Superregional

[JoeyC]

Lol, this has turned into "In a group of these schools, who would win a Death Battle?"

[EwwPhysics]

What if we just hosted superregionals for some areas with less competition (e.g. states with only 1-2 compeitive teams) then gave the extra bids to states like MO, TX, CA?

This is a good idea... creating superregionals for less competitive states would allow good teams in more competitive states to go to nationals.

[boomifailure]

What if we just hosted superregionals for some areas with less competition (e.g. states with only 1-2 compeitive teams) then gave the extra bids to states like MO, TX, CA?

This is a good idea... creating superregionals for less competitive states would allow good teams in more competitive states to go to nationals.

this is really just a biased subject. Like if your state is small you probably don't want them, but if your state is tough you would want. still a cool discussion though.

[EwwPhysics]

What if we just hosted superregionals for some areas with less competition (e.g. states with only 1-2 compeitive teams) then gave the extra bids to states like MO, TX, CA?

This is a good idea... creating superregionals for less competitive states would allow good teams in more competitive states to go to nationals.

this is really just a biased subject. Like if your state is small you probably don't want them, but if your state is tough you would want. still a cool discussion though.

Yes, biased and relatively unrealistic... however, I enjoy the speculation. I'm definitely biased, being on a PA team that doesn't make nats most years even though we could place pretty well. It's only the competitiveness of pennsylvania (2 of our teams go to nats, while we have at least 5 ish really competitive teams each year) that has prevented us from making it to nats consistently. Still, I do understand why it's unfair to make multiple states share one spot at nats.

[EastStroudsburg13]

Yes, biased and relatively unrealistic... however, I enjoy the speculation. I'm definitely biased, being on a PA team that doesn't make nats most years even though we could place pretty well. It's only the competitiveness of pennsylvania (2 of our teams go to nats, while we have at least 5 ish really competitive teams each year) that has prevented us from making it to nats consistently. Still, I do understand why it's unfair to make multiple states share one spot at nats.

Tbh, PA having 5 nats-caliber teams is a pretty new phenomenon. After Sewickley dropped, most years there were only 2 or 3 teams realistically competing for nationals spots. It wasn't until Harlan Rowe and Eagle View emerged in the late 2010s that PA B division developed into the battle royale it is now.

[amineral]

This is a good idea... creating superregionals for less competitive states would allow good teams in more competitive states to go to nationals.

this is really just a biased subject. Like if your state is small you probably don't want them, but if your state is tough you would want. still a cool discussion though.

Yes, biased and relatively unrealistic... however, I enjoy the speculation. I'm definitely biased, being on a PA team that doesn't make nats most years even though we could place pretty well. It's only the competitiveness of pennsylvania (2 of our teams go to nats, while we have at least 5 ish really competitive teams each year) that has prevented us from making it to nats consistently. Still, I do understand why it's unfair to make multiple states share one spot at nats.

Yeah the speculation is good, but I can't imagine having Indiana or some other state have to compete and possibly lose a spot because PA wanted/deserved 5 over Indiana. Also, you should deserve a national bid for being best in state because states are commonly pretty big and it's not really a teams fault if their good.

[EwwPhysics]

Yeah, another problem is that it's hard to measure how competitive states are as this can change slightly from year to year and it's hard to measure.
As for PA, it's true that we've waxed and waned over the years but except for the very short period between Sewickley ending in 2009 and Springhouse in 2012 (though even then the teams were still pretty good as some teams such as SSA and BC have stayed relatively strong throughout their histories) there has been fierce competition. I'm definitely not saying that we need/want a spot for EVERY top team, and I definitely agree that top teams in their respective states should get a chance to go to nats, but having one or two extra spots for uber-competitive states would definitely be nice.
Basically, there's no possible way to please everyone... if only we lived in a perfect world :/

[amineral]

Yeah, another problem is that it's hard to measure how competitive states are as this can change slightly from year to year and it's hard to measure.
As for PA, it's true that we've waxed and waned over the years but except for the very short period between Sewickley ending in 2009 and Springhouse in 2012 (though even then the teams were still pretty good as some teams such as SSA and BC have stayed relatively strong throughout their histories) there has been fierce competition. I'm definitely not saying that we need/want a spot for EVERY top team, and I definitely agree that top teams in their respective states should get a chance to go to nats, but having one or two extra spots for uber-competitive states would definitely be nice.
Basically, there's no possible way to please everyone... if only we lived in a perfect world :/

Facts, Indiana B/C is specifically rough because they have at minimum two top 30 nationals capable teams every year.

[Locoholic]

Personally, I really like the idea of a superregional. Even if it brings less diversity to Nationals in the first couple of years, less competitive states will have an external motivation to get better. I think diversity will trickle in after a couple of years with the superregional if it works out and it contains the regions proposed already.

I also think that by working around the superregional assignments, one can create a tournament more geared towards less competitive states. Take the big group of states in the west, for example (Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Utah, etc). A superregional with just those states would make it a lot easier for less competitive states to go to Nationals, but it does not defeat the idea's original purpose of making it possible for very competitive states to send more teams to Nationals than the current bids they have. Creating superregionals in terms of competitiveness from included states, I feel, would be better for some of the issues people have addressed earlier, even though it might make travel more difficult. This might help bring diversity at Nationals and still allow secondary teams from ultra-competitive states to advance in their own competitive superregion.

The only downside, really, is the massive interstate coordination that needs to be done. How many teams will be allowed to attend each superregional? Will different tests between different interstate regions be an issue? What about travel expenses for teams that aren't well-funded? How will a state decide how many teams it sends to a superregional? These are issues that I feel would create chaos in the overall tournament structure of Science Olympiad, and for that reason, I don't think superregionals are feasible right now.

These are just my thoughts though, and I love the idea itself.

[boomifailure]

Indiana and Michigain already have a superregional type thing called "University of Michigan Invitational."