Page 31 of 52

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 7:33 pm
by paleonaps
I'm actually trying to work this through, because I'll admit that the idea has a lot of appeal to me because it would virtually guarantee WM a spot at Nationals every year. But if such a system were to be implemented, it would need to be fair, not designed to the advantage of just a few teams. If we tally up the number of division C teams that competed at Regionals (this is according to the State Wiki; the information may be a little outdated):

Adirondack: 0 (I suspect this to be an error, as they do have a regional tournament, according to the NYS website)
Capital: 22
Eastern Long Island: 41
Lake Erie - Niagara: 21
Lower Hudson: 2 (probably more, but no information available)
Mid-Hudson: 28
Mid-State: 35
Midwestern: 21
New York Metropolitan: 39
Southern Tier: 4 (other teams mentioned, but not listed. For argument's sake, let's call it 10)
Western Long Island: 63
Total = 282

So with that in mind, a potential division line that has the Lower Hudson compete with NYC and Long Island would create two "states", SNY containing 145 teams, and NNY containing 137. That's roughly equal.

However, the problem remains that NorCal and SoCal don't get to send two teams either. Each one contains roughly the same number of C teams as my proposed NY divisions do. Not only that, but states like Ohio, that send 2 (assuming half of the 270 teams it sends, that's 135) may actually have less teams than the partial states.

So my preferred plan of action would be to allow NorCal and SoCal to send 2 teams, and to make NNY and SNY (which would also send 2 teams). However, adding 4 teams to Nationals and reorganizing the state with the highest participation likely won't fly. In that case, I think it would only be fair to allow NY to send 3 teams to Nationals. I think that the state has grown to the point where 2 teams simply doesn't represent the whole.

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 8:11 pm
by Jdogg
I'm actually trying to work this through, because I'll admit that the idea has a lot of appeal to me because it would virtually guarantee WM a spot at Nationals every year. But if such a system were to be implemented, it would need to be fair, not designed to the advantage of just a few teams. If we tally up the number of division C teams that competed at Regionals (this is according to the State Wiki; the information may be a little outdated):

Adirondack: 0 (I suspect this to be an error, as they do have a regional tournament, according to the NYS website)
Capital: 22
Eastern Long Island: 41
Lake Erie - Niagara: 21
Lower Hudson: 2 (probably more, but no information available)
Mid-Hudson: 28
Mid-State: 35
Midwestern: 21
New York Metropolitan: 39
Southern Tier: 4 (other teams mentioned, but not listed. For argument's sake, let's call it 10)
Western Long Island: 63
Total = 282

So with that in mind, a potential division line that has the Lower Hudson compete with NYC and Long Island would create two "states", SNY containing 145 teams, and NNY containing 137. That's roughly equal.

However, the problem remains that NorCal and SoCal don't get to send two teams either. Each one contains roughly the same number of C teams as my proposed NY divisions do. Not only that, but states like Ohio, that send 2 (assuming half of the 270 teams it sends, that's 135) may actually have less teams than the partial states.

So my preferred plan of action would be to allow NorCal and SoCal to send 2 teams, and to make NNY and SNY (which would also send 2 teams). However, adding 4 teams to Nationals and reorganizing the state with the highest participation likely won't fly. In that case, I think it would only be fair to allow NY to send 3 teams to Nationals. I think that the state has grown to the point where 2 teams simply doesn't represent the whole.
Look at states like Ohio, MI, IL, PA, Ca, etc. They only send 2 teams and some usually have both place in the top 2. All these states have very competitive 3rd place teams that would place top 20 nationally (best example is Mentor last year). So sending more than 2 teams because the competition level has gone up isn't a logical reason. 2nd the only reason that CA splits up their state tournament is due to the large size and irregular shape of the state of Ca it makes more sense to have two competitions, to keep travel distance down for teams. I agree the idea of sending more than 2 teams from states that have very competitive teams would be appealing, I just don't see it as the best option. I think that as state tournaments become tougher the overall scioly competition will increase at nationals and across all the states. More teams will rotate and swap out of the top 2 places and bring up the competition that much more, as teams have to fight even harder to make it to nationals then if 3 teams were allowed (then again some teams get discourage because of dominating teams). But that didn't stop teams like Baynard Rustin that made it to nats from pa last year beating out Penncrest. So all in all i think the system that's set up now is pretty good well of keeping teams evenly distributed.. some states would have to lose teams to have some send 3 or 4.. plus other issues about what about state tournaments that are on the edge and hoping for a extra team like MN. This is just my two cents though

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 8:14 pm
by syo_astro
Heh, I find this funny because I feel like gneiss debated something similar to this XD. I can't really assert whether one thing is right or not. I guess the only real thing to do is to propose it to the nationals people. I mean, I think we remember during the normal boring awards intros they said there were something like 12,000+ NYers who competed this year.

Have to at least commend that...but I don't really have an exact side. I guess for my team we'd obviously like a better shot at that 3rd place (which alone is so heavily contested). Of course, it's not like it would stop us from trying to get to 2nd/1st because we really were trying so hard this year...but I know there are people who would oppose it. Heh, thanks for the props on the decorations, though. Somehow we brought a ton of extra people, and we've never had an actual spirit team like that XD.

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 8:27 pm
by science8
[quote="JTMess"]Tech Events results to the best of my knowledge-

ELG first-about 26 seconds for combined time about 52
ELG second- 25.3 and 25.5 for a combined score of around 50-51 seconds
ELG third- combined time about 49 seconds
ELG sixth~21 second flights for a combined time of 44 seconds
/quote]
Ceiling height and was the air conditioning on or off?

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 8:30 pm
by syo_astro
http://newyorkscioly.org/SOPages/Clarifications.html
I don't know exactly, but it said 26-30 ft.

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 11th, 2013, 10:55 pm
by quizbowl
I'm actually trying to work this through, because I'll admit that the idea has a lot of appeal to me because it would virtually guarantee WM a spot at Nationals every year. But if such a system were to be implemented, it would need to be fair, not designed to the advantage of just a few teams. If we tally up the number of division C teams that competed at Regionals (this is according to the State Wiki; the information may be a little outdated):

Adirondack: 0 (I suspect this to be an error, as they do have a regional tournament, according to the NYS website)
Capital: 22
Eastern Long Island: 41
Lake Erie - Niagara: 21
Lower Hudson: 2 (probably more, but no information available)
Mid-Hudson: 28
Mid-State: 35
Midwestern: 21
New York Metropolitan: 39
Southern Tier: 4 (other teams mentioned, but not listed. For argument's sake, let's call it 10)
Western Long Island: 63
Total = 282

So with that in mind, a potential division line that has the Lower Hudson compete with NYC and Long Island would create two "states", SNY containing 145 teams, and NNY containing 137. That's roughly equal.

However, the problem remains that NorCal and SoCal don't get to send two teams either. Each one contains roughly the same number of C teams as my proposed NY divisions do. Not only that, but states like Ohio, that send 2 (assuming half of the 270 teams it sends, that's 135) may actually have less teams than the partial states.

So my preferred plan of action would be to allow NorCal and SoCal to send 2 teams, and to make NNY and SNY (which would also send 2 teams). However, adding 4 teams to Nationals and reorganizing the state with the highest participation likely won't fly. In that case, I think it would only be fair to allow NY to send 3 teams to Nationals. I think that the state has grown to the point where 2 teams simply doesn't represent the whole.
Just going to correct a few things.

First of all, WLI is MASSIVE. The wiki is pretty outdated - 74 teams registered this year; so many teams were competing that several teams were barred entry due to the limitations of Kellenberg. This is nearly double the size of the next largest region. Probably the largest regional in the nation. However, this was its last year - it will be divided into two separate regions, CLI (hosted by Kellenberg) and WLI (I believe Syosset, Wantagh and Hicksville will be the rotating hosts, correct me if I'm wrong). The sheer fact that a region has to be split up shows the growing fondness of the competition in the area, and I'm sure growth won't stop for a while.

Once again, the data is VERY outdated. Adirondack we know at least four teams competed at the state competition, which at the lowest result would put the region size in at 20 (considering that Plattsburgh has won for a few years, allowing for the extra team rule to come into play). If I remember correctly, Lower Hudson had 32 this year, and Southern Tier was probably in the high 20s. This puts many more teams into the numbers game.

Do recall that Lower Hudson is north the New York Metropolitan area. A more feasible partition would have the Long Island teams compete with the NYC teams.

Of the teams going to nationals, one is from the proposed SNY. Of the top 5, 3 are of SNY. Of the top 10, 4 are of SNY. Of the top 20, 8 are of SNY.

Either way, California is nearly the size of NY in regards to their representation yet their division is due to geographic regions (teams from San Diego and Sacramento would each have quite a long drive if they competed together). Even with division, the state as a whole sends two teams. While yes, the state of NY is by far the most populated C Division state (and yes, the national representatives per team ratio is astoundingly low) I doubt that any action would allow NY to send more teams. But we can hope.

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 12th, 2013, 6:10 am
by Flavorflav
There were a total of 376 teams in NY this year, so yes, those wiki numbers are very outdated.

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 12th, 2013, 8:11 am
by twototwenty
My problem with the continuation of only sending 2 teams is that, frankly, it is not fair, as it is now (in my opinion). Take a look at this:

http://www.soinc.org/sites/default/file ... 2_v1_1.pdf

Directly from the national website, so it is accurate. Compare NY to New Hampshire. Should New Hampshire really be sending half as many teams to nationals as NY?

NY by far has the most teams, of any state. It has more teams than North and South california combined. Alabama, for example, also sends 2 teams to Nationals. NY, as of last year, has 4.5 times as many teams as Alabama. This is not to say that NY is the only team that deserves to be able to send more teams; SoCal + NoCal does approximately equal NY, and combined they only get to send 2 teams as well.

Yes, it would require some reorganization of the national team feed, but the simple fact is that scioly participation in NY, and other states, has been growing rapidly and significantly. I really feel that something should be done to compensate for this. Of course, there are problems with simply allowing some states more teams (such as an increased strain on the Nationals hosts), but I think these can be dealt with (perhaps not hosting the B and C Division tournaments at the same times?).

Once again, note that all of this is simply my opinion, and that I fully understand/acknowledge that allowing states more teams to send to nationals does cause problems.

As a side note: nice new website design, soinc.

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 12th, 2013, 11:07 am
by Jdogg
Also NY sends multiple teams to regionals, some schools sending 3-4 teams. This inflates the amount of teams in NY, most other states don't have multiple teams from each school compete at regionals. Plus how do you simply get rid of some states chances of going to nats? Increasing the amount of teams that go to nationals is a solution, but then think about the amount of tests that need to be graded (ect.).

Re: New York 2013

Posted: March 12th, 2013, 4:13 pm
by caseyotis
I mean, gosh. I feel intimidated by all of the competition in NY, but hell, I can stroll into New Hampshire where my regional competition had twice the participation of their state. I personally feel that those states that have hundreds of teams participating should be sending a lot more teams to nationals. I mean, there is the whole problem with test grading, but other than that... Derp, how do I say this without sounding like a selfish prick? It's like the House of Representatives and the Senate. The states with less participation should send less teams than those with higher participation (obviously) but the difference is too small now. Like what syo said, if we have thirty times the participation, why is our representation only two times the amount of one of the smaller states? I don't think it's fair for the competitive teams that have the potential to best every team in New Hampshire but haven't been given the chance, and instead, place eighth in their state competition.

Note: I don't hate New Hampshire, but just for the sake of example...