Scioly.org

B only lists 29 as well. Maybe they are auctioning off the last spot to the highest bidder. glad we already made it.

Riptide wrote:

phoenix2000 wrote:How are your schools approaching the issue of building the state team and schedule without knowing the team numbers?

If you haven’t decided the state team by now you might as well wait until the team numbers come out, which should be within the next 5 days.

I agree. We finished our regionals around a month back, but are waiting for the team numbers in order to finalize the state team. It feels like we wasted valuable working time. How do other schools manage this?

Longivitis wrote: My team was disappointed because we got 5th at Gulf Coast and Memorial, who got 4th, was allowed a spot on state... is there a slight chance that we could get into state too? After all, the team size at Gulf Coast was close to Katy's with 17 teams.

I think there's definitely a chance, even if it is slight. Some teams were added recently, so there are 29 listed as of this post, meaning that one spot is still available. Considering that HSPVA, which was the 6th place school/7th place team at Katy is listed, a 5th place advancing is possible.

State team numbers are officially released!

Click HERE to access them.

Texas gets one bid...

I may just be reading this wrong, but it seems to me on this website that Texas Div C only gets one bid to nationals this year?!
https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... nament.pdf
ofc, there is the high chance i'm reading this wrong

edit: anddddddddd i didn't realize before posting that you probably already knew this. oops.

Anomaly wrote:I may just be reading this wrong, but it seems to me on this website that Texas Div C only gets one bid to nationals this year?!
https://www.soinc.org/sites/default/fil ... nament.pdf
ofc, there is the high chance i'm reading this wrong

edit: anddddddddd i didn't realize before posting that you probably already knew this. oops.

You're reading it right - Texas gets one bid for Div C after DC joined :/

Riptide wrote: You're reading it right - Texas gets one bid for Div C after DC joined :/

Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?

Even if Nats for Scioly is ultimately about maximizing state representation, taking Texas down to 1 bid compromises the competitiveness of the National Tournament to what is, in my opinion, unacceptable levels. One of their 3 powerhouse teams was already going to get shafted. Now 2 of them are. Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina (no offense to teams from these states) all get to keep their 2nd bid, while Texas all of a sudden gets to send the same number of teams as DC and Vermont? Texas, a state that consistently places both of their teams in the top 10 at Nationals and had 3 schools in the top 10 at MIT this year, arguably a preview of Nationals?

It's understandable that the national organization wants to stick to their # of teams criteria for determining bid numbers (a system with plenty of flaws, but I'll avoid ranting about those here), but to take away the second bid of one of the top 3 most competitive states nationwide is honestly ridiculous. Is it such a logistical nightmare to accommodate just 1 more team this year while we fix this broken bid system for the next season? Sure, one of the blocks might have 11 teams instead of 10. Oh no. Texas deserves their second bid back, and if the price is that event supervisors need to prepare one more set of materials and the block splits are no longer clean groups of ten, then I think that's a price worth paying.

Private Wang Fire wrote:

Riptide wrote: You're reading it right - Texas gets one bid for Div C after DC joined :/

Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?

Even if Nats for Scioly is ultimately about maximizing state representation, taking Texas down to 1 bid compromises the competitiveness of the National Tournament to what is, in my opinion, unacceptable levels. One of their 3 powerhouse teams was already going to get shafted. Now 2 of them are. Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina (no offense to teams from these states) all get to keep their 2nd bid, while Texas all of a sudden gets to send the same number of teams as DC and Vermont? Texas, a state that consistently places both of their teams in the top 10 at Nationals and had 3 schools in the top 10 at MIT this year, arguably a preview of Nationals?

It's understandable that the national organization wants to stick to their # of teams criteria for determining bid numbers (a system with plenty of flaws, but I'll avoid ranting about those here), but to take away the second bid of one of the top 3 most competitive states nationwide is honestly ridiculous. Is it such a logistical nightmare to accommodate just 1 more team this year while we fix this broken bid system for the next season? Sure, one of the blocks might have 11 teams instead of 10. Oh no. Texas deserves their second bid back, and if the price is that event supervisors need to prepare one more set of materials and the block splits are no longer clean groups of ten, then I think that's a price worth paying.

Lol, I remember I was super salty when IN's second bid got cut but honestly, I do agree here, especially given TX's competitiveness in C. Plus, some of the teams may have not registered this year due to Hurricane Harvey destroying their schools? I mean, I think something was brought up about nats expanding to 64 or 66 teams, and I think that would be a great thing, especially for some of the most competitive states. [I mean seriously, MIT can successfully host 70-72 teams, why can't Nationals?]

pikachu4919 wrote:

Private Wang Fire wrote:

Riptide wrote: You're reading it right - Texas gets one bid for Div C after DC joined :/

Does anyone else think this is ridiculous?

Even if Nats for Scioly is ultimately about maximizing state representation, taking Texas down to 1 bid compromises the competitiveness of the National Tournament to what is, in my opinion, unacceptable levels. One of their 3 powerhouse teams was already going to get shafted. Now 2 of them are. Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina (no offense to teams from these states) all get to keep their 2nd bid, while Texas all of a sudden gets to send the same number of teams as DC and Vermont? Texas, a state that consistently places both of their teams in the top 10 at Nationals and had 3 schools in the top 10 at MIT this year, arguably a preview of Nationals?

It's understandable that the national organization wants to stick to their # of teams criteria for determining bid numbers (a system with plenty of flaws, but I'll avoid ranting about those here), but to take away the second bid of one of the top 3 most competitive states nationwide is honestly ridiculous. Is it such a logistical nightmare to accommodate just 1 more team this year while we fix this broken bid system for the next season? Sure, one of the blocks might have 11 teams instead of 10. Oh no. Texas deserves their second bid back, and if the price is that event supervisors need to prepare one more set of materials and the block splits are no longer clean groups of ten, then I think that's a price worth paying.

Lol, I remember I was super salty when IN's second bid got cut but honestly, I do agree here, especially given TX's competitiveness in C. I mean, I think something was brought up about nats expanding to 64 or 66 teams, and I think that would be a great thing, especially for some of the most competitive states. [I mean seriously, MIT can successfully host 70-72 teams, why can't Nationals?]

This has its own thread now.