Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chief's Son
1. Rookie teams and second year teams getting automatic points.
2. You only get judged on your first competition.
3. The state tournament does not necessarily have the best teams in the state.
|
First, I highly recommend that you look over the many other threads talking about the standard district point model like
this one or
this one. The MSHSL qualifying system is built off of this system.
As to your specific three concerns, here are my personal opinions:
1. This does not presently have a large effect on MN, since almost all of our teams are rookies relative to other regions. MN is still incredibly young. Also, the age bonus only effected 2 teams this year. If the age bonus did not exist, 2883 would have qualified instead of 4624, there would be no other change to the teams who qualified.
I cannot speak for either of these teams directly, but I do know that, in my personal experience, being on a newer team is tough. It is, of course, unfortunate for 2883, but if we are trying to build a system that lasts, I am perfectly fine with helping along the newer teams so that they can come back stronger next year. For example, last year, 4 rookie teams qualified for MSHSL: 4539, 4607, 4624, and 4656 (without the age bonus I might add). Every single one of those teams qualified again this year. I am sure that they would have been successful even if they had not qualified for the state championship, but I would hope that the extra chance to compete invigorated them even more.
Also, just a side note, I believe 2883 still has a solid chance to compete. If one of the qualified teams cannot attend for some reason, I believe that their slot transfers to 2883, although I am not positive.
2. I do not have the numbers right now, but I would estimate that only about 50 or so MN teams compete at multiple regionals. While there will be teams that improve drastically between competitions, I think in general these are fringe cases. I personally would not be opposed to having a system where the average score from 2 regionals is used, but I would not like a system where a team's better regional is used, since this would almost certainly isolate the grand majority of teams that do not attend multiple regionals.
3. I am curious to know which teams you think should have qualified that didn't. The teams that I can think of generally are the ones who competed at multiple regionals. Besides them (since that relates to #2), are there any teams that only competed at a single event that you believe should have qualified but didn't?