Scioly.org

Skink wrote:In the super small and early states (say, Montana...isn't their State tournament in November or something?) are low or high scores more common?

Relatively high scores are more common in most cases, since there seems to be minimal differentiation between teams in most cases. Mid-size states tend to have the lowest scores in my experience - large enough for one team to get really good and dominate, but small enough that there aren't a bunch of good teams bringing scores up.

TheChiScientist wrote:I assume so as they have less competition. If stuff like this were happening in ISO or TXSO etc. this would be shocking and basically mean this team would have 1st in nationals most likely as competition in these states are hyper-aggressive.

Just because the teams aren't as strong doesn't necessarily mean that their states aren't competitive. Montana C has had like 4 different winners in the last 6 years or something. Competitiveness depends more on how well the top teams perform compared to other teams in their state, rather than the rest of the country. You could say that in a competition like SoCal, where Troy is essentially guaranteed to win, the competition for first place is pretty low. Meanwhile, in a state like Idaho B, where the top two teams were separated only by about 20 points, the competition for first place is greater.

Skink wrote:In the super small and early states (say, Montana...isn't their State tournament in November or something?) are low or high scores more common?

IIRC Montana is very competitive at the state level and points were around 90-100 with small gaps in between the top 3.