Replaying Events for 2021

[MoMoney$$$;)0)]

If event rules were completely replayed, it would be interesting, though impractical, to see many trials that would be counted in the team score. It would be a way to separate teams without wasting this season's hard work and materials, and having 7 or so would let each team member pick up a new event. For teams that just want to put this year's effort to use and get a chance to compete, they could compete in official events only. The obvious downside is how infeasible it would be to host so many additional events.

Another downside to having ~7 trials count toward the final score is that many smaller teams, such as my team, would have a very hard time covering every event. We struggle to cover 23 as it is; if we had to cover 30 (or even 25 or 26), we might not have enough people.

I feel that will become especially tricky if you keep the max team member count at 15, and don't allow alternates to compete in these trials.

[sciolyperson1]

Even with Trial Events, most tournaments will only count 23 events toward the overall team score.

New Jersey has entered the chat.

[BennyTheJett]

If event rules were completely replayed, it would be interesting, though impractical, to see many trials that would be counted in the team score. It would be a way to separate teams without wasting this season's hard work and materials, and having 7 or so would let each team member pick up a new event. For teams that just want to put this year's effort to use and get a chance to compete, they could compete in official events only. The obvious downside is how infeasible it would be to host so many additional events.

Another downside to having ~7 trials count toward the final score is that many smaller teams, such as my team, would have a very hard time covering every event. We struggle to cover 23 as it is; if we had to cover 30 (or even 25 or 26), we might not have enough people.

I feel that will become especially tricky if you keep the max team member count at 15, and don't allow alternates to compete in these trials.

I have been summoned. We do 28 events (yes the 5 WI only events count towards your team score at every WI meet, however you drop your 5 lowest event scores, regardless of national event or WI only events. At state they make the coaches pick the 5 audited event ahead of time), and we don't have more than 15 people on the team. Some people on our team this year weren't in more than 3 events, so you could almost do more than 28 events. There are even some times like at State and Boyceville where they have run additional trial events that do not count towards team score purely to collect data to improve the event. I would love running events like R+M as a trial at meets this next year. How do most new nationals events come to be? They get run at state competitions as trials. WI TX and NJ are critical for the growth of Science Olympiad by providing data to improve events, and eventually get the events in cycle nationally. I wish more states would run "state only" events, even if it's not for a team score. However I believe that states should count them towards team scores, as this pushes more people to participate in said event, and gives the event data, allowing the event to be revised until it is a very high quality event. This would help eliminate skewing in events, such as Detector Building. Detector Building needed another year in my opinion to collect data and make the event to a point where it better separated teams. As for states like Idaho, they should run the trial events as not counting towards a team score to compensate for not having many large teams. However in states like New York, I think they should, seeing as how many of the more competitive teams wouldn't have a problem filling the event, and teams that couldn't likely wouldn't be as invested in SciOly as the state powers.

*I apologize for the wordy answer. This is just my take on the events, and what I think about states running trial events for scores. If anyone is confused with my answer, feel free to ask questions and I will respond to the best of my ability.*

[Name]

However in states like New York, I think they should, seeing as how many of the more competitive teams wouldn't have a problem filling the event, and teams that couldn't likely wouldn't be as invested in SciOly as the state powers.

I disagree with this. Even more competitive teams can have trouble filling in events. I think the 23 event system with every event counting and 15 people per team is the fairest way to select the best team to attend Nationals- after all, that's how Nationals is ran. If you run over 15 people in a team, that forces teams to cut members for Nationals, or when they go to invitationals. If you drop events, that allows for a team weak in a few events to do comparatively better then a more consistent team. Either way, it is possible that the teams selected to go to Nationals are not actually the best teams in the state. With a close field at the top, this has a very good chance at happening, and even the possibility of not making Nationals because your state decided to count trials is unfair.

[MoMoney$$$;)0)]

However in states like New York, I think they should, seeing as how many of the more competitive teams wouldn't have a problem filling the event, and teams that couldn't likely wouldn't be as invested in SciOly as the state powers.

I disagree with this. Even more competitive teams can have trouble filling in events. I think the 23 event system with every event counting and 15 people per team is the fairest way to select the best team to attend Nationals- after all, that's how Nationals is ran. If you run over 15 people in a team, that forces teams to cut members for Nationals, or when they go to invitationals. If you drop events, that allows for a team weak in a few events to do comparatively better then a more consistent team. Either way, it is possible that the teams selected to go to Nationals are not actually the best teams in the state. With a close field at the top, this has a very good chance at happening, and even the possibility of not making Nationals because your state decided to count trials is unfair.

I strongly agree with Name; I feel strongly opposed to having this unusual scoring method since it may push away consistent teams with teams who are strong in only a couple events, and I feel that the best teams for this reason may not actually be the ones representing their state well. I guess it's food for thought.

[BennyTheJett]

In WI they drop the lowest 5 events, so only 23 are scored anyway. If a team were to choose they could no show 5 events, drop them, and have it still be like competing in 23 events. That's what makes the system good. At the very least, states should look into running trial events that don't count toward team scores more. New events aren't just added, they are trialed out first, and we will get new events faster, and push our knowledge of science further with a broader event list. As it is now, WI NJ and TX do almost all the trials for the events (with exception of a few meets, notably nats), however only really competitive teams compete at nats).Having state only events actually makes it easier in my opinion to medal in the event, because at least in WI less of the top teams run the WI only events for a team score at state, making it easier for mid tier and smaller teams to medal in the event. Dropping the lowest 5 events determines the overall best science team, forgiving teams for a couple bombed events here and there. Teams that aren't as competitive will often do well in the WI only events at states, beating out the top tier teams, due to them working at an event more than the top tier teams, as the top tier teams go to nats and don't do the event.

[BennyTheJett]

However in states like New York, I think they should, seeing as how many of the more competitive teams wouldn't have a problem filling the event, and teams that couldn't likely wouldn't be as invested in SciOly as the state powers.

I disagree with this. Even more competitive teams can have trouble filling in events. I think the 23 event system with every event counting and 15 people per team is the fairest way to select the best team to attend Nationals- after all, that's how Nationals is ran. If you run over 15 people in a team, that forces teams to cut members for Nationals, or when they go to invitationals. If you drop events, that allows for a team weak in a few events to do comparatively better then a more consistent team. Either way, it is possible that the teams selected to go to Nationals are not actually the best teams in the state. With a close field at the top, this has a very good chance at happening, and even the possibility of not making Nationals because your state decided to count trials is unfair.

To rebut this I don't think it's unfair for a state to count trials, as everyone would be in the same boat of either competing or auditing the trials. If nationals wasn't run in the format that it is, would you say that it's the fairest way to select a team? Adding more events expands the horizons of SciOly, and allows kids to compete in more areas of science, sending a more diverse team of scientists to nationals, rather than a group of geologists and a group of biologists, with a few builders/techies sprinkled in. The point of SciOly is to determine the best SCIENCE team, and running a more expansive list of events covering more areas of science will crown the best SCIENCE team. At nationals (and other levels, nats is just more prevalent) there are teams that place significantly lower than teams on their level simply because they had a bad day in 1 event. Having audits allows teams like Troy from the 2016 nationals to still be competitive even with a couple events not going well not entirely destroying their teams. Yes, having audits favors inconsistent teams to a point, but with a limited number of audits, the main thing it does is negate bombs. If your team lost states by 2 points, but had to take a 43rd in an event, would you be upset knowing you were a better team, but that 1 bomb ruined your chance at nats? Audits allow the truly best teams to move on to nationals.

[BennyTheJett]

Never said they couldn't be, and they're also on the Solon Invitational Forum as well I'm pretty sure.

They did not, and shouldn't be.

Big oof, my bad. I mean I thought they meant only tests wouldn't be publicly put out, not the scores (since it doesn't really make a difference if they're out or not, since most of the invitationals I've been to have put out everything online, but I personally feel that way and not everyone agrees).

I don't see why raw scores can't come out if nobody sees the tests? The scores are all arbitrary without seeing the tests. Granted, I know tests get traded, and Solon is a hot commodity, so I'm sure the tests have been well cycled around the community.

[amk578]

They did not, and shouldn't be.

Big oof, my bad. I mean I thought they meant only tests wouldn't be publicly put out, not the scores (since it doesn't really make a difference if they're out or not, since most of the invitationals I've been to have put out everything online, but I personally feel that way and not everyone agrees).

I don't see why raw scores can't come out if nobody sees the tests? The scores are all arbitrary without seeing the tests. Granted, I know tests get traded, and Solon is a hot commodity, so I'm sure the tests have been well cycled around the community.

Build raws are also included, which you don't need the tests for.

[BennyTheJett]

Big oof, my bad. I mean I thought they meant only tests wouldn't be publicly put out, not the scores (since it doesn't really make a difference if they're out or not, since most of the invitationals I've been to have put out everything online, but I personally feel that way and not everyone agrees).

I don't see why raw scores can't come out if nobody sees the tests? The scores are all arbitrary without seeing the tests. Granted, I know tests get traded, and Solon is a hot commodity, so I'm sure the tests have been well cycled around the community.

Build raws are also included, which you don't need the tests for.

Yeahh..... Didn't think about that.