Superregional
- builderguy135
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 736
- Joined: September 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm
- Division: C
- State: NJ
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 143 times
- Contact:
Re: Superregional
Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.
-
- Member
- Posts: 97
- Joined: January 18th, 2020, 6:34 pm
- Division: C
- State: VA
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Superregional
Adding on, maybe top 5 teams per state (excluding winner) would qualify for these invitationals to reduce competition size. Maybe not so crazy an idea, idkbuilderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.
Anatomy, Crime Busters, Meteo, RFTS NCS/L. Braddock/Rustin/Harvard/Regionals/States/Nats (nvm RIP) Anatomy :( - 5/1/8/1/3/? Crime Busters - 2/1/1/1/1/? Meteo - 1/2/2/1/1/? RFTS - 1/1/2/1/1/?
- builderguy135
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 736
- Joined: September 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm
- Division: C
- State: NJ
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 143 times
- Contact:
Re: Superregional
I was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.Locoholic wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:50 pmAdding on, maybe top 5 teams per state (excluding winner) would qualify for these invitationals to reduce competition size. Maybe not so crazy an idea, idkbuilderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.
- pepperonipi
- Moderator
- Posts: 206
- Joined: January 21st, 2019, 11:38 am
- Division: C
- State: FL
- Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
- Has thanked: 175 times
- Been thanked: 336 times
Re: Superregional
That actually doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Those tournaments are usually pretty well-run already, and plenty of nationals-caliber teams attend them (including those that don't quality for nats every year bc of fierce competitions). Nice idea builderguy!builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:55 pmI was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.Locoholic wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:50 pmAdding on, maybe top 5 teams per state (excluding winner) would qualify for these invitationals to reduce competition size. Maybe not so crazy an idea, idkbuilderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.
happy new season!
University of Florida
My Wiki Page | WikiProject SciOly and Scioly.org | Pi-Bot
2019: Code, Fermi, Thermo
2020: Detector, Orni, Code (Substitution: Penn)
2021: Detector, Orni, Circuit, WICI
University of Florida
My Wiki Page | WikiProject SciOly and Scioly.org | Pi-Bot
2019: Code, Fermi, Thermo
2020: Detector, Orni, Code (Substitution: Penn)
2021: Detector, Orni, Circuit, WICI
- IHateClouds
- Member
- Posts: 144
- Joined: February 1st, 2019, 3:58 pm
- Division: C
- State: PA
- Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 24 times
Re: Superregional
the second chance idea would also better appease both teams in uncompetitive states who can qualify the way they currently do and competitive states who now have another chancepepperonipi wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:02 pmThat actually doesn't sound like that bad of an idea. Those tournaments are usually pretty well-run already, and plenty of nationals-caliber teams attend them (including those that don't quality for nats every year bc of fierce competitions). Nice idea builderguy!builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:55 pmI was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.
- gz839918
- Admin Emeritus
- Posts: 238
- Joined: April 27th, 2019, 6:40 pm
- Division: Grad
- State: WI
- Pronouns: Ask My Pronouns
- Has thanked: 454 times
- Been thanked: 373 times
- Contact:
Re: Superregional
This is true. And it's also why more quality invitationals are a good thing, because in addition to extra practice, good invitationals let teams enjoy the experience of competing at a mini-nationals.boomifailure wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 10:23 am Indiana and Michigain already have a superregional type thing called "University of Michigan Invitational."
Part of the problem with more bids is that it's logistically frustrating to add more teams to a tournament. If you added 5 new C bids and 5 new B bids, you'd need to guarantee capacity for at least 160 more people (15 students and a coach per team), and realistically maybe 200-400 considering other coaches, alternates, chaperones, and staff to serve them. Nationals at Cornell limited its seating at awards to only 17 people per team, and everybody else had to sit apart on bleachers; 200 more people will further strain seating at awards, homerooms, dining, dorms, and so forth (think about how much you're stretching fire codes). Texas and New Jersey and Missouri surely deserve bids, but sadly, pulling it off is still hard no matter how bids are awarded :(builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 2:55 pm Here's a crazy idea: designate around 5-8 large invitationals around the country, and give the best (or 2!) non state qualified team a bid to nationals.
More practically speaking, how would you designate these invitationals? If MIT were designated, somebody would complain that it rewards teams for being rich enough to fly to Massachusetts. (It is, after all, dominated by out-of-state teams.) Also, if only the top 5 teams from each state of superregion E could go to MIT, many teams would be excluded entirely from the experience of competing at a high-level highly unique venue like MIT.
I ❤ sounds of music! About me • Rate my tests
Carmel High School ’19
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ’23
“People overestimate what they can do in a day, and underestimate what they can do in a lifetime.” –Unknown
Carmel High School ’19
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ’23
“People overestimate what they can do in a day, and underestimate what they can do in a lifetime.” –Unknown
-
- Member
- Posts: 97
- Joined: January 18th, 2020, 6:34 pm
- Division: C
- State: VA
- Has thanked: 4 times
- Been thanked: 5 times
Re: Superregional
Yeah that's actually better because these tournaments are already very popular, competitive, and well-run. This still brings up the issue of diversity at nationals, but to a much lesser extent. So you'll have the top team from each state attend nats, right? That's the first 60. Then you have, say, 2 teams attending from 5 large invitationals as a second-chance opportunity. That makes 70. In this scenario, there will likely be 3-4 teams from each competitive state (because the "second-tier" of competitive states are relatively very good) rather than 1-2, but it's still a great compromise.builderguy135 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 3:55 pm
I was talking about invitationals such as MIT, GGSO, SOUP, etc. Would probably help boost the difficulty of these invies as well.
Anatomy, Crime Busters, Meteo, RFTS NCS/L. Braddock/Rustin/Harvard/Regionals/States/Nats (nvm RIP) Anatomy :( - 5/1/8/1/3/? Crime Busters - 2/1/1/1/1/? Meteo - 1/2/2/1/1/? RFTS - 1/1/2/1/1/?
- builderguy135
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 736
- Joined: September 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm
- Division: C
- State: NJ
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 143 times
- Contact:
Re: Superregional
Here's a sample map of 6 invitationals I made:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BOiWr ... sp=sharing
I tried to take the best balance between well-run invitationals and a spread of invites throughout the entire country so no team would have to travel too far to get to a competition (sorry Montana).
Overall, this system of wild card bids would allow teams to compete for a deserving spot at nationals without the need of a system of "superregionals" and extra tournaments just for teams that did well at states.
Thoughts?
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BOiWr ... sp=sharing
I tried to take the best balance between well-run invitationals and a spread of invites throughout the entire country so no team would have to travel too far to get to a competition (sorry Montana).
I understand that space is an issue, but 10% more people wouldn't make that big of a difference. I'm sure that the organizers would be able to figure out some way of fitting 200 more people in a space with already a few thousand people.gz839918 wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 4:21 pm Part of the problem with more bids is that it's logistically frustrating to add more teams to a tournament. If you added 5 new C bids and 5 new B bids, you'd need to guarantee capacity for at least 160 more people (15 students and a coach per team), and realistically maybe 200-400 considering other coaches, alternates, chaperones, and staff to serve them. Nationals at Cornell limited its seating at awards to only 17 people per team, and everybody else had to sit apart on bleachers; 200 more people will further strain seating at awards, homerooms, dining, dorms, and so forth (think about how much you're stretching fire codes). Texas and New Jersey and Missouri surely deserve bids, but sadly, pulling it off is still hard no matter how bids are awarded :(
These invitationals would have to be designated by NSO. Also, just because you can fly to Massachusetts, doesn't mean you're good enough to win the bid there. Sure, Troy's probably going to fly out to MIT again, but they've already got a nats bid so it wouldn't affect the invy bid at all.
The invitationals do not have to be split up by region.
Overall, this system of wild card bids would allow teams to compete for a deserving spot at nationals without the need of a system of "superregionals" and extra tournaments just for teams that did well at states.
Thoughts?
- EwwPhysics
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 158
- Joined: February 22nd, 2020, 12:38 pm
- Division: C
- State: PA
- Pronouns: She/Her/Hers
- Has thanked: 144 times
- Been thanked: 86 times
Re: Superregional
I love the idea. There are probably many logistical problems that we haven’t thought of, but none come to mind at the moment besides those that have already been mentioned. Would these invies be changed to be held after all the states tournaments are finished?
Lower Merion Captain '24
Cell bio, code, disease, forensics
Cell bio, codebusters, disease, envirochem (and widi, chem lab)
Protein Modeling - 1st @ nats Disease Detectives - 4th @ nats Designer Genes - 1st @ states Also fossils, widi, circuit
- builderguy135
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 736
- Joined: September 8th, 2018, 12:24 pm
- Division: C
- State: NJ
- Pronouns: He/Him/His
- Has thanked: 191 times
- Been thanked: 143 times
- Contact:
Re: Superregional
No, the tournament would take place at its usual date but bids would have to be announced after all state competitions (or when every team ahead of a team that lost states won states, if that makes any sense)EwwPhysics wrote: ↑February 26th, 2020, 6:02 pm I love the idea. There are probably many logistical problems that we haven’t thought of, but none come to mind at the moment besides those that have already been mentioned. Would these invies be changed to be held after all the states tournaments are finished?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests