Scioly.org

Name wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 6:21 pm wait sorry guys i forgot indiana was relevant oops

In fact, for a long time up until recently, we used to have two bids in each division...

JoeyC wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 6:46 pm So our team just went out of state for the first time to the Brown Invitational, and we managed to beat all of the teams there except Acton-Boxborough and Syosset (and we probably could have beat Syosset if our connecting flight hadn't gotten cancelled and we were then able to get more than 15 minutes of sleep). For our first jaunt outside of Texas, against national-level teams and with a non-stacked, sleep deprived team, I feel this is definitely a testament to our strength.

We were missing a good chunk of our team and also straight up got dead last in gravity despite having one? But lol y'all were very impressive. Just wondering- why did y'all choose to come to brown? It's really far away for a smallish invite.

Fascinating topic. Alas it would be a logistical nightmare i'm sure...
My idea would be to take a ranking system and probably combine it with this idea on a smaller scale.
Ranking System Prototype
Has previously qualified for nationals in the past 1 year. 100 Points.
Has previously qualified for nationals in the past 5 years. 75 Points.
Has not qualified for nationals previously. 50 points.
Top 2 finish at state. 50 points.
Top 5 finish at state. 25 points.
Now you have teams with similar point values going to the same Super regional.
Ex:
(New Trier: 150 points Munster 150 Points) Chicago Super Regional
(Naperville North: 75 Points Lake Central: 75 points Marquette: 75 points) Purdue Super Regional
Of course once again there's a logistical issue but it would prevent unfair super stacking from power states like IL dominating IN teams and etc.
Ideas for improvements anyone? A ranking system is the fairest solution I have to stop strong teams from steamrolling less powerful states in a Super Regional scenario.

I like the idea of superregionals but I would keep their numbers low.

• Five super regions of 10-11 states about 1500 memberships in each:West, South/Central, Midwest, Northeast and Southeast
  48 (or so) teams
  Each state sends at least two teams. The rest is allocated by membership.
  Each super region sends 12 teams to national
  Any state winner that places in Top 20 at their super region qualifies to Nationals
  A state cannot send more than 3(?) teams to national.

The biggest challenge to super regions, other than national office , is the schedule. There should be a coordination between states and sufficient spacing between state, superregional and national. I think that is a quite daunting task.

demir wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 7:54 pm The biggest challenge to super regions, other than national office , is the schedule. There should be a coordination between states and sufficient spacing between state, superregional and national. I think that is a quite daunting task.

I actually think the biggest issue (also other than the national office) would be keeping everyone happy, as teams placed in a difficult super region that suddenly makes it more difficult to get to nationals would obviously be upset, especially with difficulty balancing the super regions. An option could be reassigning states to new super regions if there are glaring issues with the competitiveness of its current region.

jaggie34 wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm

demir wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 7:54 pm The biggest challenge to super regions, other than national office , is the schedule. There should be a coordination between states and sufficient spacing between state, superregional and national. I think that is a quite daunting task.

I actually think the biggest issue (also other than the national office) would be keeping everyone happy, as teams placed in a difficult super region that suddenly makes it more difficult to get to nationals would obviously be upset, especially with difficulty balancing the super regions. An option could be reassigning states to new super regions if there are glaring issues with the competitiveness of its current region.

In general it would be difficult to balance difficulty, superregional size, geographical distance, and other factors such as state sizes. In an optimal scenario, states like NY would need to refrain from being grouped with New England states such as Maine, but be grouped together with states like PA, so that their superregion does not just send all NY teams.

For example, superregion J (Southern California, Hawaii, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado) in your example will be completely dominated by SoCal; it would be difficult to have any teams from Hawaii, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, or Colorado make it.

One solution, since you proposed a total of 10 regions, is to give each state a minimum of one bid. (Total 50 bids). One extra bid can be given to each superregional to be distributed to the next top team.

sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 8:32 pm For example, superregion J (Southern California, Hawaii, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado) in your example will be completely dominated by SoCal; it would be difficult to have any teams from Hawaii, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, or Colorado make it.

ed w. clark would probably be able to qualify

A potential issue I'm seeing is logistics, e.g. Where would it be held, who would host us, who is willing to volunteer to write/proctor the tests.

sciolyperson1 wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 8:32 pm

jaggie34 wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 8:15 pm

demir wrote: ↑February 12th, 2020, 7:54 pm The biggest challenge to super regions, other than national office , is the schedule. There should be a coordination between states and sufficient spacing between state, superregional and national. I think that is a quite daunting task.

I actually think the biggest issue (also other than the national office) would be keeping everyone happy, as teams placed in a difficult super region that suddenly makes it more difficult to get to nationals would obviously be upset, especially with difficulty balancing the super regions. An option could be reassigning states to new super regions if there are glaring issues with the competitiveness of its current region.

In general it would be difficult to balance difficulty, superregional size, geographical distance, and other factors such as state sizes. In an optimal scenario, states like NY would need to refrain from being grouped with New England states such as Maine, but be grouped together with states like PA, so that their superregion does not just send all NY teams.

For example, superregion J (Southern California, Hawaii, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado) in your example will be completely dominated by SoCal; it would be difficult to have any teams from Hawaii, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, or Colorado make it.

One solution, since you proposed a total of 10 regions, is to give each state a minimum of one bid. (Total 50 bids). One extra bid can be given to each superregional to be distributed to the next top team.

Alternatively, there could be a guaranteed bid for the 3 or 4 state champions who place the highest ( at least for superregion J, this could change depending on number of states per super region) and the rest of the bids could go to the highest performing teams, hopefully ensuring a competitive field and still staying fairly representative, even though in this case Utah and Hawaii (?) are likely to go unrepresented.

Examples
I've gone ahead and split states up into 10 theoretical superregions below (number of teams competing in parenthesis, from 2019 numbers):

Superregion A: Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina (795)
Superregion B: North Carolina, Tennessee (828)
Superregion C: Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia, Washington D.C., Maryland, Ohio (735)
Superregion D: Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware (695)
Superregion E: New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts (852)
Superregion F: Michigan, Indiana (708)
Superregion G: Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (823)
Superregion H: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Northern California (772)
Superregion I: Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico (730)
Superregion J: Southern California, Hawaii, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Colorado (834)

tf when you forget Missouri exists...

especially considering the brutal 1v1 slog that our state tournament has become due to having only one bid...