2011-2012 Rules

[chalker7]

Also, chalker/chalker7, what does it take to keep an event around for another year? I don't necessarily mean what we competitors could do (rioting?), but what would you nationally-involved coaches/coordinators need to do?

It's a relatively complicated process, but the national committees try hard to stick to the planned event rotations, as there is quite a lot of time and effort that has gone into planning these things to make sure everything evens out among the 23 events. That being said, the final slate is voted upon by the state directors after nationals. They have deviated from the planned rotation a number of times, but generally not by much.

[chalker]

Also, chalker/chalker7, what does it take to keep an event around for another year? I don't necessarily mean what we competitors could do (rioting?), but what would you nationally-involved coaches/coordinators need to do?

What does it take? Technically all it takes is for Rules Committee Chairs such as myself to convince the SO Executive Board to make the change. However, as I've tried to emphasize already multiple times, there are a LOT of factors that come into play and a lot of thought is put into these issues over a multi-year period. We typically have tentative plans for event rotations 4+ years out (so right now we have projections though 2015).

Regarding Mission, please keep in mind the following:
Mission Possible in some form ran continuously from 1994-2005. In 2006 and 2007 it was B division only. It rotated out in 2008 and 2009. It was back in division C in 2010 and 2011, and will tentatively be in divsion B in 2012 and 2013.

The 2 year rotation cycle serves a lot of good purposes and I doubt will be changed anytime soon, although there are always exceptions to every rule in extenuating circumstances.

P.S. - ditto what my brother said above, although technically the executive board, not the state directors, have the ultimate say.

[chalker]

Sorry for the double post, and I don't think this is the right thread, but is it possible to somehow keep Mission and cut Keep the Heat? Keep the Heat looks like it won't be challenging enough. The scores for the building will be in a very small range. The test scores will carry a great value, making it basically a study event. Mission however is a true building event in my opinion. It requires creativity, thinking outside-the-box, team work, and decision making under pressure. This is my first year doing Mission Possible, and I am already hooked onto it.

Check out my post in the other thread, which explains why this wouldn't suffice for us: http://www.scioly.org/phpBB3/viewtopic. ... 75#p150901

[chalker7]

I apologize, I should have said the state directors vote on the tentative slate of events, pending executive board approval.

[The Eviscerator]

Chalker/Chalker7:
This is probably the wrong thread and thinking a bit farther ahead, but do you think it's possible to have Oceanography rotate in 2013 (after 2 years of Dynamic Planet Freshwater) rather than Dynamic Planet Glaciers? Glaciers just don't seem to be that interesting and vast a topic in comparison to the oceans.

[questionguy]

Instead of getting rid of Mission Possible where the tasks change every year, couldn't Mousetrap Vehicle be replaced? I think this would be its second year as an event.

[blazer]

Instead of getting rid of Mission Possible where the tasks change every year, couldn't Mousetrap Vehicle be replaced? I think this would be its second year as an event.

Tentatively, mousetrap, which has run for two years in c division, is moving to b division and being replaced by wheeled vehicle.

[chalker7]

Blazer is correct with the vehicle rotation.
And I don't want to be difficult, but this thread has kind of gotten away from the original purpose, which is a place for recommendations and ideas for the Mission Possible rules.
Are there any tasks that you thought were particularly problematic this year? Are there any tasks that you'd be excited to see come in next year?

[chalker]

For years I have heard how hard it is for many teams to compete in Mission Possible, Junkyard Challenge, Robot Ramble and Sumo Bot due to the complicated and expensive nature of these events. Now I am reading that the committee wants to bring in an even more complicated and more expensive event than any two combined???

While it's not in my committee, I disagree that Robot Arm is more complicated or expensive. To the contrary, I think it could be done rather cheaply and simply. There are toy robot arms available online for under $40 that can handle all the tasks in the event. The rules as currently written also allow for a WIDE variety of designs and control mechanisms, which should mean that the majority of students could construct something 'from parts laying around the house'.

How can the committee even consider removing these events until mastery is achieved. The top teams will always be in the running for the top scores no matter what event is out there. The teams trying to compete no sooner get a hold on the event and it is gone. Rather than unilaterally deciding to scrap great events to the arbitrary two year cycle, poll the regional and state supervisors and see where they think an event is in its maturity.

There are a lot of factors that weigh into this beyond just 'mastery' of the events. Please keep in mind there are something like 200,000 students involved each year in over 300 different tournaments, so there is a wide variety of skill levels and interest pulling in different directions. Needless to say, the committees take a LOT into consideration with all these decisions and your perspective is appreciated and valued. And please note my post above about the history of Mission Possible an future plans - the event isn't being 'scrapped'. As currently planned it will be back.

Let ALL of the teams in science olympiad have a shot rather than just the elite few that happen to have the funds or a specialists know-how in how to approach an event.... I hope you realize what it does to teams when they are out competed by funding and complications.

On a personal note, I have the same desire to allow all teams have a shot. However I guess we disagree on the method. My feeling is that by rotating events regularly it levels the playing field somewhat by making everyone have a 'fresh start'. I'm also acutely aware of needing to strike a balance between 'funding / complications' and 'interesting events that appeal to a wide variety of students'.

[chalker]

Chalker/Chalker7:
This is probably the wrong thread and thinking a bit farther ahead, but do you think it's possible to have Oceanography rotate in 2013 (after 2 years of Dynamic Planet Freshwater) rather than Dynamic Planet Glaciers? Glaciers just don't seem to be that interesting and vast a topic in comparison to the oceans.

It's not in my committee, but tentatively Oceanography is coming back in 2015.