2015 National Tournament: University of Nebraska

[samlan16]

Hence it weeds out the weak teams even further.

I don't see how it would "weed" anyone out if it's just a fun thing to stall for time (like at our regionals) or a trial event (which doesn't count toward the final scoring). Anyway, from my experience, the "weak" teams have some smart kids, it's just that their schools don't have lots of experience with scioly, so their kids either don't try or just don't compete in many events. (I came from a not-so-good team in middle school, and we literally studied our butts off for all the wrong things. We didn't even realize that there were "rules", and that the "rules" outlined exactly what you had to study, haha!) Anyway, these schools that no one's heard of tend to do well in these random wild card events.

I definitely agree that the tournament directors and supervisors have no intention of "weeding out" teams with the Science Bowl activities, but I also think samlan16 didn't have any intention of insinuating that, rather it seemed like a more lighthearted, humorous comment.

Yes, it was a joke. Calm down, boomvroomshroom.

[boomvroomshroom]

Hence it weeds out the weak teams even further.

I definitely agree that the tournament directors and supervisors have no intention of "weeding out" teams with the Science Bowl activities, but I also think samlan16 didn't have any intention of insinuating that, rather it seemed like a more lighthearted, humorous comment.

Yes, it was a joke. Calm down, boomvroomshroom.

Sorry if I came off as picky! In my experience, the teams that do well in SciBowl (not to be mean) suck at everything else. But there are teams that are just there for fun and don't do anything, either. Just stating fact, not speaking from the top of a soapbox or anything

[gunked]

Doesn't seem like any team "Sucks" at Nationals. Most teams had to earn their right to compete at Nationals. Teams differ in terms of how many other teams they had to beat to get there, the level of resources provided by the schools and or the team members, the experience of the team members and the coaches. I would guess that there are members on some teams in the bottom half that can outperform some team members whose team always ends up in the top 10. So it's hard to see any justification for characterizing any team as "weak" or as one "nobody's ever heard of". If you never heard of it, then it is you and not them that is lacking something. And to say anyone on any team, or any team "sucks at everything" is horrible and incorrect. It may suggest that at least one team that regularly does well at States has at least one rotten apple in it.

[gunked]

Anyone who thinks the difference between teams regularly in the top 10 and those in the bottom 10 rests on the attitude or quality of the students is mistaken. What do you think makes the biggest difference? That's my opinion what is yours?

[InfiniCuber]

Anyone who thinks the difference between teams regularly in the top 10 and those in the bottom 10 rests on the attitude or quality of the students is mistaken. What do you think makes the biggest difference? That's my opinion what is yours?

I actually very much think that the difference between teams is absolutely a lot to with attitude, in my opinion.
Have a team who loves science Olympiad and wants to make it to nationals as their only goal, and they will more than likely do not too well at Nat's. On the other hand, have a team that has a mentality of doing very well, positive attitude, and open minds, they tend to work harder toward goals. That's my opinion tho.

[gunked]

So infinicube, Do you think the major difference between teams in the bottom 50 and those in the top 50 starts with an idea, generated by students, that they want to win vs those that don't want to win. So the teams that win consistently recruit students who are more apt to believe they can win at Nationals while those in the bottom figure they can't so they don't work as hard?

[Unome]

So infinicube, Do you think the major difference between teams in the bottom 50 and those in the top 50 starts with an idea, generated by students, that they want to win vs those that don't want to win. So the teams that win consistently recruit students who are more apt to believe they can win at Nationals while those in the bottom figure they can't so they don't work as hard?

Only 12ish states send two teams to Nationals (per division) so it's actually 60 teams total.

Also, on the subject of your question, that seems like an important factor to me (our team has about half people who care, and half that don't; if we had a full team of people that cared, we'd have made top ten at Nationals before).

[gunked]

Unome, I forgot that some states have 2. I just meant to divide it into the top and bottom of 50 but it is more than that. Some schools have winning teams year after year. What do you think contributes to that? Do some schools have 15 kids every year who want to win Nationals and others like your team only have 7 or 8 or might there be an influential other factor or factors?

[Unome]

Unome, I forgot that some states have 2. I just meant to divide it into the top and bottom of 50 but it is more than that. Some schools have winning teams year after year. What do you think contributes to that? Do some schools have 15 kids every year who want to win Nationals and others like your team only have 7 or 8 or might there be an influential other factor or factors?

Well, history certainly helps; teams that have done well in the past are more likely to stay strong; thus the common opinion in my school that Regionals will be easy, and that we can't possibly do well at Nationals. That's not to say that teams can't get better, though; last year was Mounds View's second year in the top ten at Nationals, and 2013 was the first time a Minnesota team in either division placed in the top ten in 13 years. However, such jumps are uncommon, with usually no more than one every few years. To me, the most important factors are good students, good coaches, and motivation.

[InfiniCuber]

So infinicube, Do you think the major difference between teams in the bottom 50 and those in the top 50 starts with an idea, generated by students, that they want to win vs those that don't want to win. So the teams that win consistently recruit students who are more apt to believe they can win at Nationals while those in the bottom figure they can't so they don't work as hard?

Unome, I forgot that some states have 2. I just meant to divide it into the top and bottom of 50 but it is more than that. Some schools have winning teams year after year. What do you think contributes to that? Do some schools have 15 kids every year who want to win Nationals and others like your team only have 7 or 8 or might there be an influential other factor or factors?

Well, history certainly helps; teams that have done well in the past are more likely to stay strong; thus the common opinion in my school that Regionals will be easy, and that we can't possibly do well at Nationals. That's not to say that teams can't get better, though; last year was Mounds View's second year in the top ten at Nationals, and 2013 was the first time a Minnesota team in either division placed in the top ten in 13 years. However, such jumps are uncommon, with usually no more than one every few years. To me, the most important factors are good students, good coaches, and motivation.

I agree with you, Unome, and yes, gunked,i think it very very much has to do with attitude and motivation, and I feel that a team that doesn't have this, has less ability to do well. You may have individuals on a team that are absolutely brilliant in their events, but for example, they lose interest because they know regionals is easy but since nationals is hard, they wont try as hard, etc. Also, I am a firm believer in good coaching. When I was in div. B, I had a brilliant coach, extremely motivational. He ended up moving to the high school and become the coach there for Scioly, which gave that team a huge boost. So the year after when I moved to high school, we began to do much better as a team. But, ever since then, our middle school team has declined, and I believe it isn't that we have bad kids as much as the coaching isn't great, which I have seen first hand.
Students are important, yes, but I think a well motivated student with a positive attitude who may not be all that smart will do much better than an unmotivated, negative genius.