Nationals Bid Discussion

[primitivepolonium]

Sometimes in life, you double post.

[primitivepolonium]

I would say that running events and tournaments well, and introducing new blood into NSO, should be much higher of a priority than messing with the bid allocation system. I honestly would prefer to have teams from Wyoming and Alaska qualify rather than have six teams from California, four from Ohio, and three from Texas. As you say, in smaller states, SO doesn't have a very high profile, and moving to a model where some states may not be represented at Nationals could kill SO in those states altogether.

To be fair though, all of these issues stem from the same problems: general stagnation in the organization, nepotism in the org, questionable decisions and ventures, and a failure to stay up-to-date in STEM. I agree that quality events and competitions are the top priority, but I see it as: if someone takes the time to critically look through all these problems, the bid allocation system would get revamped or fixed as well.

I mean, though I do think the bid allocation system right now is somewhat unfair, I'm still inclined to agree with you. SciOly's mission has been about spreading STEM education, and the whole idea of taking away bids from less-competitive states to give to more competitive ones is a really really slippery slope. The team nature of this whole thing also means that even if a team "sucks" (usually from not doing some of the more extensive events), there are still likely smart and ambitious individuals on the team who've benefited a lot from SciOly and possibly going to nats. Quality Div D people come from literally everywhere.

If Texas C was given their second bid back, if DC was moved back into Maryland, if New Jersey was given two more bids, if NorCal and SoCal were finally recognized as separate states within NSO, would we finally be appeased?

Yeah, most of the bid conversations center around these states, especially since Texas C lost their 2nd bid.

Maybe doing that would appease us to some degree, but SciO is still growing. Eventually we'll get more teams and more strong states, and then the conversation will start again about who "deserves" bids. Everyone has their own concept of fair allocation and their own agenda. The only way to squash this conversation once and for all is to revamp the entire system, but then you'd end up with discontent and a few pilot years where everything's just on fire.

Also, not gonna lie. I'm honestly shocked that SoCal is still so competitive after all these years. I don't say this in a patronizing "oh, you peasants" kind of way, but more in a...in MA, AB has been dominating for near a decade or more, and you can really really feel it in the other teams. I've heard this in other states, too, with long streaks. Yet, the SoCal teams still try really hard, and there's been times where only a 10 point margin separated 2nd place and 1st place.

[YakitateNoPan]

If we're throwing out ideas here, what about this:

1) Figure out the critical mass of teams for nationals at the venue.

2) Give the #1 team in each state an automatic bid.

3) Give 1 extra bid to states in alphabetical order to satisfy the max amount of teams.

4) Subsequent years pick up at next alpha order for extra bid to fill max amount of teams.


This will achieve three things:

1) No one will be able to cry foul of the extra bid selection.

2) EVERYONE will be given the chance for that extra bid.

3) States will know ahead of time if they need to plan and prepare to go to the national event.

[EastStroudsburg13]

I agree with pretty much everything primitive_polonium just said, so I won't rehash it all. I think that your point that SO is still growing lends itself to the position that nationals should try to grow if possible, even though there does seem to be a finite ceiling to the number of teams. I'm not certain what the best way around that is; I don't really want to separate the B and C tourneys, but it's a lot of people to have together at once. We may need to see some creative solutions, and hopefully as more young alumni get involved, we'll start to see that. I just hope that the old guard cedes control a bit and realizes that the alumni can really invigorate SO.

Maybe one thing we can improve as a community is giving recognition to teams that don't make nationals; perhaps that's just a poll where a set number of people who have been around a bit vote on who they think the top 25 teams in the country are, regardless of state restrictions. Maybe we have a thread where we rank the best teams that didn't qualify for nationals. I bet there are other things we can do I haven't thought of.

And, if we do reach the point where B and C nationals are separate, maybe we see a separate Open tournament created where any team that finished in the top X of their state can attend if they like (with some sort of cap on numbers). Essentially a glorified invitational, but with the pageantry that nationals brings, without affecting the actual national qualification process. Who really knows?

[onoga17]

Maybe one thing we can improve as a community is giving recognition to teams that don't make nationals; perhaps that's just a poll where a set number of people who have been around a bit vote on who they think the top 25 teams in the country are, regardless of state restrictions. Maybe we have a thread where we rank the best teams that didn't qualify for nationals. I bet there are other things we can do I haven't thought of.

This might be slightly OT, but I would be very interested in seeing such a poll/ranking done by Scioly.org users. Could we make this an annual thing starting this year? I personally couldn't take part in it since my viewpoint is likely too biased.

[YakitateNoPan]

Maybe one thing we can improve as a community is giving recognition to teams that don't make nationals; perhaps that's just a poll where a set number of people who have been around a bit vote on who they think the top 25 teams in the country are, regardless of state restrictions. Maybe we have a thread where we rank the best teams that didn't qualify for nationals. I bet there are other things we can do I haven't thought of.

This might be slightly OT, but I would be very interested in seeing such a poll/ranking done by Scioly.org users. Could we make this an annual thing starting this year? I personally couldn't take part in it since my viewpoint is likely too biased.

You're both delusional. How are any of you going to have some sort of clue about the performance of teams across the country? Let alone be able to objectively rank them in any way?

Is there some sort of underground scores trading forum to make such a discussion meaningful in any way?

[sciolyperson1]

Maybe one thing we can improve as a community is giving recognition to teams that don't make nationals; perhaps that's just a poll where a set number of people who have been around a bit vote on who they think the top 25 teams in the country are, regardless of state restrictions. Maybe we have a thread where we rank the best teams that didn't qualify for nationals. I bet there are other things we can do I haven't thought of.

This might be slightly OT, but I would be very interested in seeing such a poll/ranking done by Scioly.org users. Could we make this an annual thing starting this year? I personally couldn't take part in it since my viewpoint is likely too biased.

You're both delusional. How are any of you going to have some sort of clue about the performance of teams across the country? Let alone be able to objectively rank them in any way?

Is there some sort of underground scores trading forum to make such a discussion meaningful in any way?[/quote...

1) If you really, really, wanted a vote, make all the state directors submit one vote each (they can't vote for themselves).

2) Alphabetical order will be even more chaotic - imagine PA states with only one team, imagine Ohio states div C, and imagine Vermont with 2 teams...

[sciencekid27]

I was thinking of having the best team from every state, and then the 10 best teams that didn't win states. The only (huge and obvious) problem with this is that there is no way to tell which are the 10 best teams that didn't win states, other than to have some kind of invitational tournament that qualifies you to nationals. Basically, there's almost two rounds to nationals, but the best team from every state gets a "bye" and goes directly to nationals stage 2 (which is real nationals). The second place team from every state compete against each other at nationals stage 1 (which is like a qualifier for nationals), and the 10 best out of this competition make nationals stage 2 (real nationals). However, this would require an immense increase in spending, organizing, time taken... etc, so it isn't realistic.

I think there's two points of view to this whole discussion. One that merits diversity in the national tournament and having each area/state/part of the population equally represented, and another that merits competitive states where the second place team is really close to the first place team and could perform well at nationals. The first point of view would give extra bids to bigger states, California, Texas, New York, etc, while the second perspective would give an extra bid to a state like NJ div C, where the top 2 teams are incredibly close.

[Unome]

Maybe one thing we can improve as a community is giving recognition to teams that don't make nationals; perhaps that's just a poll where a set number of people who have been around a bit vote on who they think the top 25 teams in the country are, regardless of state restrictions. Maybe we have a thread where we rank the best teams that didn't qualify for nationals. I bet there are other things we can do I haven't thought of.

This might be slightly OT, but I would be very interested in seeing such a poll/ranking done by Scioly.org users. Could we make this an annual thing starting this year? I personally couldn't take part in it since my viewpoint is likely too biased.

You're both delusional. How are any of you going to have some sort of clue about the performance of teams across the country? Let alone be able to objectively rank them in any way?

Is there some sort of underground scores trading forum to make such a discussion meaningful in any way?

Ranking teams is not that hard. Even just writing a program to do it is able to put Nationals placements within 3 ranks from actual position on average.

[YakitateNoPan]

I was thinking of having the best team from every state, and then the 10 best teams that didn't win states. The only (huge and obvious) problem with this is that there is no way to tell which are the 10 best teams that didn't win states, other than to have some kind of invitational tournament that qualifies you to nationals. Basically, there's almost two rounds to nationals, but the best team from every state gets a "bye" and goes directly to nationals stage 2 (which is real nationals). The second place team from every state compete against each other at nationals stage 1 (which is like a qualifier for nationals), and the 10 best out of this competition make nationals stage 2 (real nationals). However, this would require an immense increase in spending, organizing, time taken... etc, so it isn't realistic.

I think there's two points of view to this whole discussion. One that merits diversity in the national tournament and having each area/state/part of the population equally represented, and another that merits competitive states where the second place team is really close to the first place team and could perform well at nationals. The first point of view would give extra bids to bigger states, California, Texas, New York, etc, while the second perspective would give an extra bid to a state like NJ div C, where the top 2 teams are incredibly close.

You're right, that creates a secondary challenge to be in that tier 2. When your have a quantifiable goal to progress, that in and of itself becomes a target and will absolutely be taken advantage of.

You are spot on in the second point of view is a matter of luck of the draw. If I happen to be in a bigger state? Is there a limit to the sq miles? Population density? How is the separation determined? Is competitiveness determined by scores? What about the scores of smaller states that are even closer? They aren't considered for an additional bid based on the fact that the state happens to occupy a lesser area?