Scioly.org

It's fun rereading the history of these threads...so far I've traced it back even to 2011 where Z, dox, pug, and chalker all discuss ideas regarding the nationals bid! Too bad nobody has linked all these threads or posts or something...I'm pretty sure it's a scioly tradition to have threads like these har har...

I'll leave others to rant at the above as they wish, but thank you very much for explaining all that as always, chalker...

primitive_polonium wrote: 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.

So this is a totally separate discussion and thread as you said, idk if this can be moved or something...still fun to chat about imo. New events are already discussed at length looking at past posts, especially along with event predictions. At worst, it's just complaining, and at best, it leads to "let's run a trial event!" (maybe I or someone drops some links) and then everyone's too busy. One idea I always bring up is a data science event in response to a CS event (I feel people just cop off AP CS or other competitions without adding anything new...Source Code is already a thing if you really want...). I did start drafting some trial rules, but I got busy, alas...not sure about the issue with RemSen either, it rotates with GeoMaps and is getting the topic focus it needs. At most, I could imagine adding another computer-based geology event in that mix similar to (but obviously vastly improving upon) hydrogeo, though that would require effort and is probably already being worked on by idk who.

nicholasmaurer wrote:While you might very well be just as good - or better - of a supervisor, rule writer, tournament director etc. than those currently volunteering, the people already in those roles have demonstrated year after year that they will show up and do the (often thankless) job.

Amen

I really like the idea of a rotating wildcard type of bid for the second best team in small states or third best team in big states. Keep the 60 teams, and how they are determined (best team in state and best two teams in CA, NY, FL... etc) but then add 5 teams that were one place away from making nationals. The wildcard teams could rotate alphabetically. For example, if this is implemented next year, then Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, and California would get an extra team. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, an Arkansas would have 2 bids instead of 1 and California would have 3 instead of 2.

sciencekid27 wrote:I really like the idea of a rotating wildcard type of bid for the second best team in small states or third best team in big states. Keep the 60 teams, and how they are determined (best team in state and best two teams in CA, NY, FL... etc) but then add 5 teams that were one place away from making nationals. The wildcard teams could rotate alphabetically. For example, if this is implemented next year, then Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, and California would get an extra team. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, an Arkansas would have 2 bids instead of 1 and California would have 3 instead of 2.

If you did that, wouldn't you have to take away bids from other states to keep the 60 teams? Also, what happens if you have a state where only one team is really good and another team is not very good, and then the not very good team gets to go to nationals even though they didn't really do well at their states? Maybe it should be limited to states where the tema's point difference is minimal, like 20 or 30 points.

TheCrazyChemist wrote:

sciencekid27 wrote:I really like the idea of a rotating wildcard type of bid for the second best team in small states or third best team in big states. Keep the 60 teams, and how they are determined (best team in state and best two teams in CA, NY, FL... etc) but then add 5 teams that were one place away from making nationals. The wildcard teams could rotate alphabetically. For example, if this is implemented next year, then Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, and California would get an extra team. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, an Arkansas would have 2 bids instead of 1 and California would have 3 instead of 2.

If you did that, wouldn't you have to take away bids from other states to keep the 60 teams? Also, what happens if you have a state where only one team is really good and another team is not very good, and then the not very good team gets to go to nationals even though they didn't really do well at their states? Maybe it should be limited to states where the tema's point difference is minimal, like 20 or 30 points.

Or dare I say it, the state representative getting top 30 at the previous years nats

Rossyspsce wrote:

TheCrazyChemist wrote:

sciencekid27 wrote:I really like the idea of a rotating wildcard type of bid for the second best team in small states or third best team in big states. Keep the 60 teams, and how they are determined (best team in state and best two teams in CA, NY, FL... etc) but then add 5 teams that were one place away from making nationals. The wildcard teams could rotate alphabetically. For example, if this is implemented next year, then Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, and California would get an extra team. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, an Arkansas would have 2 bids instead of 1 and California would have 3 instead of 2.

If you did that, wouldn't you have to take away bids from other states to keep the 60 teams? Also, what happens if you have a state where only one team is really good and another team is not very good, and then the not very good team gets to go to nationals even though they didn't really do well at their states? Maybe it should be limited to states where the tema's point difference is minimal, like 20 or 30 points.

Or dare I say it, the state representative getting top 30 at the previous years nats

What do you mean?

builderguy135 wrote:

Rossyspsce wrote:

TheCrazyChemist wrote: If you did that, wouldn't you have to take away bids from other states to keep the 60 teams? Also, what happens if you have a state where only one team is really good and another team is not very good, and then the not very good team gets to go to nationals even though they didn't really do well at their states? Maybe it should be limited to states where the tema's point difference is minimal, like 20 or 30 points.

Or dare I say it, the state representative getting top 30 at the previous years nats

What do you mean?

I think that s/he means that only states with a team in the top half of the previous year's national tournament should be eligible for the extra bid.

TheCrazyChemist wrote:

builderguy135 wrote:

Rossyspsce wrote:
Or dare I say it, the state representative getting top 30 at the previous years nats

What do you mean?

I think that s/he means that only states with a team in the top half of the previous year's national tournament should be eligible for the extra bid.

that is what I meant to say, kinda tired when I made the post