Replaying Events for 2021

[Tailsfan101]

I personally am not opposed to keeping this year's events. I ended up with four events that all have been a great experience for me. The initial 2021 events from the SOSI schedule were unappealing (There were only two that were appealing, DD and Cell Bio), and three of my events this year would have gone out of rotation (DesGenes, ProMod, and GeoMapping), all of which I am fond of. This way, I can still 4+ events I like. Also, I was very much looking forward to seeing how well I could do in these events at Nationals, and I would not have ever had the chance if they went out of rotation.

I know this sounds selfish and case-specific, but I am more in favor of keeping this year's events than replacing them with new ones, particularly for the Nationals reason.

[vehicleguy]

I would like to start out by saying that I respect all of NSO's decisions and I know that it was probably a tough choice to "replay" the events. I would just like to throw a couple words into the situation. As a reference, I come from an average team that usually places in top 15 at states, and I am a student that mainly competes in build events.

First of all, I believe one of the amazing (if not best thing) in science olympiad is the challenge that is associated with it. Every year, I thoroughly enjoy planning and designing my builds as well as preparing for knowledge events. By redoing events, this aspect (at least for me), is essentially missing. There will be no new challenge in creating devices, only perfecting them.

In addition, I feel that replaying events encourages excessive work over the summer. I understand that many teams, including me, do some work over the summer, but usually it is just brainstorming. Actually competitive devices are almost impossible to be made over the summer due to a lack of guidance from the rules. Since rules are essentially staying the same, teams can continue to work hours a day over the summer. I know every team can do this, but for me personally, summers are meant as relaxation. Usually I work 1-2 hours a day on science olympiad to begin with, so I highly value a couple of months of break. If me and other competitors choose to not work while other teams do, it is a disadvantage that should be non existent. No one is expected to work on science olympiad during that time.

One argument for keeping the rules the same is that it gives teams who did compete with these events to have a chance next season to put their handwork to good use. I would argue that keeping the same rules for another year is actually a disadvantage for these types of teams. Since they did not attend any invitationals, they do not know how they compare to other teams. Teams that attend invitationals, on the other hand, know what to fix for the next season.

Thank you for listening to my opinion, and I invite anyone who either supports or disagrees with my statement to comment.

[IdahoSciGuy]

There may also be a financial component. This might only be for smaller states like mine, but many schools have spent quite a bit of money to ensure they are positioned well with supplies and resources sot hey can not only be competitive at State, but also at Nationals. Making sure schools and school districts see an impact with their expenditures may be a reason to keep the rules as-is, or at least part of the consideration.

[EwwPhysics]

I know this sounds selfish and case-specific, but I am more in favor of keeping this year's events than replacing them with new ones, particularly for the Nationals reason.

I really love this year's events, and am really excited for them (yayyyy I was convinced I wouldn't get the chance to do Designer Genes). I am curious to see how things will turn out next year, as people will be extremely good at their events. This was definitely a fair decision, as many people weren't able to compete at the regional and/or state level.
On the other hand, I'll be a freshman next year (and won't go back to div B), so it'll be even more impossible for me to get on the team than it would have otherwise, since people will have so much experience with their events. I probably wouldn't have anyways though >w<, plus the school I'm going to goes to like 10 invies so I think I'll be fine...
Overall, I think that this was a positive decision that beneficial for the common good.

[Jdh3]

The vast majority of teams never make it to State and even fewer make it to Nationals. These students participate for the excitement of learning something new. If the season is repeated some will continue to pursue the topic further to become a “master” but I suspect most will become bored and choose different outlets or hobbies.
The learning aspect has already taken place and isn’t that what Science Olympiad is about anyway?
Let the students learn something new, explore a different science topic within their preferred discipline or get the satisfaction from building and perfecting a new device

[hmmm]

A poll on this topic by vehicleguy:
viewtopic.php?f=22&p=414810#p414810

[OwenBall]

There may also be a financial component. This might only be for smaller states like mine, but many schools have spent quite a bit of money to ensure they are positioned well with supplies and resources sot hey can not only be competitive at State, but also at Nationals. Making sure schools and school districts see an impact with their expenditures may be a reason to keep the rules as-is, or at least part of the consideration.

Although I see where you are coming from with this argument, in my opinion, this decision to maintain current rules for next year will be a disaster for smaller teams. Teams that had the opportunity to compete at states this year will have had experience with the test writer that will likely produce the regionals and states tests for the 2021 season. This will give these teams that had the opportunity to compete at states an immense advantage over schools that did not advance from their region this year. Since this applies to almost all events, I would not be surprised, in states where the State Tournament was not canceled, to see very little shifting of teams. In addition to having experience with higher-level test writers, teams that had a state tournament, or at least prepared for one, will have had an incentive to practice these events much more than teams that did not move on from regionals. This once again puts teams that did not advance from regionals at a disadvantage in competitions in the 2021 season, as they will be starting from a point well behind other teams. If events were to rotate, teams would start off on a more level playing field, which would likely help improve shifts in regional and state rankings and provide a more fair competition for hardworking students from smaller schools.
Also in reference to financials, wouldn't this lack of a change in rules provide a further advantage for more wealthy teams? Teams that were able to afford to attend invitationals would have an immense advantage over teams that did not have these opportunities, as they will have much more prior knowledge going into next year, allowing them to further distance themselves from other teams.
I respect that people are eager to continue to participate in their favorite events, but personally, I feel that giving students the opportunity to continue their events will not only stifle the exploration of different fields of science, but also unfairly damage small schools and limit the heated competition that makes Science Olympiad so amazing.

[OpticsNerd]

I don't support replaying events but I wouldn't complain if they did that.

However, I would complain if they kept all the rules exactly the same, especially for pure building events. Those events definitely need a change to specifications/bonuses or people will get bored of them long before next year's national tournament.

[nmurali2002]

I vehemently oppose this, and I honestly think that a decision like this could kill Science Olympiad as an organization. Many of my arguments have already been voiced.

I can really only think of one argument in favor of this: some schools may have funding problems, and a move like this would help those schools. Other than that? I have no idea.
-

[MTV<=>Operator]

I would like to start out by saying that I respect all of NSO's decisions and I know that it was probably a tough choice to "replay" the events. I would just like to throw a couple words into the situation. As a reference, I come from an average team that usually places in top 15 at states, and I am a student that mainly competes in build events.

First of all, I believe one of the amazing (if not best thing) in science olympiad is the challenge that is associated with it. Every year, I thoroughly enjoy planning and designing my builds as well as preparing for knowledge events. By redoing events, this aspect (at least for me), is essentially missing. There will be no new challenge in creating devices, only perfecting them.

In addition, I feel that replaying events encourages excessive work over the summer. I understand that many teams, including me, do some work over the summer, but usually it is just brainstorming. Actually competitive devices are almost impossible to be made over the summer due to a lack of guidance from the rules. Since rules are essentially staying the same, teams can continue to work hours a day over the summer. I know every team can do this, but for me personally, summers are meant as relaxation. Usually I work 1-2 hours a day on science olympiad to begin with, so I highly value a couple of months of break. If me and other competitors choose to not work while other teams do, it is a disadvantage that should be non existent. No one is expected to work on science olympiad during that time.

One argument for keeping the rules the same is that it gives teams who did compete with these events to have a chance next season to put their handwork to good use. I would argue that keeping the same rules for another year is actually a disadvantage for these types of teams. Since they did not attend any invitationals, they do not know how they compare to other teams. Teams that attend invitationals, on the other hand, know what to fix for the next season.

Thank you for listening to my opinion, and I invite anyone who either supports or disagrees with my statement to comment.

I am from a similar type team and totally in agreement with this. Every year after the state competition, I start thinking about ways that I can improve my devices for the next year and I do research on new build events. Especially on the topic of vehicle events, which are my favorite, it seems like not much can be done to improve an already decent gravity vehicle. The event is so simple this year that by next year everyone will be getting sub 10 scores and the top scores will be separated by tenths of a point. I would prefer at least for a small bonus to be added to this because at the moment, the only thing left I have to do with this event is test, and maybe build a new ramp if I can guarantee that it will be better than the old one.

I understand that replaying events can be good for every team because it can save a lot of money, but I can see myself losing some interest when there are many less things to brainstorm about with build events. Especially since next year is my last year, I wanted to make the best possible designs, not just improve off of what I had this year.

Also, with teams practicing over the summer, I don't have access to a gym to be flying wright stuff in all summer, nor is my house long enough to be testing gravity vehicle. I planned on being in an intensive engineering summer program, so I don't even anticipate having time to test devices even if I had access to the facilities to do so.