Scioly.org

Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.

builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.

Adding on, maybe top 5 teams per state (excluding winner) would qualify for these invitationals to reduce competition size. Maybe not so crazy an idea, idk

Locoholic wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:50 pm

builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.

Adding on, maybe top 5 teams per state (excluding winner) would qualify for these invitationals to reduce competition size. Maybe not so crazy an idea, idk

I was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.

builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:55 pm

Locoholic wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:50 pm

builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.

Adding on, maybe top 5 teams per state (excluding winner) would qualify for these invitationals to reduce competition size. Maybe not so crazy an idea, idk

I was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.

That actually doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Those tournaments are usually pretty well-run already, and plenty of nationals-caliber teams attend them (including those that don't quality for nats every year bc of fierce competitions). Nice idea builderguy!

pepperonipi wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:02 pm

builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:55 pm

Locoholic wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:50 pm Adding on, maybe top 5 teams per state (excluding winner) would qualify for these invitationals to reduce competition size. Maybe not so crazy an idea, idk

I was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.

That actually doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Those tournaments are usually pretty well-run already, and plenty of nationals-caliber teams attend them (including those that don't quality for nats every year bc of fierce competitions). Nice idea builderguy!

the second chance idea would also better appease both teams in uncompetitive states who can qualify the way they currently do and competitive states who now have another chance

boomifailure wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 10:23 am Indiana and Michigain already have a superregional type thing called "University of Michigan Invitational."

This is true. And it's also why more quality invitationals are a good thing, because in addition to extra practice, good invitationals let teams enjoy the experience of competing at a mini-nationals.

builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.

Part of the problem with more bids is that it's logistically frustrating to add more teams to a tournament. If you added 5 new C bids and 5 new B bids, you'd need to guarantee capacity for at least 160 more people (15 students and a coach per team), and realistically maybe 200-400 considering other coaches, alternates, chaperones, and staff to serve them. Nationals at Cornell limited its seating at awards to only 17 people per team, and everybody else had to sit apart on bleachers; 200 more people will further strain seating at awards, homerooms, dining, dorms, and so forth (think about how much you're stretching fire codes). Texas and New Jersey and Missouri surely deserve bids, but sadly, pulling it off is still hard no matter how bids are awarded :(

More practically speaking, how would you designate these invitationals? If MIT were designated, somebody would complain that it rewards teams for being rich enough to fly to Massachusetts. (It is, after all, dominated by out-of-state teams.) Also, if only the top 5 teams from each state of superregion E could go to MIT, many teams would be excluded entirely from the experience of competing at a high-level highly unique venue like MIT.

builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:55 pm
I was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.

Yeah that's actually better because these tournaments are already very popular, competitive, and well-run. This still brings up the issue of diversity at nationals, but to a much lesser extent. So you'll have the top team from each state attend nats, right? That's the first 60. Then you have, say, 2 teams attending from 5 large invitationals as a second-chance opportunity. That makes 70. In this scenario, there will likely be 3-4 teams from each competitive state (because the "second-tier" of competitive states are relatively very good) rather than 1-2, but it's still a great compromise.

Here's a sample map of 6 invitationals I made:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BOiWr ... sp=sharing

I tried to take the best balance between well-run invitationals and a spread of invites throughout the entire country so no team would have to travel too far to get to a competition (sorry Montana).

gz839918 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:21 pm Part of the problem with more bids is that it's logistically frustrating to add more teams to a tournament. If you added 5 new C bids and 5 new B bids, you'd need to guarantee capacity for at least 160 more people (15 students and a coach per team), and realistically maybe 200-400 considering other coaches, alternates, chaperones, and staff to serve them. Nationals at Cornell limited its seating at awards to only 17 people per team, and everybody else had to sit apart on bleachers; 200 more people will further strain seating at awards, homerooms, dining, dorms, and so forth (think about how much you're stretching fire codes). Texas and New Jersey and Missouri surely deserve bids, but sadly, pulling it off is still hard no matter how bids are awarded :(

I understand that space is an issue, but 10% more people wouldn't make that big of a difference. I'm sure that the organizers would be able to figure out some way of fitting 200 more people in a space with already a few thousand people.

gz839918 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:21 pm More practically speaking, how would you designate these invitationals? If MIT were designated, somebody would complain that it rewards teams for being rich enough to fly to Massachusetts. (It is, after all, dominated by out-of-state teams.)

These invitationals would have to be designated by NSO. Also, just because you can fly to Massachusetts, doesn't mean you're good enough to win the bid there. Sure, Troy's probably going to fly out to MIT again, but they've already got a nats bid so it wouldn't affect the invy bid at all.

gz839918 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:21 pm Also, if only the top 5 teams from each state of superregion E could go to MIT, many teams would be excluded entirely from the experience of competing at a high-level highly unique venue like MIT.

The invitationals do not have to be split up by region.

Overall, this system of wild card bids would allow teams to compete for a deserving spot at nationals without the need of a system of "superregionals" and extra tournaments just for teams that did well at states.

Thoughts?

I love the idea. There are probably many logistical problems that we haven’t thought of, but none come to mind at the moment besides those that have already been mentioned. Would these invies be changed to be held after all the states tournaments are finished?

EwwPhysics wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 6:02 pm I love the idea. There are probably many logistical problems that we haven’t thought of, but none come to mind at the moment besides those that have already been mentioned. Would these invies be changed to be held after all the states tournaments are finished?

No, the tournament would take place at its usual date but bids would have to be announced after all state competitions (or when every team ahead of a team that lost states won states, if that makes any sense)