Page 20 of 23

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 16th, 2009, 2:02 pm
by scienceolympiadist
I, being from Ohio, would think that is a beneficial idea, yet I don't see it happening. Here for the past few years, it's been dead heat between Centerville, Mentor, and Solon. The 4th place team comes about 100 points below these 3. Having 3 to Nationals would defeat the meaning of States, essentially. That would be harmful for alums for former 3rd place teams.

Also, I'm in Speech and Debate, and the region I am in overall isn't a strong region. Yet, top 2 competitors in each event still goes to Nationals. I happened to be a National qualifyer this year (although I couldn't go, due to an internship). Bottom line, I know hundreds of kids across the nation did not get to go to Nationals, because they happened to be in more competitive regions, although they could easily be better than I am.

In all, there is no real solution to this. All we should just take out of this, is that when we go to compete at Nationals, know that these are not the top 60 teams in the nation. There are many great schools who could not go, because their states are just more competitive. For those qualified to go to Nationals, just remember your fallen State companions.

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 16th, 2009, 2:23 pm
by nejanimb
I, actually, would tend to agree. You make a lot of good points. I was just suggesting one way it might be done.

ps - what kind of debate do you do?

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 17th, 2009, 9:59 am
by scienceolympiadist
I actually just do Speech: International Extenporaneous.

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 20th, 2009, 10:16 am
by EastStroudsburg13
One way of doing this somewhat objectively is to say "If the base # of teams from any given state make top 10, that state gets a bonus team for the next year." It could be even top 5, if we wanted to be even more picky. From this year, this would mean that each OH, CA, and PA would get to bring a 3rd team next year (C division). As it turned out, none of the top 10 C division teams this year came from a state with only 1 team, but, under this policy, if they had, their state would earn a second berth for next year as well. Then, next year, the states that got to bring a bonus team would have to maintain their performance - that is, 2 teams from each OH, PA, and CA would have to make top 10. If that did not happen, they would go back to only getting 2 spots. For B division, this would mean that next year, WA and NJ got to bring 2 teams, and CA and MI got to bring 3 teams.

I... am not sure about this. But it'd be one somewhat fair, objective way to do it. What do other people think? Good idea? One definite problem with this is that having the top team (or top 2 teams) is not necessarily indicative of how well the bonus team would do...
If anything, I think this idea can be realistically done, which says a lot for it. And it could give other teams more incentive because they have a better chance at nationals, making the overall competition even fiercer.

However, the problem would be that the amount of teams every year would change, which I am not sure would work so well. I tend to be one of those people who likes nice round numbers. Another small problem I foresee with this is that it puts an immense amount of pressure on the top teams to do very well so their state can get the bonus spot. Still, this is relatively minor and since it affects all front-runners, there really isn't much of an advantage or disadvantage for anyone.

Besides this, I really like this idea for the extra chance it gives teams in competitive states. :)

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 20th, 2009, 10:21 am
by 49ers
One way of doing this somewhat objectively is to say "If the base # of teams from any given state make top 10, that state gets a bonus team for the next year." It could be even top 5, if we wanted to be even more picky. From this year, this would mean that each OH, CA, and PA would get to bring a 3rd team next year (C division). As it turned out, none of the top 10 C division teams this year came from a state with only 1 team, but, under this policy, if they had, their state would earn a second berth for next year as well. Then, next year, the states that got to bring a bonus team would have to maintain their performance - that is, 2 teams from each OH, PA, and CA would have to make top 10. If that did not happen, they would go back to only getting 2 spots. For B division, this would mean that next year, WA and NJ got to bring 2 teams, and CA and MI got to bring 3 teams.

I... am not sure about this. But it'd be one somewhat fair, objective way to do it. What do other people think? Good idea? One definite problem with this is that having the top team (or top 2 teams) is not necessarily indicative of how well the bonus team would do...
If anything, I think this idea can be realistically done, which says a lot for it. And it could give other teams more incentive because they have a better chance at nationals, making the overall competition even fiercer.

However, the problem would be that the amount of teams every year would change, which I am not sure would work so well. I tend to be one of those people who likes nice round numbers. Another small problem I foresee with this is that it puts an immense amount of pressure on the top teams to do very well so their state can get the bonus spot. Still, this is relatively minor and since it affects all front-runners, there really isn't much of an advantage or disadvantage for anyone.

Besides this, I really like this idea for the extra chance it gives teams in competitive states. :)

thank you finally someone whom agrees with me partially!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i hate how everyone thinks that 3 teams from each state going is unfair it is perfactley fair and affects everyone therefore no advantages or disadvantages as stated by EASTstroudsburg13

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 20th, 2009, 1:32 pm
by fleet130
The BIG question is: If you give a state a 3rd team slot, which state are you going to take it away from. There are only soooo many slots available and that number is maxed out, unless you have an extra quarter mil or so in your pocket that you don't need!

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 20th, 2009, 1:35 pm
by 49ers
well we are not taking it away from any state, and I believe with all the bail-outs the gov. is giving 1/4 mil is not much to them

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 20th, 2009, 1:45 pm
by fleet130
well we are not taking it away from any state
I'm afraid there are only a limited number of slots. If you give one state another slot you MUST take one away from another state.

with all the bail-outs the gov. is giving 1/4 mil is not much to them
What does government bail-outs have to do with this. The National Science Olympiad tournment is privately funded. They get NOTHING in the way of government funding!

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 20th, 2009, 1:51 pm
by 49ers
well ok but hat doesn't make sense that SO is not gov funded but OK
and why not make more slots for nats?

Re: Anyone medaled at Nats?

Posted: July 20th, 2009, 1:59 pm
by fmtiger124
well ok but hat doesn't make sense that SO is not gov funded but OK
and why not make more slots for nats?
BECAUSE 50 TEAMS IS ENOUGH AND IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO GIVE 1 STATE 3 SLOTS AND NOT THE OTHER 49!