Will/Did You Make It to Nationals?

[purplepeopleeater]

^^ agreed
although it must be OUTworking and OUT testing
IF this hypothetical situation were ever thrown in to place (again too many variables) teams should not be rewarded for rank, how ever much i wish we could be at the moment...
also -- what about new teams??

[zyzzyva980]

The sectional idea is another interesting take on how to divide the national berths. The reason I brought this subject up is because the National Forensics League holds its national qualifying tournaments entirely separate from regional and state tournaments- in fact, our region's national qualifier in policy debate is this weekend. I think I would appreciate it if some sort of second chance was given in Science Olympiad (and NFL, but that's unrelated) so one bad day doesn't throw you off. In the past, I've always thought of my second chance as "next year", but I'm starting to realize that I only have one "second chance" left.

Eh, roh-tab does have it right, but sometimes you just have bad luck or bad timing. You can't account for everything, but NSO does account for pretty much all of the variables it can. I like the was the berths are set up now, even though Kansas C has fallen to a disadvantage in recent years. All you can do is do your best and hope you don't run out of second chances.

[purplepeopleeater]

Ahh The NFL circuit does work that way doesn't it... didn't think about that... In EVERYTHING there will be bad days though, be it a sport, a band competition, orchestra, a concert, a quiz bowl tournament, a debate... you get the idea, and like you said, NSO does a GREAT job of taking care of as many variables as it can, as fair as it can. and Invites are in part to eliminate the random loopholes for "bad days" of course, sickness, lack of sleep etc can't be accounted for by NSO itself.
how has Kansas fallen to a disadvantage? just wondering...
and just saying.. if its second chances, its second, third, fourth (etc) chances -- but seriously-- it is obviously possible for virtually any school to make it as long as they work at it and out work the other teams. I mean, who would think that a public school from a suburb of Houston that doesn't receive funding/classes etc or have a paid coach - could build a team so strong that in their 4th year they would make Nats and in that same year, break top ten. and i bet ( i know) that isn't the only example. I, personally have had so many endless opportunities through NSO. however, this is also (sort of unfortunately) a team effort, so if a small handful, or even one team member, doesn't care, your chances could be obliterated. -- which plays a part to the answer to the question: Will YOU make it to nationals??

[zyzzyva980]

how has Kansas fallen to a disadvantage? just wondering...

Oh, C lost their second team last year. I think we're one of the more competitive states, but of course I'm extremely biased

[chalker]

Some interesting discussions / ideas here. Thought I'd throw out a couple items to 'stir the pot' a bit;)

1. Not all States have both C and B division teams. For example, Hawaii doesn't have B division I believe (C only).

2. There is a WIDE range of # of teams registered in a state (which you can see at https://soinc.org/sites/default/files/u ... _11_v1.pdf). For example Vermont only has 1. Michigan has 507. Should they be treated 'equally' under the system?

3. Certain States have a large number of teams registered, but over the history of SO a very small number of teams that make it to Nationals. For example for Ohio there have only been 3 or 4 different schools that go to Nationals in div C (and generally it's the same 2 schools, who historically score in the top 5 or so places at Nationals). If you are a school that is normally 4th place in Ohio, there is a very small probability you'd get to Nationals, even though you'd likely score very well there.

4. Running a large tournament is a very complicated affair which requires manpower, logistics and funding. Right now schools pay registrations to their State director, part of which go to running the tournaments in the State, part to the National Office. Another level of tournaments would require additional funding.

5. Some States hold their state tournament very early (i.e. December), others hold them very late (i.e. 2 weeks prior to Nationals). Scheduling is due to a variety of issues, but it's typically not 'arbitrary', rather due to the number of regionals, availability of facilities, conflicts with holidays, etc etc. Another level of tournaments would require a serious look at the overall calendar.

6. Change isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be fully thought out and planned to the extent possible;)

[purplepeopleeater]

ah... i see.
meh-- if it didn't count, it would be neat to go to other state tournaments just to get the feel of how competitive it really is. and every state has its own style of tournaments so thats pretty cool too. i know there are invites, but the intensity just isn't matched.
well that stinks. >.< and narrows chances...

in reply to chalker...
1. if thats the case, is it because they can't support two divisions?? do they need two?
2. forgive my lack of effort to research, but does vermonts team automatically go to Nats?? I don't think so but idk.
3. It was the same in Texas for decades until a team (now two) was able to BREAK that. and how fair can you really make each state? realistically its not realistic... i mean, if you divide teams up by skill then you have teams that are better than others in a division not getting to go when the division below would send someone that may not be as good, not to mention the fact that team members and coaches circulate... thats just another scenario...
4/5. at this point in time... i don't think that another level is realistic..
also there is a leadership change taking place pretty high up in NSO which you could look at as prime time to change, or a bad time to change.
6. i don't think anyone said change is bad... it just isn't completely logical at this point. or like you said, not fully thought out /planned.
and yes there is always trial and error.

[chalker]

how has Kansas fallen to a disadvantage? just wondering...

Oh, C lost their second team last year. I think we're one of the more competitive states, but of course I'm extremely biased

Interesting viewpoint.... here's some fun data for you - going back for the past 5 years the placements at Nationals of the Kansas teams:

Div C: 35, 44, 47, 45, 33, 34, 41, 19, 34
Div B: 40, 37, 28, 39, 38, 30, 34, 35, 32, 46

Note only once in each division was there a placement better than 30 (the median of the 60 teams that participate each year).

[starpug]

Some interesting discussions / ideas here. Thought I'd throw out a couple items to 'stir the pot' a bit;)

1. Not all States have both C and B division teams. For example, Hawaii doesn't have B division I believe (C only).

2. There is a WIDE range of # of teams registered in a state (which you can see at https://soinc.org/sites/default/files/u ... _11_v1.pdf). For example Vermont only has 1. Michigan has 507. Should they be treated 'equally' under the system?

3. Certain States have a large number of teams registered, but over the history of SO a very small number of teams that make it to Nationals. For example for Ohio there have only been 3 or 4 different schools that go to Nationals in div C (and generally it's the same 2 schools, who historically score in the top 5 or so places at Nationals). If you are a school that is normally 4th place in Ohio, there is a very small probability you'd get to Nationals, even though you'd likely score very well there.

4. Running a large tournament is a very complicated affair which requires manpower, logistics and funding. Right now schools pay registrations to their State director, part of which go to running the tournaments in the State, part to the National Office. Another level of tournaments would require additional funding.

5. Some States hold their state tournament very early (i.e. December), others hold them very late (i.e. 2 weeks prior to Nationals). Scheduling is due to a variety of issues, but it's typically not 'arbitrary', rather due to the number of regionals, availability of facilities, conflicts with holidays, etc etc. Another level of tournaments would require a serious look at the overall calendar.

6. Change isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be fully thought out and planned to the extent possible;)

No question pretty much any changes to the way nats bids are handed out would require some considerable changes at all levels. It was really a hypothetical discussion, we are all plenty happy with the way things are now.

[purplepeopleeater]

Interesting viewpoint.... here's some fun data for you - going back for the past 5 years the placements at Nationals of the Kansas teams:

Div C: 35, 44, 47, 45, 33, 34, 41, 19, 34
Div B: 40, 37, 28, 39, 38, 30, 34, 35, 32, 46

ahhh.... so how competitive might it be really??
of course making it to Nats in a state with as many teams as Kansas is an achievement within itself. but still... interesting.

[zyzzyva980]

Here's another spin on that data: In those five years, there have been four different C division champions in Kansas. The only team that went twice did not finish in the top five last year at state. So what you're seeing may not be a lack of good teams from Kansas, but an inconsistency displayed by those teams.

California Trail, on the other hand, in B division, is extremely consistent.