Science Olympiad Student Center
https://scioly.org:443/forums/
Mason most likely would’ve been top 10 nats in 2017 had they goneName wrote:Wouldn't quite say Mason 2.0, ABRHS was top 10 nats last year when mason never even qualified for nats before last year.Raleway wrote:One stands above the rest; our Mason 2.0 for 2019 rightfully goes to ABRHS!
A pity that they will not face Troy at all before nationals.
Good point, but there's also Northview and Westlake results. My point isn't really that those teams are bad this year, but that there's zero indication that they're any better. Somebody definitely could beat Troy, but there's no reason to think it's any more likely than usual.nicholasmaurer wrote: I am not sure that Northmont is a fair assessment of Mason. My understanding is that their teams were predominantly underclassman at this tournament. This makes sense given that it is a small, early invitational in a long Ohio season.
If Mason qualified in 2017, they likely would have been top 15 but I would not have predicted them for top 10.4Head wrote:Mason most likely would’ve been top 10 nats in 2017 had they goneName wrote:Wouldn't quite say Mason 2.0, ABRHS was top 10 nats last year when mason never even qualified for nats before last year.Raleway wrote:One stands above the rest; our Mason 2.0 for 2019 rightfully goes to ABRHS!
A pity that they will not face Troy at all before nationals.
Hmm, hard to say on this. Troy has never attended more than 4 invites a year (5 if you include Iolani Online Invite) and probably will never attend more than 1 non-Cali invite. The cost/time/effort trade-off also isn't as worth it for them, since they need to travel for the the better part of a day to get to most bigger-name invites. They didn't attend GGSO this year, but their invite attendance this year is similar to what it usually is. Sure, maybe that makes them less "competition-ready", but between A-B team competition (rivalry is too strong of a word, though I'm sure there are individual rivalries), mock invites (not sure if they still do those), and the number of good test-takers they have, they're generally able to stay on top of their stuff. A lot of it also comes down to tryouts; in order to be competitive at school tryouts, you need to have mastered all the Nationals topics or have a high-functioning build.demir wrote: This may sound silly, but I think Troy was not very active in invitationals and it may make them more likely to fail in some events. I would not be shocked if they don't get in top 3 this time.
I disagree. Mason was right up there with Solon in 2017, and I think that they would have almost certainly placed in the top 10. IMO that year they were a better team than Mentor, it was just that Mentor had a really good state tournament. Then again, these are just my opinions.Unome wrote:If Mason qualified in 2017, they likely would have been top 15 but I would not have predicted them for top 10.4Head wrote:Mason most likely would’ve been top 10 nats in 2017 had they goneName wrote:
Wouldn't quite say Mason 2.0, ABRHS was top 10 nats last year when mason never even qualified for nats before last year.
I concur with Alex-RCHS, in the opinion that overall, the top teams have generally declined since last year. I don't really think Solon is particularly stronger than last year, but I've been ranking them second because everyone else seems weaker.
It certainly would have been close. In my opinion, Mason that year was more well-suited for competing at nationals than Mentor. I know I predicted Mentor to get top 10 that year (incorrectly, in hingsight), so I would have probably placed Mason in the 8th-12th range. Regardless, last year's Mason team was the exception rather than the rule in terms of a first-year nationals team in terms of how successful they were.DontWorryAboutIt wrote: I disagree. Mason was right up there with Solon in 2017, and I think that they would have almost certainly placed in the top 10. IMO that year they were a better team than Mentor, it was just that Mentor had a really good state tournament. Then again, these are just my opinions.
I can see why Mason would be more well-suited to Nationals, especially given that Mentor had regressed quite a bit that year actually.EastStroudsburg13 wrote:It certainly would have been close. In my opinion, Mason that year was more well-suited for competing at nationals than Mentor. I know I predicted Mentor to get top 10 that year (incorrectly, in hingsight), so I would have probably placed Mason in the 8th-12th range. Regardless, last year's Mason team was the exception rather than the rule in terms of a first-year nationals team in terms of how successful they were.
If not for two bombs Solon would have scored in the 50s at state, so in my opinion Mason really was not right up there with Solon in 2017.DontWorryAboutIt wrote: I disagree. Mason was right up there with Solon in 2017, and I think that they would have almost certainly placed in the top 10. IMO that year they were a better team than Mentor, it was just that Mentor had a really good state tournament. Then again, these are just my opinions.
There was that time Centerville was top 4 at Nationals for 9 years in a row before placing 12th with no warning. But I generally agree, Harriton is probably a little underrated.antoine_ego wrote:I'm not buying that Harriton isn't still powerful. MIT was basically their builds failing, so I think they're being severely underestimated. A top 3 nationals team doesn't drop this quickly.
Idk, Ive heard that they lost their main builder(s) and all their tech/physics has gone down the holeUnome wrote:There was that time Centerville was top 4 at Nationals for 9 years in a row before placing 12th with no warning. But I generally agree, Harriton is probably a little underrated.antoine_ego wrote:I'm not buying that Harriton isn't still powerful. MIT was basically their builds failing, so I think they're being severely underestimated. A top 3 nationals team doesn't drop this quickly.