Scioly.org

Luo wrote:

geminicross wrote:It's just fun to speculate/possibly do some sort of "March Madness" -esque tournament for nationals.

For people who weren't around during nationals last year, there will be:

• A prediction contest in which you predict the top several overall finishers for each division; and
• FantaSO (Fantasy Science Olympiad), in which you predict which team will win each event, and then the placings of your chosen teams are added up similar to a real Science Olympiad tournament, and the winner will be the person with the lowest total score.

Links for these two prediction competitions will be up sometime in May after all nationals teams have been determined.

In regards to this, is there a way we can standardize the rules/the way to win just so it's more uniform? It seems to be confusing sometimes what one is allowed to do. Plus I think for FantaSO, only being able to choose one team 3 times is really restrictive. I think 5 would be reasonable, since many of the past champions always medal in about 12-14 events.

kentuckyfan1001 wrote:Plus I think for FantaSO, only being able to choose one team 3 times is really restrictive. I think 5 would be reasonable, since many of the past champions always medal in about 12-14 events.

I like the 3-team rule, for precisely that reason.

EASTstroudsburg13 wrote:

kentuckyfan1001 wrote:Plus I think for FantaSO, only being able to choose one team 3 times is really restrictive. I think 5 would be reasonable, since many of the past champions always medal in about 12-14 events.

I like the 3-team rule, for precisely that reason.

I like the idea of a limit but I think 3 feels too arbitrary. I would advocate changing the limit to 1 event per team, which somehow feels less arbitrary.

I would agree that 1 is less arbitrary, but since some people feel 3 is restrictive, I think it's a good middle point. And, after all, three is a magic number.

EASTstroudsburg13 wrote:I would agree that 1 is less arbitrary, but since some people feel 3 is restrictive, I think it's a good middle point. And, after all, three is a magic number.

From this debate clearly 3 wins. I have no qualms haha.

EASTstroudsburg13 wrote:

mrburrito wrote:At this point I mostly rank around all of your opinions. If people aren't talking about a team, they don't have as good of a chance of being highly ranked. Of course, a lot of it has to do with a team's success and reputation. Many factors go into these my young son.

Churchill has one of the highest levels of past success and reputation in the country...

mrburrito wrote:Alright, it's hard with invitational tournaments because the list for them just shows the Champ and the runner-up. I don't even know who goes to what tournament sometimes, though I try to figure it out, so thanks for that. On a somewhat related topic, does everyone agree that Eagle Hill should make the list?

I agree

mrburrito wrote:This week's rankings

1. Solon
2. Daniel Wright
3. Marie Murphy
4. Booth
5. Meads Mill
6. Beckendorff
7. Muscatel
8. Strath Haven
9. Magsig
10. Paul J. Gelinas

I would recommend putting Gelinas higher than that, we have done very well this year, and don't forget, just a few years ago we got 3rd . And while I highly doubt that will happen again, I think we will place higher than 10th .

mrburrito wrote:This week's rankings

1. Solon
2. Daniel Wright
3. Marie Murphy
4. Booth
5. Meads Mill
6. Beckendorff
7. Muscatel
8. Strath Haven
9. Magsig
10. Paul J. Gelinas

While I am completely alright with having Strath Haven ranked above us due to the comments of EASTStroudsburg13, I still believe that Shady Side should be ranked SOMEWHERE within the top ten. Maybe take out Magsig and move us to eighth through tenth and take Magsig out of the picture (Sorry, Magsig ). If you could consider that we're still part of this that'd be great.

I do agree with algorithmic that magsig should DEFINITELY not be in the top 10. However I don't agree in that Shadyside should be in the top 10. There are too many schools out there that are better and have a lot more experience.