You would need to give every team who placed below Churchill B in every event that extra point since everyone would be moved up one position in each event.Well we can assume that the a team will always do better than the b team right? So if thats the case, churchill's a is better than their b which was better then arden's a. So lets say we take churchill b out of the picture, churchill a would have placed higher than arden regardless if their b was there or not.
I also see kube's point about the money. Our school's sci depart prob won't be having a second sci oly team next year due to the new cali state budget cuts.
They can still get rewarded for it, i just don't think their scores should be counted toward the final scores/places.But either way it would maintain the balance of the rankings of those teams below churchill b. And churchill b did and worked hard to win 2nd place so I think we should penalize them for their hard work but reward them for their achievement.
Not necessarily. This is the first time the B team has ever gotten 2nd. Every other year, its been either us or Arden.They basically 'threw out' that point so now the best anyone else can do is 3rd.
Bay Area? Yeah I'll see all you guys at states. 3rd year I'm going to states, but I have yet to compete at states . It's still fun to watch though.To be honest - I actually had a concern about B teams affecting the results, but I've analyzed our regional competition for three years now, and B teams haven't changed the top 3 or so places...so I think it's fair to allow schools with a lot of interest to let more people compete - one school had 3 teams at regionals this year? Plus, if a B team does better than an A team, that team would go to state instead. The school could choose to weight its teams evenly too, if it wanted. The system's not perfect though, I agree. I'm not sure what would be best, though...
States in less than two days!! I'm super excited. Now back to studying and building....
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest