Alex-RCHS wrote:Unome wrote:After a day to chew on the policy in more depth, I'm beginning to think that increased difficulty in getting a second team combined with a lot of the 11th-20th finishing teams being in tier 4 for the lottery may be a driver in pushing some teams away from MIT. Lack of a good way to handle extremely high demand may be what eventually removes their status as the most competitive invitational (although it's certainly very early to speculate on that, when we haven't even seen how registration is going this year yet).
One possible way to alleviate the difficulty of returning for teams ranked 11th-20th would be to have some way of weighing Tier 4. Perhaps teams that attended MIT or nationals last year get higher chances of being selected based on their results.
I would also like to see Tier 1 extend to the top 10 at nationals, or schools who placed in the top 10 at nationals and attended MIT. It seems odd to limit it to only the top schools attending MIT in the previous year. I understand the goal of rewarding loyalty/attendance, but there are some teams (Enloe this year, Clements last year) that placed top-10 at nationals but not at MIT and therefore will be in Tier 4.
I think Unome points out an important distinction here. You are assuming that MIT WANTS to remain as the most competitive invitational. Based on this new policy, I would argue that its not clear if they wish to continue to build their prestige. They have slotted a large portion of their registration to local teams so they obviously want to have an influence regionally, but this new system seems to point at less of an emphasis to be extremely competitive.