Scioly.org

Going to Nats take a lot of funding and planning (logistics) as well as time and effort (for events), so any plans involving a standby team are going to be fairly unfavorable, either financially or emotionally, for said standby team. And this year, we didn't know about either no show until a day or so before, which is way too little time to find replacement teams.

Honestly, the most reasonable policy would be to just take a bid away for a year from any state that no-showed without some sort of emergency and/or prior warning. In this case, MS would lose their Div B bid for 2020, whereas VT would be fine since they had an emergency and communicated accordingly. There's too many schools that want to go to Nats for no shows to be a thing.

primitive_polonium wrote:Going to Nats take a lot of funding and planning (logistics) as well as time and effort (for events), so any plans involving a standby team are going to be fairly unfavorable, either financially or emotionally, for said standby team. And this year, we didn't know about either no show until a day or so before, which is way too little time to find replacement teams.

Honestly, the most reasonable policy would be to just take a bid away for a year from any state that no-showed without some sort of emergency and/or prior warning. In this case, MS would lose their Div B bid for 2020, whereas VT would be fine since they had an emergency and communicated accordingly. There's too many schools that want to go to Nats for no shows to be a thing.

Taking it away from a state seems like unnecessary punishment, but not allowing the specific school to attend would be more reasonable.

Riptide wrote:

primitive_polonium wrote:Going to Nats take a lot of funding and planning (logistics) as well as time and effort (for events), so any plans involving a standby team are going to be fairly unfavorable, either financially or emotionally, for said standby team. And this year, we didn't know about either no show until a day or so before, which is way too little time to find replacement teams.

Honestly, the most reasonable policy would be to just take a bid away for a year from any state that no-showed without some sort of emergency and/or prior warning. In this case, MS would lose their Div B bid for 2020, whereas VT would be fine since they had an emergency and communicated accordingly. There's too many schools that want to go to Nats for no shows to be a thing.

Taking it away from a state seems like unnecessary punishment, but not allowing the specific school to attend would be more reasonable.

I dunno. It's harsh, but if there's no extenuating circumstances, there's no excuse for this sort of thing to happen. Maybe a state one-year freeze could occur for the second offense, while the first offense could just cause a freeze for the specific school.

But does anyone know if the MS B team had an emergency or not?

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

Riptide wrote:

primitive_polonium wrote: Honestly, the most reasonable policy would be to just take a bid away for a year from any state that no-showed without some sort of emergency and/or prior warning. In this case, MS would lose their Div B bid for 2020, whereas VT would be fine since they had an emergency and communicated accordingly. There's too many schools that want to go to Nats for no shows to be a thing.

Taking it away from a state seems like unnecessary punishment, but not allowing the specific school to attend would be more reasonable.

I dunno. It's harsh, but if there's no extenuating circumstances, there's no excuse for this sort of thing to happen. Maybe a state one-year freeze could occur for the second offense, while the first offense could just cause a freeze for the specific school.

I agree with primitive_polonium that there's way too many teams who want to go to nats for a no-show to happen for no reason. The most reasonable punishment to me seems to be EastStroudsburg13's idea with freezing the school one year, and then freezing the state if it happens again.

TheCrazyChemist wrote:But does anyone know if the MS B team had an emergency or not?

If they did, they didn't (haven't?) communicate to anyone about it...

Maybe they did reach out to the tourney organizers when they could, but as of Saturday at Nats, no one knew where they were or what happened.

I've heard Maine's (I think it's Maine) Nats team was like their 3rd or 4th place team at states--there's clearly a lot of Nats interest out there. In hindsight, freezing the entire state on a first offense might be too much, but there should be some kind of consequence for no-showing without prior warning/emergency.

Edit: both divisions of Maine's Nats teams placed 2nd at states.

primitive_polonium wrote:

TheCrazyChemist wrote:But does anyone know if the MS B team had an emergency or not?

If they did, they didn't (haven't?) communicate to anyone about it...

Maybe they did reach out to the tourney organizers when they could, but as of Saturday at Nats, no one knew where they were or what happened.

I've heard Maine's (I think it's Maine) Nats team was like their 3rd or 4th place team at states--there's clearly a lot of Nats interest out there. In hindsight, freezing the entire state on a first offense might be too much, but there should be some kind of consequence for no-showing without prior warning/emergency.

Both of Maine's teams this year placed 2nd at their state tournament.

sturmde wrote:I've thought for many years... that having a "standby" team from the host state could be possible.
.
For example, since the Cornell tournament was in New York, the third place team from New York could have been there as a 'demonstration' team similar to the Japanese team. In the event a team had a last minute cancellation, a team that wouldn't have incurred a major distance travel would be able to fill in.
.
It would seem to be a nice inducement to a state to be very involved in hosting, if their second (or third for larger states) were in such a position. For 2020, this would suggest that North Carolina have its third team on standby...

That sounds like a great idea to me (but I might be just a tad biased). Sincerely, NY's 3rd Place team

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

Riptide wrote:

primitive_polonium wrote:Going to Nats take a lot of funding and planning (logistics) as well as time and effort (for events), so any plans involving a standby team are going to be fairly unfavorable, either financially or emotionally, for said standby team. And this year, we didn't know about either no show until a day or so before, which is way too little time to find replacement teams.

Honestly, the most reasonable policy would be to just take a bid away for a year from any state that no-showed without some sort of emergency and/or prior warning. In this case, MS would lose their Div B bid for 2020, whereas VT would be fine since they had an emergency and communicated accordingly. There's too many schools that want to go to Nats for no shows to be a thing.

Taking it away from a state seems like unnecessary punishment, but not allowing the specific school to attend would be more reasonable.

I dunno. It's harsh, but if there's no extenuating circumstances, there's no excuse for this sort of thing to happen. Maybe a state one-year freeze could occur for the second offense, while the first offense could just cause a freeze for the specific school.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea, minus freezing the state on the second year. It just seems kinda harsh for everyone else in the state (second or 3rd place teams).

builderguy135 wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

Riptide wrote: Taking it away from a state seems like unnecessary punishment, but not allowing the specific school to attend would be more reasonable.

I dunno. It's harsh, but if there's no extenuating circumstances, there's no excuse for this sort of thing to happen. Maybe a state one-year freeze could occur for the second offense, while the first offense could just cause a freeze for the specific school.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea, minus freezing the state on the second year. It just seems kinda harsh for everyone else in the state (second or 3rd place teams).

That's part of the idea. If it happens one year, and the state takes no precautions to make any changes in a subsequent year, there should be a stiffer punishment.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

builderguy135 wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote: I dunno. It's harsh, but if there's no extenuating circumstances, there's no excuse for this sort of thing to happen. Maybe a state one-year freeze could occur for the second offense, while the first offense could just cause a freeze for the specific school.

I think this is actually a pretty good idea, minus freezing the state on the second year. It just seems kinda harsh for everyone else in the state (second or 3rd place teams).

That's part of the idea. If it happens one year, and the state takes no precautions to make any changes in a subsequent year, there should be a stiffer punishment.

How would the state take precautions to make sure a team attends? Would they have the right to elect a different team or give out stricter punishments to those who no show?