Scioly.org

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

syo_astro wrote:Wait, so I agree with the above obvs, but another question...(sorry to distract, please read the above posts they're quality!)

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:... I don't really want to separate the B and C tourneys, but it's a lot of people to have together at once...

Why is it important to have B and C joined anyway? Maybe I'm biased coming from a state where we had them split so I don't get the impact...but does this impact much? Extra costs to rent a venue twice? I mean, it's a smaller tourny that could then be expanded, so wouldn't that be logistically easier? Also, then we could go from like 60 teams to 112 teams...every state gets an extra bid easy then >.>.

They're together I think for the ease of having just one host, and for pageantry reasons (though I could be off). But if the idea were to get some traction, I bet we could see expansion to 72 pretty quickly.

As for SOPomo's comment, I agree that the current system is flawed, but it's definitely not broken. It accomplishes what it seeks out to do, which is have some sort of SO presence in every state. Does it mean some teams have a much easier time to qualify? Yeah, but those are arguably the teams that could benefit from the experience.

primitive_polonium wrote:Remote Sensing

Riptide wrote:

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

syo_astro wrote:Wait, so I agree with the above obvs, but another question...(sorry to distract, please read the above posts they're quality!)


Why is it important to have B and C joined anyway? Maybe I'm biased coming from a state where we had them split so I don't get the impact...but does this impact much? Extra costs to rent a venue twice? I mean, it's a smaller tourny that could then be expanded, so wouldn't that be logistically easier? Also, then we could go from like 60 teams to 112 teams...every state gets an extra bid easy then >.>.

They're together I think for the ease of having just one host, and for pageantry reasons (though I could be off). But if the idea were to get some traction, I bet we could see expansion to 72 pretty quickly.

As for SOPomo's comment, I agree that the current system is flawed, but it's definitely not broken. It accomplishes what it seeks out to do, which is have some sort of SO presence in every state. Does it mean some teams have a much easier time to qualify? Yeah, but those are arguably the teams that could benefit from the experience.

There are teams that have qualified to nationals for the last like 10-20 years who have seen no improvement (always placing in the 50-60 range at nationals). Sure some select teams may benefit, but the vast majority seem pretty stagnant in their performances.

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

syo_astro wrote:Wait, so I agree with the above obvs, but another question...(sorry to distract, please read the above posts they're quality!)

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:... I don't really want to separate the B and C tourneys, but it's a lot of people to have together at once...

Why is it important to have B and C joined anyway? Maybe I'm biased coming from a state where we had them split so I don't get the impact...but does this impact much? Extra costs to rent a venue twice? I mean, it's a smaller tourny that could then be expanded, so wouldn't that be logistically easier? Also, then we could go from like 60 teams to 112 teams...every state gets an extra bid easy then >.>.

They're together I think for the ease of having just one host, and for pageantry reasons (though I could be off). But if the idea were to get some traction, I bet we could see expansion to 72 pretty quickly.

YakitateNoPan wrote:

sciencekid27 wrote:I was thinking of having the best team from every state, and then the 10 best teams that didn't win states. The only (huge and obvious) problem with this is that there is no way to tell which are the 10 best teams that didn't win states, other than to have some kind of invitational tournament that qualifies you to nationals. Basically, there's almost two rounds to nationals, but the best team from every state gets a "bye" and goes directly to nationals stage 2 (which is real nationals). The second place team from every state compete against each other at nationals stage 1 (which is like a qualifier for nationals), and the 10 best out of this competition make nationals stage 2 (real nationals). However, this would require an immense increase in spending, organizing, time taken... etc, so it isn't realistic.

I think there's two points of view to this whole discussion. One that merits diversity in the national tournament and having each area/state/part of the population equally represented, and another that merits competitive states where the second place team is really close to the first place team and could perform well at nationals. The first point of view would give extra bids to bigger states, California, Texas, New York, etc, while the second perspective would give an extra bid to a state like NJ div C, where the top 2 teams are incredibly close.

You're right, that creates a secondary challenge to be in that tier 2. When your have a quantifiable goal to progress, that in and of itself becomes a target and will absolutely be taken advantage of.

You are spot on in the second point of view is a matter of luck of the draw. If I happen to be in a bigger state? Is there a limit to the sq miles? Population density? How is the separation determined? Is competitiveness determined by scores? What about the scores of smaller states that are even closer? They aren't considered for an additional bid based on the fact that the state happens to occupy a lesser area?

YakitateNoPan wrote:If we're throwing out ideas here, what about this:

1) Figure out the critical mass of teams for nationals at the venue.

2) Give the #1 team in each state an automatic bid.

3) Give 1 extra bid to states in alphabetical order to satisfy the max amount of teams.

4) Subsequent years pick up at next alpha order for extra bid to fill max amount of teams.


This will achieve three things:

1) No one will be able to cry foul of the extra bid selection.

2) EVERYONE will be given the chance for that extra bid.

3) States will know ahead of time if they need to plan and prepare to go to the national event.

primitive_polonium wrote: TBH, if someone wanted to give legitimacy to SciOly and have it be on the same level as ChemOly, BiOly, etc (or even Science Bowl), the bid system isn't what's wrong. The entire events roster needs to be looked at and scrubbed. New events either pertaining to relevant topics (such as CS events that is NOT Game On), advanced events (Go Big Orgo Home, pls), or purely problem-solving events (eg: a CS event where you need to code on the spot and are measured by test cases), along with the removal/cycling out of things like Picture This or Remote Sensing, would be a game-changer. Having good exams and labs and what not at every level? Amazing. If SciOly can net you prestigious scholarship/internship/whatnot opportunities, people would actually feel incentivized to do SciOly, thus increasing the competition pool and making the winners look even better.

nicholasmaurer wrote:

primitive_polonium wrote:
Additionally, we can have the best events possible, but without quality supervisors it won't help...

JonB wrote:

nicholasmaurer wrote:

primitive_polonium wrote:
Additionally, we can have the best events possible, but without quality supervisors it won't help...

JonB wrote:

JonB wrote:

nicholasmaurer wrote:

THIS. If the events become even more complex, then the difficulty of finding quality writers will decrease even more (and, arguably, it is not very good at many regional/state competition, with some exceptions).