New York 2017

[EastStroudsburg13]

Oops - I screwed this up as well. The placings are correct but you're right, Will North finished top 5, not Canisius.

My brain was really miswired yesterday.

Not a problem, I can easily see a tired mind combining all of the Williamsvilles into one school. Just wanted to clarify!

[oscillatic]

"The goal is to perform as well as possible at regionals, states, and nationals. The goal at invitationals is to prepare for regionals, states, and nationals. Is reconfiguring teams to figure out the optimal composition of a team, and to give younger members experience with older teammates so that they can succeed in future years, not in keeping with this goal?"

The question becomes who is performing well. Is it a team or is it a coach who can find different configurations of kids until he or she can pull off a win? Congratulations to the coach then. But that is a very different thing from taking a group of 15 students and building one winning team of students who work together from the very first invitational or regional though the season-come rain or shine. And of course it is possible to have a second team of younger teammates who intend to compete in future years-but who get practice also as a team and not as a bunch of students to be plucked when needed. I suppose it is a matter of how you view SO. There are many ways to approach it. This is my opinion and others differ. That is ok!

[SPP SciO]

"The goal is to perform as well as possible at regionals, states, and nationals. The goal at invitationals is to prepare for regionals, states, and nationals. Is reconfiguring teams to figure out the optimal composition of a team, and to give younger members experience with older teammates so that they can succeed in future years, not in keeping with this goal?"

The question becomes who is performing well. Is it a team or is it a coach who can find different configurations of kids until he or she can pull off a win? Congratulations to the coach then. But that is a very different thing from taking a group of 15 students and building one winning team of students who work together from the very first invitational or regional though the season-come rain or shine. And of course it is possible to have a second team of younger teammates who intend to compete in future years-but who get practice also as a team and not as a bunch of students to be plucked when needed. I suppose it is a matter of how you view SO. There are many ways to approach it. This is my opinion and others differ. That is ok!

Science Olympiad is a team competition. This is our first year with two teams, and our strategy (to be fair, I guess you could call it my strategy, since ultimately I'm making the final call) is to experiment with some different configurations at the invitational tournaments, gather some data, and put together the 15 students that will have the best chance of winning our Regional tournament. That roster may be further tweaked before States also. I've been upfront with the students about this all year, and everyone buys in. We stress that if a student achieves 7th, 7th, and 7th in their events, even though they won't take home any medals, they'll be more valuable to the team than if they earned 1st, 1st, and 20th. Of course, it gets really tricky when you factor in partnership chemistry, BFFs, schedule conflicts, compliance with the build event policy, etc.

Unrelated to this discussion, but relevant to NY - Cornell div. B results here: https://www.ezratech.us/competition/cor ... 17/results

[Flavorflav]

"The goal is to perform as well as possible at regionals, states, and nationals. The goal at invitationals is to prepare for regionals, states, and nationals. Is reconfiguring teams to figure out the optimal composition of a team, and to give younger members experience with older teammates so that they can succeed in future years, not in keeping with this goal?"

The question becomes who is performing well. Is it a team or is it a coach who can find different configurations of kids until he or she can pull off a win? Congratulations to the coach then. But that is a very different thing from taking a group of 15 students and building one winning team of students who work together from the very first invitational or regional though the season-come rain or shine. And of course it is possible to have a second team of younger teammates who intend to compete in future years-but who get practice also as a team and not as a bunch of students to be plucked when needed. I suppose it is a matter of how you view SO. There are many ways to approach it. This is my opinion and others differ. That is ok!

Baseball is a team sport, yet a player who is underperforming may be sent down to the minors midseason and another player called up. I don't see the difference.

[oscillatic]

"Baseball is a team sport, yet a player who is underperforming may be sent down to the minors midseason and another player called up. I don't see the difference"

I'm sure there are many different viewpoints. Yes, in pro sports underperforming players will be sent down. Team building, training and nurturing players is not a major goal for pro ball unless necessary to result in wins. And team wins are important while playing "well" isn't a goal unless the team wins. Players who don't contribute to the win are expendable. Excuses like "Our record is 0-15 but look how well our players are doing now" and "They developed great skills" and "They went on to do great stuff" and "They learned to play together so now they are in the big league" won't help the manager keep the job.

In contrast, SO isn't a business and the students are not professionals. I don't view the fact that a coach is able to mix and change around students until the coach finds a winning match/combo, culled from a large pool of students and different at each competition, to reflect compelling goals. I think a more compelling goal is to nurture growth and improvement in a group of 15 students across the course of the year.

Most of the material related to SO refers to a team. It implies (but does not state explicitly or require) that the 15 members remain as a team, by and large, as they progress through levels of competition from local to nationals. Naturally a student who is not motivated to achieve may not remain. But a student who struggles with an event can be assisted by their peers and encouraged by the coach; thereby enhancing team-building and science skills. Isn't that the goal? The idea of pitching a student from an event and from progressing with the team because the coach found someone who does the event better seems antithetical to the overall goal of helping young scientists develop so they will thrive in the current large-team collaborative tech/science world. Encouraging students within teams to compete with each other to earn a slot in the next competition seems consistent with a late 1900's view of science as an individual enterprise that is cut throat. It is my opinion that students should be encouraged to bolster their colleagues not compete with them. In some schools where students are plucked, mixed and matched and where the configuration of students is very different at each level of competition, team members can become competitive with each other. That is a natural outgrowth of that system because if they don't out perform their peer, they may be dropped. This approach is at odds with society's needs for scientists to gain skills needed to work collaboratively on large problems. In a stable team of 15, students can work together to support their common goal; there is no need for and no benefit to competing with each other. This is my opinion. I am not saying that this approach necessarily leads to more wins than others. It is just more consistent with what I view as the role of the coach and the goals underlying Science Olympiad. It's not necessarily the right view. It is my view.

[EastStroudsburg13]

I think both viewpoints are valid. I don't think there is anything wrong with deciding to keep teams whole and together for the entirety of their careers to bolster camaraderie. Likewise, I don't think there is anything wrong with mixing and matching team compositions, as it allows for team members to be "promoted" through hard work, and also helps teams within schools inter-mingle a bit. I don't think the latter approach is necessarily harsh or "cutthroat", as long as it's not run that way. In a way, restricting teams by 15 for the entire year is cutthroat in a way, because if you're not in the 15, there's no way for you to move up for the rest of the year.

Oscillatic, I do think you need to be careful about the way you are wording things, though. In a way, you are suggesting that teams that mix-and-match are not nurturing their teams properly or not in the true spirit of Science Olympiad. This is not true; not one bit. Both methods are valid and have their positives and negatives. You cannot, and should not, dismiss other teams' strategies as "impure" or "at odds with society's needs", because that's not the intent of those systems, nor is it the result of members who graduate from those systems.

[SPP SciO]

Can't help but chime in with some more team/sciO philosophy (even though it's not really relevant to NY) -

I've found that kids buy in to a mix-and-match system pretty easily, when coaches emphasize that the "team" is everyone from the school who prepares for events. Tournament rules dictate that you must enter groups of 15, so naturally, everyone wants to choose the best 15.

When I played soccer in high school, I was one of about 20 on the varsity team. The rules of the game allow 11 players on the field at a time. I rode the bench my entire senior year, and my team went 12-0 and only lost in the county championship. I wouldn't have had it any other way. Every practice I was out there helping my teammates (good friends) get better, and while they were the ones scoring goals, I was still reaping all the benefits of being on a great team.

[jbauer999]

This is entirely subjective (but objective stats don't hurt at all), but what team would you guys consider the fastest rising? I feel as if Chaminade, going from 30th to 8th in just two years, is definitely up there, maybe next to GNS. I'm not saying anything for sure, but don't be surprised if GNS makes nationals or Chaminade gets into the top-5 for the first time. Critique my predictions if you want as well:

1. Columbia High School
2. Ward Melville
3. F-M
4. GNS
5. Mount Academy
6. Chaminade
7. Townsend Harris
8. Syosset
9. Kellenberg
10. Spackenkill

Dark Horses: Chaminade, GNS, HHHE, Niskayuna

[oscillatic]

I guess there no requirement that there be any overlap in students from regional to states or states to nationals beyond that the students are from the same school that won the right to progress.

[Flavorflav]

Just wanted to point out that HHE has been in the top five for four of the last five years and the top ten six of the last eight. Both of the misses were 11th place, so I'm not sure HHE is such a dark horse for top ten. Everybody likes to talk about momentum, but reversion to the mean is more common statistically.