Scioly.org

CNYSciOlyGuy wrote:Mid State results are up: https://www.ezratech.us/competition/new ... 17/results

Is Cicero-North Syracuse still good? I didn't think they were good enough to beat out Jamesville-Dewitt or Camden (and since when has Chittenango been in Mid State?)

Unome wrote:

CNYSciOlyGuy wrote:Mid State results are up: https://www.ezratech.us/competition/new ... 17/results

Is Cicero-North Syracuse still good? I didn't think they were good enough to beat out Jamesville-Dewitt or Camden (and since when has Chittenango been in Mid State?)

C-NS has been decent recently but 2-5 is usually pretty close in MidState. As for Chittenango I think they were there last year but I'm not 100% sure

Do you think Fayetteville-Manlius has a chance this year? From what I've seen they didn't look good at MIT but they seemed much improved at regionals.

"However, there are lots of stories of other teams that use teams of different compositions at different tournaments to get different people experience. Harriton, for one, sometimes does this, and I'm sure other teams do it."

Nice if that were the goal but generally it is to identify the strongest students for each event to bolster scores. So some schools reconfigure that team for each competition. It's allowable but has always seemed to me to be out of keeping with the spirit of Science Olympiad.

oscillatic wrote:"However, there are lots of stories of other teams that use teams of different compositions at different tournaments to get different people experience. Harriton, for one, sometimes does this, and I'm sure other teams do it."

Nice if that were the goal but generally it is to identify the strongest students for each event to bolster scores. So some schools reconfigure that team for each competition. It's allowable but has always seemed to me to be out of keeping with the spirit of Science Olympiad.

The goal is to perform as well as possible at regionals, states, and nationals. The goal at invitationals is to prepare for regionals, states, and nationals. Is reconfiguring teams to figure out the optimal composition of a team, and to give younger members experience with older teammates so that they can succeed in future years, not in keeping with this goal?

EastStroudsburg13 wrote:

oscillatic wrote:"However, there are lots of stories of other teams that use teams of different compositions at different tournaments to get different people experience. Harriton, for one, sometimes does this, and I'm sure other teams do it."

Nice if that were the goal but generally it is to identify the strongest students for each event to bolster scores. So some schools reconfigure that team for each competition. It's allowable but has always seemed to me to be out of keeping with the spirit of Science Olympiad.

The goal is to perform as well as possible at regionals, states, and nationals. The goal at invitationals is to prepare for regionals, states, and nationals. Is reconfiguring teams to figure out the optimal composition of a team, and to give younger members experience with older teammates so that they can succeed in future years, not in keeping with this goal?

The logistics are some of the hardest part for our team to have the same combinations all the time. Many invitationals we attend have unique schedules and regional, state, and nationals don't match up. Additionally team members having non-SO activities that conflict with some invitationals become an issue that require moving people around.

Also sometimes people drop off as the season go on or others really start to shine.

The following teams from the New York City-Metro region just qualified for the States tournament:

1st Place: Townsend Harris
2nd Place: Brooklyn Technical
3rd Place: Stuyvesant
4th Place: Collegiate School
5th Place: Staten Island Technical
6th Place: Poly Prep Country Day
7th Place: Leon M. Goldstein

Nassau West Regionals Results
Ran 25 events, dropped 3 events

1. Great Neck South A (69)
2. Kellenberg A (120)
3. Chaminade A (131)
4. Roslyn A (143)
5. Schreiber (148)
6. Great Neck South C (155)
7. Horace Mann A (161)
8. Great Neck South B (202)
9. Great Neck North A (207)
10. Manhasset C (236)

Teams qualifying for states:
GNS A, Kellenberg A, Chaminade A, Roslyn A, Schreiber

Piggy wrote:Nassau West Regionals Results
Ran 25 events, dropped 3 events

1. Great Neck South A (69)
2. Kellenberg A (120)
3. Chaminade A (131)
4. Roslyn A (143)
5. Schreiber (148)
6. Great Neck South C (155)
7. Horace Mann A (161)
8. Great Neck South B (202)
9. Great Neck North A (207)
10. Manhasset C (236)

Teams qualifying for states:
GNS A, Kellenberg A, Chaminade A, Roslyn A, Schreiber

Quite a gap. Didn't Kellenberg beat you guys two years ago?

Lake Erie/Niagara qualifying results:
1. Williamsville East HS
2. St. Joseph
3. Lancaster HS
4. Nichols
5. Williamsville North HS

EDIT: Apologies I was misinformed.