Way Too Early Predictions

[EastStroudsburg13]

Hmm, that's true. The 2014 score was with a 24-team field, but both 2015 and 2016 had 28-team fields, so they should have been at approximately the same level if going purely by states scores. Perhaps Troy going from 70 to 102 was indeed the better indicator.

[kenniky]

Maybe there is no indicator ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Alex-RCHS]

Maybe there is no indicator ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I agree. Scioly Tournaments are very volatile.

I think part of why Mira Loma and Harriton succeeded is because neither of them had any bad events (the worst score between the two of them was 32). Troy had low scores in Wright Stuff (49) and WIDI (53), which are both events that can go very well or very poorly, regardless of preparation.

[EastStroudsburg13]

If there was no indicator, my computer rankings wouldn't have spit out Mira Loma at first place before nationals last year.

[pikachu4919]

I wouldn't say that Troy's performance foreshadowed their loss as much as Mira Loma's performance foreshadowed their win. They completely and utterly dominated.

Not really more than past years:
2014: 4th at nats, 57 points at states
2015: 2nd at nats, 50 points at states
2016: 1st at nats, 54 points at states

I thought Troy's score at SoCal's states last year was 102 or something near that

[windu34]

I wouldn't say that Troy's performance foreshadowed their loss as much as Mira Loma's performance foreshadowed their win. They completely and utterly dominated.

Not really more than past years:
2014: 4th at nats, 57 points at states
2015: 2nd at nats, 50 points at states
2016: 1st at nats, 54 points at states

I thought Troy's score at SoCal's states last year was 102 or something near that

These are Mira Loma's scores. You are correct about Troy's score from last year's states

[Unome]

Since this is the usual time the "real" prediction threads usually begin around, we should probably go ahead and retire this thread. See Unofficial Rankings B and Unofficial Rankings C