Team Numbers

[kenniky]

In light of D.C. getting a bid, would other territories (e.g. Puerto Rico) get bids if they wanted them and showed enough interest?

IMO the second bids should be determined as such:

- for each state look at the placing of the worst team from that state at Nationals the previous year
- give extra bids to the highest placing states after doing the above

So for example, from last year's Div C competition, extra bids would go to (brackets denote the poorest-performing team from that state at nationals):
- CA [Mira Loma]
- MN [Mounds View]
- TX [LASA]
- IL [Stevenson]
- MA [ABRHS]
- OH [Mentor]
- NY [F-M]
- IN [Munster]
- MI [IAC]

This way extra bids:
- are predictable: can be very easily deduced from the results of the previous National Tournament
- reward strong states
- allow for turnover: for instance, in the example above, PA wouldn't get a second bid, so Harriton would become PA's worst performer at nationals, which would all but guarantee them a bid the year afterwards
- encourage schools to work harder: for states with clear #1s (Minnesota, for example), the second place team, if they qualify, would have to work to keep their spot for the next year instead of riding on the tails of Mounds View (a problem that occurs with bids going to the best teams regardless of state)
- give schools in states with clear #1s a chance to experience Nationals, potentially motivating them to try harder (I know a lot of teams from states/regions with clear #1s, such as MN, MA, or SoCal, tend to give up because it seems unlikely that they'll ever be able to win)
- give every state an equal opportunity: as it stands with the current system, there is no way that a state like HI, RI, or DE could get a second bid, since they aren't big enough. By awarding second bids based on performance, states are on a more level ground and any state could theoretically get a second bid

but idk

[EastStroudsburg13]

- give schools in states with clear #1s a chance to experience Nationals, potentially motivating them to try harder (I know a lot of teams from states/regions with clear #1s, such as MN, MA, or SoCal, tend to give up because it seems unlikely that they'll ever be able to win)

Just want to clarify here that for the purposes of bids, CA is one state, so SoCal would not be getting a second bid under these circumstances.

[Unome]

For example, DC and Maryland could be made into the "Mid-Atlantic Region" with that region receiving one bid. The same could be done to VT and NH, or RI and MA, or something like that. Or, you could just force DC schools to compete in Maryland, which would be functionally the same. But the point is that a state with as few teams as VT, WY, or DC (not a state, but you know what I mean) should be forced into a little more competition in order to get to nats. This would also be valuable because it will increase the competitiveness of these small states and hopefully drive teams to work harder and achieve more competitive performance at nationals.

I think this option is a good compromise because it allows all teams to have the chance to make nationals (including DC teams, for example). In fact, some teams will still have a relatively easy path to nationals (if MD and DC were combined, for example, the resulting region would still not be that competitive aside from Centennial). Yet at the same time it preserves the ability for more states, like TX, to have a second bid.

I did not expect to see an actual novel idea here.

A lot of the opposition to this sort of stuff rests on travel distances, which could still be a problem. But, I think you may have solved almost every other logistical problem.

As for certain states getting 3 bids... that's a different discussion, IMO. For one, these "conversations" that you speak of are probably not as widespread as you think. Are you talking about conversations on the forums? Because those ideas resurface regularly; it's not exactly a novel idea. Plus, I'm guessing the conversations aren't occurring where they actually matter, which is with NSO. Of course, it could be that you're referring to discussions at NSO I haven't heard about, in which case I misunderstood.

I doubt the idea of 3 bids has been seriously considered by NSO, at least in recent years.

On an unrelated note, it's nice to finally know how the NorCal/SoCal team numbers are decided.

[cool hand luke]

A lot of the opposition to this sort of stuff rests on travel distances, which could still be a problem. But, I think you may have solved almost every other logistical problem.

this is a joke right? from DC to any point that could possibly hold an event in Maryland is MAX 100 miles. the furthest two points in Vermont and new Hampshire from each other aren't even 200 miles. How is this a point of opposition?

Just for reference our travel this year

invitational 340 miles one way

Regional 600 miles one way

state 520 miles one way. So cry me a river for these tiny states with tiny fields.

[MrShellfishBeach]

One potential solution, in my opinion, would be to establish a mandatory minimum number of teams for a bid-receiving state (perhaps a certain percentage of the total number of teams) and group exceedingly small states into regions, giving one bid to each of these regions.

For example, DC and Maryland could be made into the "Mid-Atlantic Region" with that region receiving one bid. The same could be done to VT and NH, or RI and MA, or something like that. Or, you could just force DC schools to compete in Maryland, which would be functionally the same. But the point is that a state with as few teams as VT, WY, or DC (not a state, but you know what I mean) should be forced into a little more competition in order to get to nats. This would also be valuable because it will increase the competitiveness of these small states and hopefully drive teams to work harder and achieve more competitive performance at nationals.

I think this option is a good compromise because it allows all teams to have the chance to make nationals (including DC teams, for example). In fact, some teams will still have a relatively easy path to nationals (if MD and DC were combined, for example, the resulting region would still not be that competitive aside from Centennial). Yet at the same time it preserves the ability for more states, like TX, to have a second bid.

I'm very intrigued by this idea, but like Unome briefly said, travel would be a big issue. For some of the expansive western states (like South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming), travel would be one thing, but it would be even worse for Alaska and Hawaii. They're both pretty small states that should probably be put into "super-regionals," but due to logistics, we may just have to allow both states 1 nats bid no matter what. That being said, while it is definitely a little unfair, I still don't think its as bad as what our current system has though.

[Unome]

A lot of the opposition to this sort of stuff rests on travel distances, which could still be a problem. But, I think you may have solved almost every other logistical problem.

this is a joke right? from DC to any point that could possibly hold an event in Maryland is MAX 100 miles. the furthest two points in Vermont and new Hampshire from each other aren't even 200 miles. How is this a point of opposition?

Just for reference our travel this year

invitational 340 miles one way

Regional 600 miles one way

state 520 miles one way. So cry me a river for these tiny states with tiny fields.

I didn't mean DC/MD and VT/NH. I was considering in particular somewhere like Alaska, which has ~15 teams per division, or perhaps Wyoming or Nevada, which have similarly small numbers.

[Alex-RCHS]

I'm very intrigued by this idea, but like Unome briefly said, travel would be a big issue. For some of the expansive western states (like South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming), travel would be one thing, but it would be even worse for Alaska and Hawaii. They're both pretty small states that should probably be put into "super-regionals," but due to logistics, we may just have to allow both states 1 nats bid no matter what. That being said, while it is definitely a little unfair, I still don't think its as bad as what our current system has though.

Well sure, for Alaska and Hawaii it just wouldn’t work. And I’m not suggesting NSO make these regions for very many states, maybe just 5 or so.

Also, I would avoid calling these things “super regionals” because that usually refers to a separate concept where teams compete in competitions between states and nationals OR in large (5+ state) regions instead of states (both bad ideas, in my opinion).

[cool hand luke]

A lot of the opposition to this sort of stuff rests on travel distances, which could still be a problem. But, I think you may have solved almost every other logistical problem.


I didn't mean DC/MD and VT/NH. I was considering in particular somewhere like Alaska, which has ~15 teams per division, or perhaps Wyoming or Nevada, which have similarly small numbers.

It's not even bad for those big states out west. Look at Wyoming. I'm betting the furthest any team would have to go would be about 430 miles to go from cody to fort Collins where Colorado has there regional.

[cool hand luke]

So if next year Vermont has a single team sign up they get a bid to nationals?

See how stupid this is?

[EastStroudsburg13]

So if next year Vermont has a single team sign up they get a bid to nationals?

See how stupid this is?

Nationals was never intended to have the best teams. It was intended to have the best teams from each state. The reason this debate is where it is right now is because the number of second bids has gotten so low that states the size of Texas have single bids (hence why the simplest solution is adding bids).

The idea of merging some state tournaments does have merit, but it would require a larger philosophical shift as to what nationals should be. It also would spark debate about what states should merge, where a cutoff should be, how to place state tournament sites if multiple states are attending, etc. For example, with VT/NH, do we also merge Maine with them? What tournament would WV merge with? What happens if Alaska falls under a certain threshold, do we force them to attend another state's finals? If not, does that mean we can still force states with more teams than Alaska to merge with other states? These complexities are what would have to be solved under any sort of setup that requires combining states.