Unofficial Rankings C

[windu34]

I think many of us (including me) just want to see the underdog win and overthrow the dominant school just to prove it is possible to all the teams/schools out there who have lost hope of ever going to nationals due to state powerhouses

[varunscs11]

What do you all think about the effect of Texas losing its second bid on the national rankings? I mean obviously it will open a spot in the top 10, but do you think the Texas team attending nats will be better as a result of the change?

Also Unome where is Japan on your rankings

I wouldn't say so this year, because it happened pretty late.
But I think that in future years, it may boost Texas teams because they would be studying extra hard to get that one spot?

That's what I was thinking, but I forgot that Texas had so many Texas-only events. It will be interesting to see how they do. I certainly don't think they'll do worse.

We usually do one or two Texas events because we have event we are really weak at or events that are too random (cough cough WIDI) and given that the top three teams are so dominant, there's absolutely no room for error and that's even more true now with only one bid being given to Texas. And many times studying harder doesn't mean you will win the event or even do well because exams are relatively rudimentary (meaning that distributions are tight). You have to study for state like its state, not like its nationals or MIT. Whichever team can make this shift in mindset the best will win and it goes without saying that all three teams are capable of making nationals and capable of finishing in the top 10. But the caveat is that the most nationally competitive team might not be the one that makes it out because of the different testing styles between state and national level competitions.

[dxu46]

My newer rankings (feel free to let me know if you think I forgot someone, that's rather likely)

1. Troy
2. Mason
3. Harriton
4. Solon

Mason? Seriously? Beating Solon? Seriously?

Thanks for the support

Isn't it unlikely for a first-year team to be beating multiple year competitors? e.g. Tower Heights last year

[Name]

Isn't it unlikely for a first-year team to be beating multiple year competitors? e.g. Tower Heights last year

Mason seems extremely strong this year and a 2nd at MIT really shows it. If Troy has some really bad luck, they have a realistic chance of getting first in thier first year. Also even being a first time competitors, they know they can definitely get 2nd which would motivate them. I feel like most first time teams usually arnt as dominant and don't study because they don't expect to get anything from Nationals in the first place.

[EastStroudsburg13]

Isn't it unlikely for a first-year team to be beating multiple year competitors? e.g. Tower Heights last year

Mason seems extremely strong this year and a 2nd at MIT really shows it. If Troy has some really bad luck, they have a realistic chance of getting first in thier first year. Also even being a first time competitors, they know they can definitely get 2nd which would motivate them. I feel like most first time teams usually arnt as dominant and don't study because they don't expect to get anything from Nationals in the first place.

I think we have a similar conversation every year. Last year Tower Heights was routinely getting placed in people's top 6. In the modern era, no team has ever gone from not making nationals to getting top 3, as far as I know. It's not just the competition, but the entire newness of the experience that contributes; there's no way to prepare yourself for nationals aside from experiencing it yourself. I think Mason is strong enough that they can buck the first-year trend if they make it, but second is probably a reach and first is very optimistic.

[windu34]

Isn't it unlikely for a first-year team to be beating multiple year competitors? e.g. Tower Heights last year

Mason seems extremely strong this year and a 2nd at MIT really shows it. If Troy has some really bad luck, they have a realistic chance of getting first in thier first year. Also even being a first time competitors, they know they can definitely get 2nd which would motivate them. I feel like most first time teams usually arnt as dominant and don't study because they don't expect to get anything from Nationals in the first place.

I think we have a similar conversation every year. Last year Tower Heights was routinely getting placed in people's top 6. In the modern era, no team has ever gone from not making nationals to getting top 3, as far as I know. It's not just the competition, but the entire newness of the experience that contributes; there's no way to prepare yourself for nationals aside from experiencing it yourself. I think Mason is strong enough that they can buck the first-year trend if they make it, but second is probably a reach and first is very optimistic.

Agree with East. You don't know what to expect with Nationals unless you've attended or have followed these forums religiously and have spoken to quite an extent with individuals who have been successful at the national level. There are quite a few little tricks and things you can do that do not yield significant benefit at the regional/state/invite levels, but can be the difference between top 6 and the 10-25 (in my approximation) range at the national level.
Teams that do not regularly attend nationals most likely have never bothered with these things because why would they? There isn't a point in most cases

[Unome]

Mason seems extremely strong this year and a 2nd at MIT really shows it. If Troy has some really bad luck, they have a realistic chance of getting first in thier first year. Also even being a first time competitors, they know they can definitely get 2nd which would motivate them. I feel like most first time teams usually arnt as dominant and don't study because they don't expect to get anything from Nationals in the first place.

I think we have a similar conversation every year. Last year Tower Heights was routinely getting placed in people's top 6. In the modern era, no team has ever gone from not making nationals to getting top 3, as far as I know. It's not just the competition, but the entire newness of the experience that contributes; there's no way to prepare yourself for nationals aside from experiencing it yourself. I think Mason is strong enough that they can buck the first-year trend if they make it, but second is probably a reach and first is very optimistic.

Agree with East. You don't know what to expect with Nationals unless you've attended or have followed these forums religiously and have spoken to quite an extent with individuals who have been successful at the national level. There are quite a few little tricks and things you can do that do not yield significant benefit at the regional/state/invite levels, but can be the difference between top 6 and the 10-25 (in my approximation) range at the national level.
Teams that do not regularly attend nationals most likely have never bothered with these things because why would they? There isn't a point in most cases

Agreed, and now that I'm realizing how late OH State is I might drop them to 3rd or 4th, since despite the availability of National Test Packets and all, that's very little time to get ready for Nationals.

[shrewdPanther46]

Why would their studying routine be altered specifically for nationals? I don't see why the fact that their state tournament is held late can hinder their performance at nationals if they make it. If they have performed in high quality environments, why would anything change for nationals?

[DarthBuilder]

Why would their studying routine be altered specifically for nationals? I don't see why the fact that their state tournament is held late can hinder their performance at nationals if they make it. If they have performed in high quality environments, why would anything change for nationals?

Well put it this way.
Who would do better?
Someone who studied for a test two weeks before the test date or someone in one week?
Most likely the one with two weeks. Same thing happens with teams with early states and later states.

The teams who have a month to prepare might do better than those who are late. But it really depend show the team is.

[Name]

Why would their studying routine be altered specifically for nationals? I don't see why the fact that their state tournament is held late can hinder their performance at nationals if they make it. If they have performed in high quality environments, why would anything change for nationals?

Well put it this way.
Who would do better?
Someone who studied for a test two weeks before the test date or someone in one week?
Most likely the one with two weeks. Same thing happens with teams with early states and later states.

The teams who have a month to prepare might do better than those who are late. But it really depend show the team is.

Well thier mostly (if not the same) events ran at states, why would it make a difference