Scioly.org

Since many people (including several members of my team) have desired a rank-sorted results sheet, I took the liberty of creating one. Here are a couple minor formatting changes I made as well:

• Shading of both columns and rows: In the official sheet, the rows are alternately shaded, which helps one's eyes stay on the proper line. However, the lack of alternate column shading makes it difficult to trace which event matches up with each placing in a given row.
• Shading in blocks of three: I decided to shade the rows and columns in blocks of three, because it's still relatively easy to get lost with the singly alternate-shaded lines so close to each other.
• Team name consistency: It was slightly bothersome to me that some teams had their full name listed with "high school" abbreviated (such as "Solon HS") while others had "high school" written completely out (such as "Troy High School") and still others did not have "high school" at all (such as "New Trier"). In my sheet, I made the high school names more accurate and consistent.
• Event names flipped 180 degrees: The national results sheets for 2007-2011 (and those for most states I have seen) list the event names oriented so that the bottoms of the words are facing the right side of the page. The official sheet this year has them facing the opposite direction, so I followed the 2007-2011 precedent in my sheet.
• Tighter formatting: I eliminated some of the blank space between the state abbreviations and school names. I also flipped the sheet to be in the portrait orientation, which fits the aspect ratio of the matrix better.
• Addition of "average rank" column: I added a column listing "average rank" at the far right. Knowing total points is useful for inter-team comparisons, but knowing an average rank is far more useful for intra-team analysis, to know what is a "typical" placing for the team.
• Completely enclosed cells: There isn't really a functional purpose for this, but I think it looks better for each cell to be completely enclosed by borderlines.

And of course, my sheet is rank-sorted, which I find much more conducive to at-a-glance information gathering as well as analysis of top teams. I do understand that there are benefits to a team number-sorted sheet, but I hope that soinc will allow sheets of both sorting methods to be published so that each individual may decide which version they find most beneficial.

Here is the Division C rank-sorted results sheet I created (direct download): http://goo.gl/ajVVo

*Note on typographical checking: After entering each individual event placing, I used an Excel function to add up each team's score (excluding trial events). I then cross-checked the total points column on my sheet with the total points column on the official sheet. Since all the point totals matched up, I believe it is reasonably safe to assume that the typography for all the individual placings is also correct. I then manually checked each team's overall ranking and trial event places. If an error is found, please contact me immediately.

Beautiful, any chance anyone could make one for B?

Luo wrote:Since many people (including several members of my team) have desired a rank-sorted results sheet, I took the liberty of creating one. Here are a couple minor formatting changes I made as well: ......

Nicely done. I might steal some of your formatting ideas for next year;)

chalker wrote:I tried several times to get them to pick up the overall pace, but was told that the students were enjoying the moment and it'd detract from that.

I do remember several events in which the top 6 were read considerably faster than the other events. At the time, I thought it was just the speakers switching out and one read faster than the other, but now I realize it was you trying to move the ceremony along. XD I personally feel that the ceremony stretched on just a tad too long and at a certain point even my high-school nerd attention span zoned out. I can't remember the exact times she commented on but my friend kept looking at her watch and wondering why, for such a well-timed event that started on time, the ceremony just seemed to crawl along for us.

Despite the length of the awards ceremony, I really really really must commend all of the people and staff in the background for starting the ceremony so promptly. (Like I think it was literally only 5 or 6 minutes past! Remarkable!) We joke in Texas that it's tradition for the State Awards to start an hour or two late so we can eat a decent dinner before going, but this was certainly not the case in this Nationals. Absolutely fantastic job! (coughI'm also glad that other people have the nick for timeliness; honestly, if the awards isn't going to start until 8, just tell us, don't tell us 6 and then have us wait for two hourscough)

Has the streaming been posted on YouTube? My family wants videos.

Are the test scores up for the events? I want to know how close I was from the 8th place team at forestry

awesome90220 wrote:Are the test scores up for the events? I want to know how close I was from the 8th place team at forestry

Raw scores never get posted.

rfscoach wrote:

awesome90220 wrote:Are the test scores up for the events? I want to know how close I was from the 8th place team at forestry

Raw scores never get posted.

With the exception of Protein modeling, which MSOE posts on their website.

rfscoach wrote:

awesome90220 wrote:Are the test scores up for the events? I want to know how close I was from the 8th place team at forestry

Raw scores never get posted.

I understand why nationals doesn't give you back your corrected tests, but I don't see the issue with posting raw scores. And I would like to know how tightly gaped R&M was.

tornado guy wrote:

rfscoach wrote:

awesome90220 wrote:Are the test scores up for the events? I want to know how close I was from the 8th place team at forestry

Raw scores never get posted.

I understand why nationals doesn't give you back your corrected tests, but I don't see the issue with posting raw scores. And I would like to know how tightly gaped R&M was.

I don't know how tight R&M was for Division B, but for Division C the top scores were 133, 127, 127, 127, 126, and 126 out of 150. The lowest score was 52.