Pennsylvania 2019

[UTF-8 U+6211 U+662F]

yo anyone from sepa

legit all the photos that they take after ppl get awards, where do they even go?? ive been dying to know for forever and i still havent found them

I have no idea

[Anomaly]

For those not aware,

PA is implementing a new system similar to Illinois's A and AA categories except PA's is at the regional level. There are now two levels of teams at the regional level; level 1 and level 2, which are chosen at registration. The aim is that smaller or less experienced teams go for level 1, which is where the team participates in only 12 events, with hopes that they put all of their resources and attention into those events with the hope that they would be able to medal in those events, which was the motive for implementing this new policy in the first place. They'll be ranked among the level 2 teams for medals and overall rankings, although the top 2 teams I believe will receive trophies in level 1. Although *possible* it's extremely unlikely for any level 1 team to make states, seeing as they receive a no show ranking for each event they do not show up to.

In addition, they're in the process of splitting up SEPA, since the host for SEPA has requested that they cap their registration at 30 teams, which means another region is being created and the state bids are gonna be all messed up now.

Thoughts/Opinions?

[EastStroudsburg13]

For those not aware,

PA is implementing a new system similar to Illinois's A and AA categories except PA's is at the regional level. There are now two levels of teams at the regional level; level 1 and level 2, which are chosen at registration. The aim is that smaller or less experienced teams go for level 1, which is where the team participates in only 12 events, with hopes that they put all of their resources and attention into those events with the hope that they would be able to medal in those events, which was the motive for implementing this new policy in the first place. They'll be ranked among the level 2 teams for medals and overall rankings, although the top 2 teams I believe will receive trophies in level 1. Although *possible* it's extremely unlikely for any level 1 team to make states, seeing as they receive a no show ranking for each event they do not show up to.

In addition, they're in the process of splitting up SEPA, since the host for SEPA has requested that they cap their registration at 30 teams, which means another region is being created and the state bids are gonna be all messed up now.

Thoughts/Opinions?

Level 1/Level 2: Overall in favor. I expect that with a 12-event cap, teams will self-select to the point where overall rankings won't change too much. Plus, hopefully the recognition of medals and trophies will help increase interest in level 2 teams so that they have enough students to support participation in more events. I'm very interested to see how this functions in practice.

SEPA: Kinda lame. I hope PASO considers merely splitting apart B and C regions, rather than split the teams. It would be a much simpler solution than trying to work out a geographic split. I'm also not a big fan of registration caps, but giving the site with a cap the B division tournament would likely reduce the risk of running into the cap. C Division SEPA has experienced pretty solid growth in recent years, especially with the Urban Initiative, and capping that growth would be a real shame.

[Unome]

For those not aware,

PA is implementing a new system similar to Illinois's A and AA categories except PA's is at the regional level. There are now two levels of teams at the regional level; level 1 and level 2, which are chosen at registration. The aim is that smaller or less experienced teams go for level 1, which is where the team participates in only 12 events, with hopes that they put all of their resources and attention into those events with the hope that they would be able to medal in those events, which was the motive for implementing this new policy in the first place. They'll be ranked among the level 2 teams for medals and overall rankings, although the top 2 teams I believe will receive trophies in level 1. Although *possible* it's extremely unlikely for any level 1 team to make states, seeing as they receive a no show ranking for each event they do not show up to.

In addition, they're in the process of splitting up SEPA, since the host for SEPA has requested that they cap their registration at 30 teams, which means another region is being created and the state bids are gonna be all messed up now.

Thoughts/Opinions?

Level 1/Level 2: Overall in favor. I expect that with a 12-event cap, teams will self-select to the point where overall rankings won't change too much. Plus, hopefully the recognition of medals and trophies will help increase interest in level 2 teams so that they have enough students to support participation in more events. I'm very interested to see how this functions in practice.

SEPA: Kinda lame. I hope PASO considers merely splitting apart B and C regions, rather than split the teams. It would be a much simpler solution than trying to work out a geographic split. I'm also not a big fan of registration caps, but giving the site with a cap the B division tournament would likely reduce the risk of running into the cap. C Division SEPA has experienced pretty solid growth in recent years, especially with the Urban Initiative, and capping that growth would be a real shame.

With the level 1/level 2 thing, I don't see the point of limiting them to 12 events - it seems like many of the teams that this might cater to would rather compete in more (I'd expect they historically prepare for 16-20 on average).

[EastStroudsburg13]

With the level 1/level 2 thing, I don't see the point of limiting them to 12 events - it seems like many of the teams that this might cater to would rather compete in more (I'd expect they historically prepare for 16-20 on average).

I would guess that the thinking is teams are running thin by feeling the need to fill out as many events as possible. By limiting the events to 12, teams can focus more on those events and experience more success. I would not be opposed to increasing the limit to 15, though. Any cap as high as 18 and I think you may start seeing more teams electing to stay in level 1 than is intended.

EDIT: Did some quick research.

In Division B, of the state-qualifying regions, 29% of teams no-showed in at least 8 events, 35% of teams no-showed in at least 5 events, and 40% of teams no-showed in at least 3 events.
In Division C, of the state-qualifying regions, 27% of teams no-showed in at least 8 events, 36% of teams no-showed in at least 5 events, and 46% of teams no-showed in at least 3 events.

If I'm guessing what PASO is aiming for, I think they're shooting for around one third of teams to participate in level 1, and two-thirds to participate in level 2. I think teams that no-show in 8 events or more would likely go for level 1 with a 12-event cap, since they're only sacrificing 3 events at most for a greater chance at earning medals or a trophy. I'd guess a 25-33% participation rate in level 1 if a 12-event cap is used. A cap of 18 events would probably have a level 1 participation rate of around 40%, which I feel is higher than PASO intends.

[zsg11]

I think in order for the SEPA split to work, they would have to completely redistribute the states bids in order to maintain the quality of the PASO competition.

Upon doing some reseach, I discovered that all but one (North Penn being the "one") of SEPA's 8 state bids were within a radius of about 20-25 miles. Every single SEPA team placed within the top 13 at states. If they were to cut the bids to that region, they could diminish the quality of the state competition. The SEPA team placing the lowest at states is still higher than the highest placing team of other regions.

If the split is due to space issues, I would much prefer them doing division b and c on different days or at different times. If they do decide to split the region, however, I could see it going very wrong, and they need to be very careful with how they reallocate the bids, so that regions are still represented fairly, but the quality of the PASO competition is relatively maintained. I would hate to see the gap between the top teams and the lower level teams increase, due to some of the middle-ground teams being allocated out of States.

[EastStroudsburg13]

I think in order for the SEPA split to work, they would have to completely redistribute the states bids in order to maintain the quality of the PASO competition.

Upon doing some reseach, I discovered that all but one (North Penn being the "one") of SEPA's 8 state bids were within a radius of about 20-25 miles. Every single SEPA team placed within the top 13 at states. If they were to cut the bids to that region, they could diminish the quality of the state competition. The SEPA team placing the lowest at states is still higher than the highest placing team of other regions.

If the split is due to space issues, I would much prefer them doing division b and c on different days or at different times. If they do decide to split the region, however, I could see it going very wrong, and they need to be very careful with how they reallocate the bids, so that regions are still represented fairly, but the quality of the PASO competition is relatively maintained. I would hate to see the gap between the top teams and the lower level teams increase, due to some of the middle-ground teams being allocated out of States.

For Div C at least, you can split apart the regions pretty fairly by county lines. If you put Chester and Delaware Counties in one region, and Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in the other, Rustin, Penncrest, Stoga, and Garnet Valley are in the former, and Lower Merion, Harriton, North Penn, and Shipley are in the latter. In terms of total teams, the former would have 20 teams, and the latter would have 18. Depending on how it works out, Perkiomen Valley could jump on board with the Montco/Phila region as well. So, I'm not hugely concerned about competitive balance there.

My concern with that split is in Division B. If you draw those geographic lines, the Montco/Phila region has only 7 teams. It would have Bala Cynwyd and Welsh Valley, but it lacks the same depth of schools as Chester/Delaware. If you put Chester in with Montco/Phila, then you get a region of 13 teams, with 10 in Delaware County, which is theoretically fine. But you also end up with a 10-team Delaware County region in Division C, which would be the smallest C regional by far. And trying to add Bucks back into the mix makes essentially no difference, as only 1 Bucks school competed in Division B this year.

Now, it is possible to split a region geographically in one division and not the other. Western Long Island did that in NY, splitting in C but remaining intact in B. If splitting by division is not a route PASO wants to go in, this may be the next best bet. Keep SEPA intact for B division, but split apart SEPA C division into two (roughly) balanced regions, each with 4 bids. It wouldn't have the same cache in SO circles as a giant region of death, but it would at least not change the competitive balance too significantly.

PS: Shameless plug for my map, which was really helpful in figuring this out

[zsg11]

I think in order for the SEPA split to work, they would have to completely redistribute the states bids in order to maintain the quality of the PASO competition.

Upon doing some reseach, I discovered that all but one (North Penn being the "one") of SEPA's 8 state bids were within a radius of about 20-25 miles. Every single SEPA team placed within the top 13 at states. If they were to cut the bids to that region, they could diminish the quality of the state competition. The SEPA team placing the lowest at states is still higher than the highest placing team of other regions.

If the split is due to space issues, I would much prefer them doing division b and c on different days or at different times. If they do decide to split the region, however, I could see it going very wrong, and they need to be very careful with how they reallocate the bids, so that regions are still represented fairly, but the quality of the PASO competition is relatively maintained. I would hate to see the gap between the top teams and the lower level teams increase, due to some of the middle-ground teams being allocated out of States.

For Div C at least, you can split apart the regions pretty fairly by county lines. If you put Chester and Delaware Counties in one region, and Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in the other, Rustin, Penncrest, Stoga, and Garnet Valley are in the former, and Lower Merion, Harriton, North Penn, and Shipley are in the latter. In terms of total teams, the former would have 20 teams, and the latter would have 18. Depending on how it works out, Perkiomen Valley could jump on board with the Montco/Phila region as well. So, I'm not hugely concerned about competitive balance there.

My concern with that split is in Division B. If you draw those geographic lines, the Montco/Phila region has only 7 teams. It would have Bala Cynwyd and Welsh Valley, but it lacks the same depth of schools as Chester/Delaware. If you put Chester in with Montco/Phila, then you get a region of 13 teams, with 10 in Delaware County, which is theoretically fine. But you also end up with a 10-team Delaware County region in Division C, which would be the smallest C regional by far. And trying to add Bucks back into the mix makes essentially no difference, as only 1 Bucks school competed in Division B this year.

Now, it is possible to split a region geographically in one division and not the other. Western Long Island did that in NY, splitting in C but remaining intact in B. If splitting by division is not a route PASO wants to go in, this may be the next best bet. Keep SEPA intact for B division, but split apart SEPA C division into two (roughly) balanced regions, each with 4 bids. It wouldn't have the same cache in SO circles as a giant region of death, but it would at least not change the competitive balance too significantly.

PS: Shameless plug for my map, which was really helpful in figuring this out

Interesting. I hadn't thought about county lines, but what you say makes sense.

And I agree with your last point. It does seem pretty unnecessary to split for div b. Also, while there wouldn't be one infamous SEPA C region of death, it will still be a challenge to get states spots in the two new regions (if that is indeed how they will be split) for teams that aren't big names. It will be interesting to see what happens.

By the way, that is a really cool map.

[TheCrazyChemist]

My concern with that split is in Division B. If you draw those geographic lines, the Montco/Phila region has only 7 teams. It would have Bala Cynwyd and Welsh Valley, but it lacks the same depth of schools as Chester/Delaware. If you put Chester in with Montco/Phila, then you get a region of 13 teams, with 10 in Delaware County, which is theoretically fine. But you also end up with a 10-team Delaware County region in Division C, which would be the smallest C regional by far. And trying to add Bucks back into the mix makes essentially no difference, as only 1 Bucks school competed in Division B this year.

Now, it is possible to split a region geographically in one division and not the other. Western Long Island did that in NY, splitting in C but remaining intact in B. If splitting by division is not a route PASO wants to go in, this may be the next best bet. Keep SEPA intact for B division, but split apart SEPA C division into two (roughly) balanced regions, each with 4 bids. It wouldn't have the same cache in SO circles as a giant region of death, but it would at least not change the competitive balance too significantly.

PS: Shameless plug for my map, which was really helpful in figuring this out

Why would splitting by division not be something PASO would want to do? Logistics of tournaments? Anyways, that map is really cool and it really helps anyone who is not familiar with SEPA specifically see why it's a bloodbath. At least it did for me. But those regions all are regionals, right?

[EastStroudsburg13]

My concern with that split is in Division B. If you draw those geographic lines, the Montco/Phila region has only 7 teams. It would have Bala Cynwyd and Welsh Valley, but it lacks the same depth of schools as Chester/Delaware. If you put Chester in with Montco/Phila, then you get a region of 13 teams, with 10 in Delaware County, which is theoretically fine. But you also end up with a 10-team Delaware County region in Division C, which would be the smallest C regional by far. And trying to add Bucks back into the mix makes essentially no difference, as only 1 Bucks school competed in Division B this year.

Now, it is possible to split a region geographically in one division and not the other. Western Long Island did that in NY, splitting in C but remaining intact in B. If splitting by division is not a route PASO wants to go in, this may be the next best bet. Keep SEPA intact for B division, but split apart SEPA C division into two (roughly) balanced regions, each with 4 bids. It wouldn't have the same cache in SO circles as a giant region of death, but it would at least not change the competitive balance too significantly.

PS: Shameless plug for my map, which was really helpful in figuring this out

Why would splitting by division not be something PASO would want to do? Logistics of tournaments? Anyways, that map is really cool and it really helps anyone who is not familiar with SEPA specifically see why it's a bloodbath. At least it did for me. But those regions all are regionals, right?

It's just not something they've done in the past. Perhaps there are logistical benefits to allowing school districts to only need to plan for one date instead of two. But I think that is my preferred option, in my opinion.

And yes, each region is its own regional in that map.