Scioly.org

How do you think the teams should qualify for nationals per state? There were some really good ideas on the archived threads.

Every state should get 2 teams regardless of size, competitivness etc. It's the only way to be completely fair to everyone and not cause problems. Any agreement to adjust that i.e give some states 3 others 1 needs to be agreed on by a certain number of the states.

Two problems with 2 for each state: that ends up in 90-something teams, which is way too much. Plus, do you want a state with about 15 teams to have the same teams as one with 300? There has to be some difference, even if it's the same we have now. Personally, I thought the ideas with bonus teams were good, just a little confusing.

yeah...i kinda think two teams for very state wont work...it wouldnt be fair to the bigger states or the states with more teams...

Keep it the way it is. If any state needs more representation, it's the highly competitve states, like PA, NY, OH, etc. They deserve to send a 3rd team more than a small, noncompetitive state sending a 2nd team.

scienceolympiadist wrote:Keep it the way it is. If any state needs more representation, it's the highly competitve states, like PA, NY, OH, etc. They deserve to send a 3rd team more than a small, noncompetitive state sending a 2nd team.

wait...i'm stupid i forgot every state doesn't get two teams as it is.

Then keep it the way it is

Maybe they could allow 2 teams to go to nationals for the states whose teams were in the top 10 the previous year?
like if in one year, the top ten teams at nationals were from NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, CO, DE, MD, HI, CA, and AZ
then for the following year, those states would have 2 teams go to nationals.
Then teams that year after year can't go to nationals cuz of one really really good team would have a chance.
and there wouldn't be too many teams.
would that work?

x_SOninja_x wrote:Maybe they could allow 2 teams to go to nationals for the states whose teams were in the top 10 the previous year?
like if in one year, the top ten teams at nationals were from NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI, CO, DE, MD, HI, CA, and AZ
then for the following year, those states would have 2 teams go to nationals.
Then teams that year after year can't go to nationals cuz of one really really good team would have a chance.
and there wouldn't be too many teams.
would that work?

I think that that's a fairly good idea, but what if one of the top ten teams is from a really small state? People from a state with many teams could be irritated by the fact that a small state gets to send another team just because they had a very good team the previous year. It might work o.k. if it was in addition to the current system, but only if states that already get 2 teams could not send a third. But that might lead to more irritation from states that might have 2 really good teams that go every year, which would totally defeat the purpose. And what if a state had two teams in the top ten? I think that your idea is good on the surface, but seems to lead problems more deeply.

We had a discussion about this on the old, archived forum. It's best that we keep the same system. Yet, do realize at Nationals that these aren't the real top 60 teams of the nation. Do remember the teams from competitive states, who although didn't qualify for Nationals, could have still done very well, better than most team at Nationals, had they gotten out of their competitive states.

The point of Nationals is to have the best teams from each state compete, the same way that states is the best teams from each region. I think the way they do it now works so why change it. How are you going to determine competitive states? By saying that these states are better than everyone else, so they get more teams, sounds like it could be a problem for other states. And should states that don't have many teams and that aren't competitive not get a spot at Nationals? Oklahoma this year gave up their spot and Bloomington South went. Should a state that doesn't have competitive teams do this so a more competitive team can get in? When you try to answer all of these, and fix the problems that they cause, all you will get are more complaints about how the system is unfair. The way it is now works, and there are few bugs in the system, so why should we change to a different system?