Scioly.org

PastorisFilius wrote:What about Columbia High School, the other school going from New York? This is their first year going, and they had a great performance at states.

Oo, I see you're from NY. Are you from Columbia? Good job for sure to them...no offense, but I feel like just how regs/invites are different from states, nats is probably different from our states. I think Columbia has gone before? But teams that haven't gone consecutive years seem to face a bit of trouble getting into the top 10 at least (see Penncrest, not saying they're bad, obviously they are still quite good to get top 15). Top 20 may still be possible all considered, but that depends on how many other competitive teams there are (as we see, there's some very competitive ones stretching out of the top 10 for sure like Camas and whatnot). Time shall tell per usual.

True, it will definitely be difficult for them, but I could see at least 20th. I'm not from Columbia, anyway, but I'd love to hear what they think.

It all depends on the attitude that Columbia takes. Are they happy with just making it there, meaning they'll just coast to the finish line? Or do they legitimately want to try to pick up where Ward left off, and work for a top-10 finish? I think typically when schools make it the first time, it's the former, especially given that this national tournament is in more of a rewarding place (Orlando) than say, Wright State or next year's UW. But that doesn't mean a team can't exceed expectations and do well their first time at the dance, either. (Metaphorically speaking, since I anticipate most people in SO don't do very well at dances)

Not necessarily true that teams don't do well at their first Nationals at least from NY. NY teams at their 1st Nationals: CNS (6), Webster (8). No telling.

taaffeite wrote:Not necessarily true that teams don't do well at their first Nationals at least from NY. NY teams at their 1st Nationals: CNS (6), Webster (8). No telling.

I think this is definitely true - the two years Mentor has made it out of Ohio, they've placed 5th and 7th respectively, so it's definitely possible. Plus, Solon MS's first year they won (2008) they didn't even make to nats the year before. Anything goes.

What I see as a larger barrier, though, is the fact that NYS has 25 events as opposed to three. Now you might think having fewer events means it'll be easier for Columbia, but it also means there's a small amount of less time these teams can focus on other events.

Furthermore, a lot of states (like Ohio) recently have made their state schedule the nats schedule. This really helps other teams out from those states, and I don't think NY does that. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Ultimately, like syo and other previous posters have said, I think it will be difficult simply because nats is different. I predict anywhere in the teens for Columbia, because historical placings (see: Bayard Rustin in 2012 and Palo Alto in 2013) show that new teams from strong states do well, but not enough to get top 10.

Kentucky
I agree. The fact that NY refuses to align its schedule with Nationals handicaps the teams making placing in the top 5 almost impossible. It adds an unnecessary burden. Considering performance at such a high level, the smallest obstacle is difficult to overcome. Even though the term Olympiad is used in the name, the mentality of the two organizing bodies of the two different enterprises is completely different. Take the world series. Can you imagine the American League telling players that their bases will differ from those used in the World series even if only by a few inches? That is why designated players is so controversial. There is a reason that so much focus is placed on things like footwear in sports. The difference between sneakers may be just enough to help someone win a race by a fraction of a second. Given equal talent and prep, the sneaker factor becomes huge. Officials in New York don't really care about winning nationals. Its like peewee sports instead of the Olympics. The focus is on all teams having a good time. That is not a bad goal but it is a different one than the actual Olympics.

taaffeite wrote:Kentucky
I agree. The fact that NY refuses to align its schedule with Nationals handicaps the teams making placing in the top 5 almost impossible. It adds an unnecessary burden. Considering performance at such a high level, the smallest obstacle is difficult to overcome. Even though the term Olympiad is used in the name, the mentality of the two organizing bodies of the two different enterprises is completely different. Take the world series. Can you imagine the American League telling players that their bases will differ from those used in the World series even if only by a few inches? That is why designated players is so controversial. There is a reason that so much focus is placed on things like footwear in sports. The difference between sneakers may be just enough to help someone win a race by a fraction of a second. Given equal talent and prep, the sneaker factor becomes huge. Officials in New York don't really care about winning nationals. Its like peewee sports instead of the Olympics. The focus is on all teams having a good time. That is not a bad goal but it is a different one than the actual Olympics.

I understand what you both are saying, but by the same token, PA does not align their schedules at all with the Nationals schedules. Their tournament is also only 2-3 weeks before Nationals, yet the teams, especially in division C are able to do rather well and place quite high at Nationals.

Yes it is certainly possible for the team from any state, regardless of their States schedule, to win. But just a little less likely when schedules differ. My point isn't really to suggest that scheduling is what determines outcome. My comments are to suggest that the schedules should be standardized to eliminate it as a factor.

ckssv07 wrote:

taaffeite wrote:Kentucky
I agree. The fact that NY refuses to align its schedule with Nationals handicaps the teams making placing in the top 5 almost impossible. It adds an unnecessary burden. Considering performance at such a high level, the smallest obstacle is difficult to overcome. Even though the term Olympiad is used in the name, the mentality of the two organizing bodies of the two different enterprises is completely different. Take the world series. Can you imagine the American League telling players that their bases will differ from those used in the World series even if only by a few inches? That is why designated players is so controversial. There is a reason that so much focus is placed on things like footwear in sports. The difference between sneakers may be just enough to help someone win a race by a fraction of a second. Given equal talent and prep, the sneaker factor becomes huge. Officials in New York don't really care about winning nationals. Its like peewee sports instead of the Olympics. The focus is on all teams having a good time. That is not a bad goal but it is a different one than the actual Olympics.

I understand what you both are saying, but by the same token, PA does not align their schedules at all with the Nationals schedules. Their tournament is also only 2-3 weeks before Nationals, yet the teams, especially in division C are able to do rather well and place quite high at Nationals.

This is certainly true; however, from what I've seen at PA States, it seems to be still run pretty close to what NSO has in that the same events are used and the same scoring system as well. However, NYS still has two extra events, which skews some of the scoring and the way you schedule, regardless.

1. Troy
2. Seven Lakes
3. Solon
4. Centerville/Mentor
5. New Trier
6. Adlai E. Stevenson
7. Grand Haven
8. Fayetteville-Manlius
9. Harriton
10. Munster