Scioly.org

I believe he is. He helps make the rules for next year and runs the bridge event at nats.

sewforlife wrote:Are you on the Science Olympiad Board?

No. I help with tech rules development and I assist the National E.S. for the structure events. The membership of the National Executive Board and the Advisory Board may be found here: http://soinc.org/national_committees They have the final say in these matters.

Why did your coaches think the EB event would be dropped after one year, did they feel that there were significant problems with the event? If so, what were they?

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

rjm wrote:

sewforlife wrote:Are you on the Science Olympiad Board?

No. I help with tech rules development and I assist the National E.S. for the structure events. The membership of the National Executive Board and the Advisory Board may be found here: http://soinc.org/national_committees They have the final say in these matters.

Why did your coaches think the EB event would be dropped after one year, did they feel that there were significant problems with the event? If so, what were they?

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

idk. i think building a un-elevated bridge is just a way to see who's best for the team for their team. a lotta schools do that....i think....

I would be disappointed if they changed it to nonelevated bridge. There's still so many things to explore with elevated.

rjm wrote:

sewforlife wrote:Are you on the Science Olympiad Board?

No. I help with tech rules development and I assist the National E.S. for the structure events. The membership of the National Executive Board and the Advisory Board may be found here: http://soinc.org/national_committees They have the final say in these matters.

Why did your coaches think the EB event would be dropped after one year, did they feel that there were significant problems with the event? If so, what were they?

Bob Monetza
Grand Haven, MI

No, they didn't feel any problems, actually, they hardly know what the technical details of EB are, but they saw the tentative list a couple of weeks ago, and it said "Bridge or Boom" so they assumed it was the old bridge, not EB

I think Elevated Bridge could easily be reinstated for next year with the identical rules. From what I saw at Nationals, only about 20 teams could break the 1000 mark for C. Given the 2000+ scores that came up, I believe this event still has a lot of potential for improvement.

However, there will be minor changes in specifications- it happens every year. This is a good though, I'm up to a new challenge. : )

I definitely hope we see some minor changes in specifications rather than see the triple load reinstated. I can't imagine having three loading locations on a 45cm long bridge- that'd be horrific!

I'm excited to see what comes out on the draft rules in July. : )

Aia wrote:I think Elevated Bridge could easily be reinstated for next year with the identical rules. From what I saw at Nationals, only about 20 teams could break the 1000 mark for C.

we got 16th with 893 so i'd say 15 or less broke 1000

Really? Wow... well, no more than 15 teams could have possibly broken 1000 for C. Even so, there are probably a few more teams that fell between 893 and 1000. Still, just wow... before competition, I thought you'd need at least 1000 to break top 25! Then again, humidity may have dropped scores below the 1000 mark for a handful of teams.

I'm rather curious now- does anyone have a sense of where the cutoff of 1000 was for B division?

our bridge got like 1120
it got second at pa states

1249 was the top for pa