Scioly.org

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:That's a very interesting policy. I like the emphasis on Massachusetts teams; I do think they could think about expanding that policy to apply to all of New England, but it's definitely a nice move from such an in-demand tournament.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that for the majority of local or semi-local teams, going to MIT isn't worth it (especially with Harvard and Brown right there, and Yale somewhat close by). Based on my experience, very few teams finishing in the bottom half overall get anything useful out of most MIT tests.

Interesting thought - Harvard is clearly intending to focus on local teams. If MIT and Harvard were on the same day, that may help alleviate some of the stress on MIT's capacity.

Unome wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:That's a very interesting policy. I like the emphasis on Massachusetts teams; I do think they could think about expanding that policy to apply to all of New England, but it's definitely a nice move from such an in-demand tournament.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that for the majority of local or semi-local teams, going to MIT isn't worth it (especially with Harvard and Brown right there, and Yale somewhat close by). Based on my experience, very few teams finishing in the bottom half overall get anything useful out of most MIT tests.

Interesting thought - Harvard is clearly intending to focus on local teams. If MIT and Harvard were on the same day, that may help alleviate some of the stress on MIT's capacity.

I brought up the idea last year of Harvard and MIT working in tandem to provide this sort of two-tiered tournament experience. It would be something truly unique and would be fantastic for the Science Olympiad community, in my mind. I am not sure if any discussions happened, though.

After a day to chew on the policy in more depth, I'm beginning to think that increased difficulty in getting a second team combined with a lot of the 11th-20th finishing teams being in tier 4 for the lottery may be a driver in pushing some teams away from MIT. Lack of a good way to handle extremely high demand may be what eventually removes their status as the most competitive invitational (although it's certainly very early to speculate on that, when we haven't even seen how registration is going this year yet).

Unome wrote:After a day to chew on the policy in more depth, I'm beginning to think that increased difficulty in getting a second team combined with a lot of the 11th-20th finishing teams being in tier 4 for the lottery may be a driver in pushing some teams away from MIT. Lack of a good way to handle extremely high demand may be what eventually removes their status as the most competitive invitational (although it's certainly very early to speculate on that, when we haven't even seen how registration is going this year yet).

Personally, I think we often forget that the very word invitational implies the host has the ability to be selective: teams are invited, not guaranteed a spot. If MIT wanted to simply maintain their status as the most competitive tournament, they could have a merit-based or invitation-only registration system. Either they did not consider that option, or decided it did not fit with their mission/goals.

Unome wrote:After a day to chew on the policy in more depth, I'm beginning to think that increased difficulty in getting a second team combined with a lot of the 11th-20th finishing teams being in tier 4 for the lottery may be a driver in pushing some teams away from MIT. Lack of a good way to handle extremely high demand may be what eventually removes their status as the most competitive invitational (although it's certainly very early to speculate on that, when we haven't even seen how registration is going this year yet).

One possible way to alleviate the difficulty of returning for teams ranked 11th-20th would be to have some way of weighing Tier 4. Perhaps teams that attended MIT or nationals last year get higher chances of being selected based on their results.

I would also like to see Tier 1 extend to the top 10 at nationals, or schools who placed in the top 10 at nationals and attended MIT. It seems odd to limit it to only the top schools attending MIT in the previous year. I understand the goal of rewarding loyalty/attendance, but there are some teams (Enloe this year, Clements last year) that placed top-10 at nationals but not at MIT and therefore will be in Tier 4.

Alex-RCHS wrote:

Unome wrote:After a day to chew on the policy in more depth, I'm beginning to think that increased difficulty in getting a second team combined with a lot of the 11th-20th finishing teams being in tier 4 for the lottery may be a driver in pushing some teams away from MIT. Lack of a good way to handle extremely high demand may be what eventually removes their status as the most competitive invitational (although it's certainly very early to speculate on that, when we haven't even seen how registration is going this year yet).

One possible way to alleviate the difficulty of returning for teams ranked 11th-20th would be to have some way of weighing Tier 4. Perhaps teams that attended MIT or nationals last year get higher chances of being selected based on their results.

I would also like to see Tier 1 extend to the top 10 at nationals, or schools who placed in the top 10 at nationals and attended MIT. It seems odd to limit it to only the top schools attending MIT in the previous year. I understand the goal of rewarding loyalty/attendance, but there are some teams (Enloe this year, Clements last year) that placed top-10 at nationals but not at MIT and therefore will be in Tier 4.

I think Unome points out an important distinction here. You are assuming that MIT WANTS to remain as the most competitive invitational. Based on this new policy, I would argue that its not clear if they wish to continue to build their prestige. They have slotted a large portion of their registration to local teams so they obviously want to have an influence regionally, but this new system seems to point at less of an emphasis to be extremely competitive.

Alex-RCHS wrote:

Unome wrote:After a day to chew on the policy in more depth, I'm beginning to think that increased difficulty in getting a second team combined with a lot of the 11th-20th finishing teams being in tier 4 for the lottery may be a driver in pushing some teams away from MIT. Lack of a good way to handle extremely high demand may be what eventually removes their status as the most competitive invitational (although it's certainly very early to speculate on that, when we haven't even seen how registration is going this year yet).

One possible way to alleviate the difficulty of returning for teams ranked 11th-20th would be to have some way of weighing Tier 4. Perhaps teams that attended MIT or nationals last year get higher chances of being selected based on their results.

I would also like to see Tier 1 extend to the top 10 at nationals, or schools who placed in the top 10 at nationals and attended MIT. It seems odd to limit it to only the top schools attending MIT in the previous year. I understand the goal of rewarding loyalty/attendance, but there are some teams (Enloe this year, Clements last year) that placed top-10 at nationals but not at MIT and therefore will be in Tier 4.

I would agree with that, though Enloe would be placed in Tier 2, since we were a National Qualifier, so we wouldn't be affected as much (though getting one of 15 spots in Tier 2 is not a guarantee). But I do feel it is extremely unfair for very qualified teams from competitive states (ie. Mentor, Ward Melville, Clements, etc.) who might not have a had a chance to go to Nationals last year just because their state is so competitive. Tournaments like MIT is one of the only places that allows them to get a taste of that level of competition, which in my opinion is one of the biggest draws of MIT, and the current tiering system is biased against them.

Try this poll out then :O See what the community thinks

http://www.strawpoll.me/16421118

Unome wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:That's a very interesting policy. I like the emphasis on Massachusetts teams; I do think they could think about expanding that policy to apply to all of New England, but it's definitely a nice move from such an in-demand tournament.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that for the majority of local or semi-local teams, going to MIT isn't worth it (especially with Harvard and Brown right there, and Yale somewhat close by). Based on my experience, very few teams finishing in the bottom half overall get anything useful out of most MIT tests.

Interesting thought - Harvard is clearly intending to focus on local teams. If MIT and Harvard were on the same day, that may help alleviate some of the stress on MIT's capacity.

I think you're right on the money. As useful as the test difficulty must be for Nationals-tier teams, we don't get much out of it as a team competing locally. The timing of the invitational, which is always around our midterms week, combined with the fact that there are now great alternative invitationals in our area, might just be the nail in the coffin for our (non) attendance this year.

Regarding the registration tiering system, it's probably worth noting that MIT would have been criticized no matter what they chose to do. Without it, the registration window would likely have fallen to a minute or two, at which point the main determining factors in successful registration are typing speed and internet connection.