, Minnesota, Florida, Alabama
Passive: Arizona, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Louisiana, Iowa, South Carolina, Maine, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Kentucky
Low Passive: New Hampshire, Mississippi, South Dakota, North Dakota, District of Columbia, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming

Division C
Extreme: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, California (South), California (North), Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York
Competitive: Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Washington, Florida
Simple: Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, Connecticut, Hawaii, New Mexico, Nevada, Maryland
Passive Plus: Louisiana, Kansas, Colorado, Alabama
Passive: Iowa, South Carolina, Mississippi, Montana, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Arizona, Rhode Island, Oregon, Nebraska, Idaho, Delaware
Low Passive: Oklahoma, Utah, Alaska, South Dakota, Maine, West Virginia, District of Columbia, Wyoming, Arkansas, Vermont

It should be noted that a lot of "Passive" states that may be unexpectedly high are because their state competitions have been quite close lately. This is the case for Arizona, Montana, and Maine in B, and South Carolina, Mississippi, and Montana in C. So while the states are not traditionally strong, they do represent high competitiveness.

Anyway, this is just one method, and I'm not gonna sit here and pretend it's a definitive ranking. But, it's all based on available numbers, so at the very least it's unbiased!

I know this is largely due to Community's two 3rd places at 2019 and 2018 Nationals, but I am still very surprised to see that NJ B is apparently more competitive than NJ C!?

Also, I think the number of teams (or something similar) should be included as a part of the closeness factor, as a 40 point win in a 60 team tournament is far closer than a 40 point win in a 25 team tournament.