Sweet! So Indiana is sending two teams!Luo wrote:Well, this was way earlier than expected.
http://www.soinc.org/sites/default/file ... umbers.pdf
States sending two teams
-
- Member
- Posts: 244
- Joined: January 16th, 2010, 1:55 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: IN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: States sending two teams
2009: Protein Modeling (4th) overall 7th
2010: Cell Bio (11), Write it Do it (10), overall 5th
2011: Disease (4), Microbe (10), Protein Modeling (5), Sounds of Music (2), overall 1st, nats 21
2012: Disease (4), Forestry (5), Microbe (-), Protein Modeling (6), Sounds of Music (7), TPS (7) overall 4th
2010: Cell Bio (11), Write it Do it (10), overall 5th
2011: Disease (4), Microbe (10), Protein Modeling (5), Sounds of Music (2), overall 1st, nats 21
2012: Disease (4), Forestry (5), Microbe (-), Protein Modeling (6), Sounds of Music (7), TPS (7) overall 4th
-
- Staff Emeritus
- Posts: 507
- Joined: March 21st, 2011, 1:31 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: MN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: States sending two teams
They posted the complete breakdown of B/C registration numbers today at http://www.scienceolympiad2012.com/tour ... nationals/.
Yikes. They had to break a tie between Indiana and Colorado for a second team in B Division, and take a look at that pileup in C division with 6 states between 65 and 67 teams, right beneath the two-team cutoff, to boot.
Yikes. They had to break a tie between Indiana and Colorado for a second team in B Division, and take a look at that pileup in C division with 6 states between 65 and 67 teams, right beneath the two-team cutoff, to boot.
Proud alumnus of Mounds View High School Science Olympiad, Arden Hills, MN
Co-founder of the MIT Science Olympiad Invitational Tournament: http://scioly.mit.edu/
Co-founder of the MIT Science Olympiad Invitational Tournament: http://scioly.mit.edu/
- tornado guy
- Member
- Posts: 449
- Joined: April 17th, 2011, 7:23 pm
- Division: C
- State: WA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: States sending two teams
Awww.. If we had kept all teams from last year we probably would've gotten a second team!Luo wrote:They posted the complete breakdown of B/C registration numbers today at http://www.scienceolympiad2012.com/tour ... nationals/.
Yikes. They had to break a tie between Indiana and Colorado for a second team in B Division, and take a look at that pileup in C division with 6 states between 65 and 67 teams, right beneath the two-team cutoff, to boot.
Proud ExCEL Homeschooler for five awesome years!
Nationals 2012: Meteorology 5th, R&M 19th, WQ 21st, DP 30th. Team 11th
Regionals 2013 C division: DP 3rd, WQ 5th.
Nationals 2012: Meteorology 5th, R&M 19th, WQ 21st, DP 30th. Team 11th
Regionals 2013 C division: DP 3rd, WQ 5th.
-
- Staff Emeritus
- Posts: 507
- Joined: March 21st, 2011, 1:31 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: MN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: States sending two teams
I wonder how they break ties. The two methods I think seem most fair would be to either use last year's registration numbers as a tiebreaker or else use the state's most recent placing at nationals as a tiebreaker. Either of these tiebreakers would have resulted in Indiana getting the second Division B spot over Colorado.
Everywhere else on the list, they ranked tied states in alphabetical order. However, the only place it actually mattered (the Indiana/Colorado Division B tie) was the only place that the alphabetically latter state was listed ahead of the alphabetically former state.
Although it's probably an extremely remote possibility, it makes me wonder how they would break the tie at 66 if two states dropped out in Division C. If they broke the tie based on last year's registration numbers, Minnesota would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on last year's national placings, New Jersey would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on the current ordering, which appears to be simply alphabetical, Kansas would get the spot.
Or is there another possible tiebreaker they could be using that I'm missing? It just seems weird that they ordered tied states alphabetically in all cases except in the one place it actually mattered.
Everywhere else on the list, they ranked tied states in alphabetical order. However, the only place it actually mattered (the Indiana/Colorado Division B tie) was the only place that the alphabetically latter state was listed ahead of the alphabetically former state.
Although it's probably an extremely remote possibility, it makes me wonder how they would break the tie at 66 if two states dropped out in Division C. If they broke the tie based on last year's registration numbers, Minnesota would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on last year's national placings, New Jersey would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on the current ordering, which appears to be simply alphabetical, Kansas would get the spot.
Or is there another possible tiebreaker they could be using that I'm missing? It just seems weird that they ordered tied states alphabetically in all cases except in the one place it actually mattered.
Proud alumnus of Mounds View High School Science Olympiad, Arden Hills, MN
Co-founder of the MIT Science Olympiad Invitational Tournament: http://scioly.mit.edu/
Co-founder of the MIT Science Olympiad Invitational Tournament: http://scioly.mit.edu/
- rfscoach
- Coach
- Posts: 604
- Joined: July 7th, 2008, 4:58 pm
- Division: B
- State: GA
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: States sending two teams
They could be broken by the date the registration numbers were sent to the national office...Luo wrote:I wonder how they break ties. The two methods I think seem most fair would be to either use last year's registration numbers as a tiebreaker or else use the state's most recent placing at nationals as a tiebreaker. Either of these tiebreakers would have resulted in Indiana getting the second Division B spot over Colorado.
Everywhere else on the list, they ranked tied states in alphabetical order. However, the only place it actually mattered (the Indiana/Colorado Division B tie) was the only place that the alphabetically latter state was listed ahead of the alphabetically former state.
Although it's probably an extremely remote possibility, it makes me wonder how they would break the tie at 66 if two states dropped out in Division C. If they broke the tie based on last year's registration numbers, Minnesota would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on last year's national placings, New Jersey would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on the current ordering, which appears to be simply alphabetical, Kansas would get the spot.
Or is there another possible tiebreaker they could be using that I'm missing? It just seems weird that they ordered tied states alphabetically in all cases except in the one place it actually mattered.
I am the Lorax. I speak for the trees. I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues.
-
- Staff Emeritus
- Posts: 507
- Joined: March 21st, 2011, 1:31 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: MN
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 13 times
Re: States sending two teams
Yeah, I thought of that, but it seems so grossly unfair I didn't think it was a viable possibility. On second consideration I suppose it's reasonable.rfscoach wrote:They could be broken by the date the registration numbers were sent to the national office...Luo wrote:I wonder how they break ties. The two methods I think seem most fair would be to either use last year's registration numbers as a tiebreaker or else use the state's most recent placing at nationals as a tiebreaker. Either of these tiebreakers would have resulted in Indiana getting the second Division B spot over Colorado.
Everywhere else on the list, they ranked tied states in alphabetical order. However, the only place it actually mattered (the Indiana/Colorado Division B tie) was the only place that the alphabetically latter state was listed ahead of the alphabetically former state.
Although it's probably an extremely remote possibility, it makes me wonder how they would break the tie at 66 if two states dropped out in Division C. If they broke the tie based on last year's registration numbers, Minnesota would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on last year's national placings, New Jersey would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on the current ordering, which appears to be simply alphabetical, Kansas would get the spot.
Or is there another possible tiebreaker they could be using that I'm missing? It just seems weird that they ordered tied states alphabetically in all cases except in the one place it actually mattered.
So are you saying it's possible that they break ties by alphabetization when it doesn't matter for nationals qualification, but break ties by the date the registration numbers were sent to the national office when it does matter for nationals qualification?
Proud alumnus of Mounds View High School Science Olympiad, Arden Hills, MN
Co-founder of the MIT Science Olympiad Invitational Tournament: http://scioly.mit.edu/
Co-founder of the MIT Science Olympiad Invitational Tournament: http://scioly.mit.edu/
-
- Staff Emeritus
- Posts: 829
- Joined: September 11th, 2009, 1:41 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: PA
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 1 time
- Contact:
Re: States sending two teams
I would guess the alphabetical ordering is to avoid anyone reading too far into what state would be ahead if there was a scuffle over getting a second team - i.e. NSO only breaks ties when they need to. I don't think alphabetical order would (or should) be a tiebreaker, since that's just arbitrary. I don't think last year's national placings would be a tiebreaker either - too volatile, especially in Div B, and it seems too dependent on team ability instead of interest. Last year's registration numbers seems to be the most reasonable tiebreaker (since number of teams determines the rankings anyways), although perhaps it might be growth in teams instead of just straight numbers?Luo wrote:I wonder how they break ties. The two methods I think seem most fair would be to either use last year's registration numbers as a tiebreaker or else use the state's most recent placing at nationals as a tiebreaker. Either of these tiebreakers would have resulted in Indiana getting the second Division B spot over Colorado.
Everywhere else on the list, they ranked tied states in alphabetical order. However, the only place it actually mattered (the Indiana/Colorado Division B tie) was the only place that the alphabetically latter state was listed ahead of the alphabetically former state.
Although it's probably an extremely remote possibility, it makes me wonder how they would break the tie at 66 if two states dropped out in Division C. If they broke the tie based on last year's registration numbers, Minnesota would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on last year's national placings, New Jersey would get the spot. If they broke the tie based on the current ordering, which appears to be simply alphabetical, Kansas would get the spot.
Or is there another possible tiebreaker they could be using that I'm missing? It just seems weird that they ordered tied states alphabetically in all cases except in the one place it actually mattered.
Hershey Science Olympiad 2009 - 2014
Volunteer for Michigan SO 2015 - 2018
]\/[ Go Blue!
Volunteer for Michigan SO 2015 - 2018
]\/[ Go Blue!
-
- Member
- Posts: 94
- Joined: March 19th, 2011, 9:45 pm
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: States sending two teams
So you people are telling me we tied Indiana?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
2012-2013 Events:
Astronomy, Write It/Do It, Rocks and Minerals, Food Science?
Astronomy, Write It/Do It, Rocks and Minerals, Food Science?
-
- Member
- Posts: 94
- Joined: March 19th, 2011, 9:45 pm
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: States sending two teams
Also, an FYI, our state grew more than Indiana, they gained 1 team, we gained around 6AlphaTauri wrote: I would guess the alphabetical ordering is to avoid anyone reading too far into what state would be ahead if there was a scuffle over getting a second team - i.e. NSO only breaks ties when they need to. I don't think alphabetical order would (or should) be a tiebreaker, since that's just arbitrary. I don't think last year's national placings would be a tiebreaker either - too volatile, especially in Div B, and it seems too dependent on team ability instead of interest. Last year's registration numbers seems to be the most reasonable tiebreaker (since number of teams determines the rankings anyways), although perhaps it might be growth in teams instead of just straight numbers?
2012-2013 Events:
Astronomy, Write It/Do It, Rocks and Minerals, Food Science?
Astronomy, Write It/Do It, Rocks and Minerals, Food Science?
-
- Member
- Posts: 94
- Joined: March 19th, 2011, 9:45 pm
- Division: C
- State: CO
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 0
Re: States sending two teams
Like, really or sarcastically? I didnt think either of them was a good poststycman wrote:thank you for good post)
2012-2013 Events:
Astronomy, Write It/Do It, Rocks and Minerals, Food Science?
Astronomy, Write It/Do It, Rocks and Minerals, Food Science?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests