Nationals Bid Discussion

[Riptide]

Wait, so I agree with the above obvs, but another question...(sorry to distract, please read the above posts they're quality!)

... I don't really want to separate the B and C tourneys, but it's a lot of people to have together at once...

Why is it important to have B and C joined anyway? Maybe I'm biased coming from a state where we had them split so I don't get the impact...but does this impact much? Extra costs to rent a venue twice? I mean, it's a smaller tourny that could then be expanded, so wouldn't that be logistically easier? Also, then we could go from like 60 teams to 112 teams...every state gets an extra bid easy then >.>.

They're together I think for the ease of having just one host, and for pageantry reasons (though I could be off). But if the idea were to get some traction, I bet we could see expansion to 72 pretty quickly.

As for SOPomo's comment, I agree that the current system is flawed, but it's definitely not broken. It accomplishes what it seeks out to do, which is have some sort of SO presence in every state. Does it mean some teams have a much easier time to qualify? Yeah, but those are arguably the teams that could benefit from the experience.

There are teams that have qualified to nationals for the last like 10-20 years who have seen no improvement (always placing in the 50-60 range at nationals). Sure some select teams may benefit, but the vast majority seem pretty stagnant in their performances.

[Unome]

Remote Sensing

Hey, Remote Sensing is an important field of science...

(but I agree it probably could be addressed a little better by the rules)

[EastStroudsburg13]

Wait, so I agree with the above obvs, but another question...(sorry to distract, please read the above posts they're quality!)


Why is it important to have B and C joined anyway? Maybe I'm biased coming from a state where we had them split so I don't get the impact...but does this impact much? Extra costs to rent a venue twice? I mean, it's a smaller tourny that could then be expanded, so wouldn't that be logistically easier? Also, then we could go from like 60 teams to 112 teams...every state gets an extra bid easy then >.>.

They're together I think for the ease of having just one host, and for pageantry reasons (though I could be off). But if the idea were to get some traction, I bet we could see expansion to 72 pretty quickly.

As for SOPomo's comment, I agree that the current system is flawed, but it's definitely not broken. It accomplishes what it seeks out to do, which is have some sort of SO presence in every state. Does it mean some teams have a much easier time to qualify? Yeah, but those are arguably the teams that could benefit from the experience.

There are teams that have qualified to nationals for the last like 10-20 years who have seen no improvement (always placing in the 50-60 range at nationals). Sure some select teams may benefit, but the vast majority seem pretty stagnant in their performances.

I disagree about it being the vast majority. I know there are some teams that are stagnant, but there are also states where the top teams change hands every few years. Plus, when I say "benefit", I don't mean to improve in the future. I mean to be able to attend a national tournament and to interact with other teams across the country.

[nicholasmaurer]

Wait, so I agree with the above obvs, but another question...(sorry to distract, please read the above posts they're quality!)

... I don't really want to separate the B and C tourneys, but it's a lot of people to have together at once...

Why is it important to have B and C joined anyway? Maybe I'm biased coming from a state where we had them split so I don't get the impact...but does this impact much? Extra costs to rent a venue twice? I mean, it's a smaller tourny that could then be expanded, so wouldn't that be logistically easier? Also, then we could go from like 60 teams to 112 teams...every state gets an extra bid easy then >.>.

They're together I think for the ease of having just one host, and for pageantry reasons (though I could be off). But if the idea were to get some traction, I bet we could see expansion to 72 pretty quickly.

I would estimate the odds of them splitting the national tournament into two separate tournaments at zero. Ignoring whether it is an appealing idea (I don't think it is), consider the practical aspects. It is already incredibly difficult for NSO to identify willing host sites - the direct costs to the university hosting can easily reach one or two million dollars (which is not reimbursed by NSO). The costs that are covered by NSO (e.g. much of the awards ceremony) would increase to cover duplicate ceremonies. Additionally, most of the senior ranks of the volunteer organization (national committee, arbitrators, scoring, rule committee chairs) is shared between the divisions. Those individuals cannot be expected to attend two separate tournaments.

[nicholasmaurer]

I was thinking of having the best team from every state, and then the 10 best teams that didn't win states. The only (huge and obvious) problem with this is that there is no way to tell which are the 10 best teams that didn't win states, other than to have some kind of invitational tournament that qualifies you to nationals. Basically, there's almost two rounds to nationals, but the best team from every state gets a "bye" and goes directly to nationals stage 2 (which is real nationals). The second place team from every state compete against each other at nationals stage 1 (which is like a qualifier for nationals), and the 10 best out of this competition make nationals stage 2 (real nationals). However, this would require an immense increase in spending, organizing, time taken... etc, so it isn't realistic.

I think there's two points of view to this whole discussion. One that merits diversity in the national tournament and having each area/state/part of the population equally represented, and another that merits competitive states where the second place team is really close to the first place team and could perform well at nationals. The first point of view would give extra bids to bigger states, California, Texas, New York, etc, while the second perspective would give an extra bid to a state like NJ div C, where the top 2 teams are incredibly close.

You're right, that creates a secondary challenge to be in that tier 2. When your have a quantifiable goal to progress, that in and of itself becomes a target and will absolutely be taken advantage of.

You are spot on in the second point of view is a matter of luck of the draw. If I happen to be in a bigger state? Is there a limit to the sq miles? Population density? How is the separation determined? Is competitiveness determined by scores? What about the scores of smaller states that are even closer? They aren't considered for an additional bid based on the fact that the state happens to occupy a lesser area?

The "wild card tournament" concept of having the second best team from each state compete against each other for the extra 10 bids is interesting in concept, but I find it impractical. Travelling is incredibly expensive for most teams and already poses a barrier to many who qualify for the national tournament. I coach one of the best funded and most traveled teams in the country. Yet, we would struggle to finance three major trips: our state tournament, then a wild card tournament, then the national tournament. Additionally, this would required NSO to organize a second major "national" tournament which is infeasible for reasons I discuss above.

[nicholasmaurer]

If we're throwing out ideas here, what about this:

1) Figure out the critical mass of teams for nationals at the venue.

2) Give the #1 team in each state an automatic bid.

3) Give 1 extra bid to states in alphabetical order to satisfy the max amount of teams.

4) Subsequent years pick up at next alpha order for extra bid to fill max amount of teams.


This will achieve three things:

1) No one will be able to cry foul of the extra bid selection.

2) EVERYONE will be given the chance for that extra bid.

3) States will know ahead of time if they need to plan and prepare to go to the national event.

This plan feels a lot like saying "we can't agree on whether to reward big states or competitive states, so we're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and divide everything up equally" .....

[nicholasmaurer]

TBH, if someone wanted to give legitimacy to SciOly and have it be on the same level as ChemOly, BiOly, etc (or even Science Bowl), the bid system isn't what's wrong. The entire events roster needs to be looked at and scrubbed. New events either pertaining to relevant topics (such as CS events that is NOT Game On), advanced events (Go Big Orgo Home, pls), or purely problem-solving events (eg: a CS event where you need to code on the spot and are measured by test cases), along with the removal/cycling out of things like Picture This or Remote Sensing, would be a game-changer. Having good exams and labs and what not at every level? Amazing. If SciOly can net you prestigious scholarship/internship/whatnot opportunities, people would actually feel incentivized to do SciOly, thus increasing the competition pool and making the winners look even better.

Would an increased effort on problem solving be beneficial? I certainly think so. Are there opportunities to improve the existing slate of events? Definitely.

By the same token, many of the suggested events I have seen discussed (e.g. organic chemistry, quantum mechanics) are way beyond a high school level. While these might pose a refreshing challenge for national-caliber teams, they would be very inaccessible to the average Science Olympiad competitor (or the average coach as an event supervisor). A more reasonable approach might be to increase the gradation of difficulty between regionals/states/nationals. There is already some effort to do so with national-only topics, but I think there is room for growth.

Additionally, we can have the best events possible, but without quality supervisors it won't help...

[JonB]

Additionally, we can have the best events possible, but without quality supervisors it won't help...

[JonB]

Additionally, we can have the best events possible, but without quality supervisors it won't help...

THIS. If the events become even more complex, then the difficulty of finding quality writers will decrease even more (and, arguably, it is not very good at many regional/state competition, with some exceptions).

[primitivepolonium]

THIS. If the events become even more complex, then the difficulty of finding quality writers will decrease even more (and, arguably, it is not very good at many regional/state competition, with some exceptions).

A solution I can see to this is standardized exams, which takes off the stress of finding good writers, but that involves everyone holding their regionals tournaments on the same day, and there is a risk of leakage.