Scioly.org

Hope this goes well, it could set a precedent for the rest of the states next year

TheChiScientist wrote: ↑June 17th, 2020, 8:18 am I have a feeling that many invitationals will operate at a much more limited capacity and social distancing being recommended.

I don't see how you could operate a "normal" invitational this fall. There are going to be two different aspects - what is sensible, as regards virus transmission, and what is permitted by the state, the school districts, and so on. There may not be complete overlap between these two, although obviously one hopes there is. The normal award ceremony is out, for starters - hordes of kids crammed on to bleachers and in huddles on the floor for a couple of hours? I think you're right about limiting capacity being necessary, and I'd also expect something like temperature screening for each school's party (teams, coaches, parents) before they enter the building, and anyone running a temperature means the school goes home without competing. Which is going to suck because of seasonal colds and flu, but all the Covid precautions should limit the spread of those viruses too.

IL invitationals are pretty much all over-subscribed as it is. Limiting numbers is going to leave a lot of teams unhappy, unless several new schools step up to host invitationals, and I really don't see that happening this year. What school is going to choose virus year to add something like this to their program? Perhaps invitationals will invite a single team from each school, rather than offering space for multiple JV teams?

There have been suggestions made before about running sections of the same event at different sites (run multiple invitationals on the same day with the same tests, and superscore the combination.) It's a bit challenging - each site will have a different environment for the flight and vehicle events, so they're hard to compare, and you know when Thermodynamics was an event that each site would screw up Thermo in a different way. But it's a fairly clean comparison for test events, at least. It sucks, compared to a proper competition, but this year is going to be about doing the best we can. It'll be interesting to see what new information comes out in July. (I think we're all expecting that IL will go to phase 4 then, although personally, I'd wait till after the 4th to do that )

splane21 pointed me at this https://www.soinc.org/play/tournaments from national. My reading of this is that under Illinois "phase 4" rules, we'd be in "Satellite SO" territory - gatherings of more than 50 people not permitted, but schools are operating. I don't see how you can reasonably operate flight events under the satellite scheme, because everyone's indoor space is different. The other builds are easier to compare between sites (sure, it's not perfect, but we're not in "perfect" territory here), but different schools have different height gyms, which makes creating a level-ish playing field for flight events difficult.

knightmoves wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2020, 11:40 am splane21 pointed me at this https://www.soinc.org/play/tournaments from national. My reading of this is that under Illinois "phase 4" rules, we'd be in "Satellite SO" territory - gatherings of more than 50 people not permitted, but schools are operating. I don't see how you can reasonably operate flight events under the satellite scheme, because everyone's indoor space is different. The other builds are easier to compare between sites (sure, it's not perfect, but we're not in "perfect" territory here), but different schools have different height gyms, which makes creating a level-ish playing field for flight events difficult.

Satellite SO may be the case for suburb schools, but I'm almost 100% sure that schools in Chicago will not be in in-person sessions in the fall. Already, our school admin are letting us keep school devices such as ipads and chromebooks at home for the summer. I think that's a sign that they'll expect us to use them again from home in the fall. It seems as if the CPS school board is preparing for another long year of remote learning starting in the fall. That being said, my big concern is not whether or not we can run build events fairly at a tournament under satellite guidelines, but whether or not some students will be able to compete under the satellite level. I feel like it puts teams that are unable to meet in-person at a higher disadvantage than those who can meet in-person at a possible state tournament for next year. Our coaches here at CPS are already trying to devise a plan, so we can compete in events even if we are in remote learning. But there's also still the big possibility that CPS will deny our plans and ability to compete.

So what I'm curious to see is how ISO is going to handle the uneven playing field between teams that meet in-person and teams that are remote.

knightmoves wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2020, 11:40 am I don't see how you can reasonably operate flight events under the satellite scheme, because everyone's indoor space is different.

It has been confirmed that rules will be reworked to make it fair for different ceiling heights for flight events

Booknerd wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2020, 12:15 pm

knightmoves wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2020, 11:40 am splane21 pointed me at this https://www.soinc.org/play/tournaments from national. My reading of this is that under Illinois "phase 4" rules, we'd be in "Satellite SO" territory - gatherings of more than 50 people not permitted, but schools are operating. I don't see how you can reasonably operate flight events under the satellite scheme, because everyone's indoor space is different. The other builds are easier to compare between sites (sure, it's not perfect, but we're not in "perfect" territory here), but different schools have different height gyms, which makes creating a level-ish playing field for flight events difficult.

Satellite SO may be the case for suburb schools, but I'm almost 100% sure that schools in Chicago will not be in in-person sessions in the fall. Already, our school admin are letting us keep school devices such as ipads and chromebooks at home for the summer. I think that's a sign that they'll expect us to use them again from home in the fall. It seems as if the CPS school board is preparing for another long year of remote learning starting in the fall. That being said, my big concern is not whether or not we can run build events fairly at a tournament under satellite guidelines, but whether or not some students will be able to compete under the satellite level. I feel like it puts teams that are unable to meet in-person at a higher disadvantage than those who can meet in-person at a possible state tournament for next year. Our coaches here at CPS are already trying to devise a plan, so we can compete in events even if we are in remote learning. But there's also still the big possibility that CPS will deny our plans and ability to compete.

So what I'm curious to see is how ISO is going to handle the uneven playing field between teams that meet in-person and teams that are remote.

Well, based on SoInc's post, if your school is not in-person, you can't participate in SSO. They are offering an alternative for remote learning students if your school is continuing SciOly next season: MiniSOs, which basically is a virtual invite minus builds and lab portions. Mind you that if a tournament decides to go MiniSO or SSO, then everyone participating must play by the same rules so that there is no "uneven playing field."

What I'll say is while not everyone will have the same opportunity to compete this upcoming season, SoInc did an excellent job of trying to accommodate everyone, creating a very flexible layout. The plan offers a baseline with MySO that teams can fall back on while also offering SSO and the potential of in-person tournaments if allowed later on in the season. Its main goal was to keep SO teams and the community engaged, and I think it will do a great job at that.

It's safe to say that ISO's July statement will probably align with SoInc's post. I'd guess that they will be giving info on the guidelines for tournaments within the year.

Also, I assume SoInc released this statement early so that teams know their options before the season begins. So, make sure you spread the word on SoInc's post!!

Booknerd wrote: ↑June 23rd, 2020, 12:15 pm That being said, my big concern is not whether or not we can run build events fairly at a tournament under satellite guidelines, but whether or not some students will be able to compete under the satellite level. I feel like it puts teams that are unable to meet in-person at a higher disadvantage than those who can meet in-person at a possible state tournament for next year. Our coaches here at CPS are already trying to devise a plan, so we can compete in events even if we are in remote learning. But there's also still the big possibility that CPS will deny our plans and ability to compete.

So what I'm curious to see is how ISO is going to handle the uneven playing field between teams that meet in-person and teams that are remote.

The guidance from national makes it clear that you have to compare like with like - you can't run a tournament that is part satellite and part at home. The choice doesn't have to be the same for every tournament, though - some invitationals can run as satellite events, and some can run as remote learning mini-SO events (which only have 16 events, 'cause builds at home is hard.)

You're right - mini-SO isn't as good practice for a live competition as satellite-SO, if you're imagining that everyone will be in satellite-mode by spring, but CPS might start the year at home. (To run in-person regionals and states per the national guidelines would require Illinois to reach phase 5, which requires either a widely-available vaccine, or practical elimination of Covid-19 in the state. Expecting that to happen by spring seems optimistic.)

One more day until the announcement

Illinois SO just released their big message. It kind of repeats what SOINC said (just like we thought it would).
Other key points:
-Team registration is discounted
-Great Lakes Coaches' Clinic is still happening, but virtually

They also released a tentative plan which is based upon the phases of reopening that the state is in, as well as SOINC's released guidelines.: http://www.illinoisolympiad.org/uploads ... e_plan.pdf
This plan parallels SOINC's guidelines, but explains a little more clearly as to how Illinois will go about the guidelines in accordance with the state's phase.

Booknerd wrote: ↑July 1st, 2020, 10:41 am Illinois SO just released their big message. It kind of repeats what SOINC said (just like we thought it would).
Other key points:
-Team registration is discounted
-Great Lakes Coaches' Clinic is still happening, but virtually

They also have their own plan with phases based upon how the state is doing: http://www.illinoisolympiad.org/uploads ... e_plan.pdf

lmao beat me to it

For those who haven't taken a gander at it, here you go.

It doesn't necessarily mention tournaments directly, but it does give a good simple rundown on the plan that they, along with any invys, are probably going to follow. On the statement, they attached a documented plan based on each of the Illinois recovery phases. As of right now, IL is Phase 4, which is pretty good compared to other states, and if the situation does get worse for some reason, IL will rollback a phase. The ISO plan will then change accordingly.

At our current phase, ISO states that some events will be virtual, synchronous test events, and some builds will be drive-through or on-site testing at the venue of the regional. I don't exactly know how invys will be able to accommodate for "drive-thru" builds or even on-site testing, especially large invites like Palatine (which have teams coming from neighboring states), but I expect tournament directors will make a statement on steps leading forward. So, I'd keep your ears to the ground for invys that your team plans on attending.