Since 2017, there have been two K-1 sections at the Elementary Nationals, K-1 Championship and K-1 U500/Unrated. What do you think about having three sections, K-1 Championship, K-1 U800/unrated, and K-1 U400/unrated? I can see several benefits to this.
There is actually quite a big range in the ratings in the current K-1 Championship section and players rated under 800 generally haven’t placed very high so having a U800 section would give these players a section that is more appropriate for their level.
The current K-1 U500/Unrated section has had multiple perfect scores twice and the current K-1 Championship section has had multiple perfect scores once so adding a third section and splitting the sections as I’ve described would decrease the number of players in each of the sections and thus would make it less likely there would be multiple perfect scores in a section.
Just an idea I had that I thought I would throw out there for discussion.
Multiple perfect scores in an under section might not be a problem. That gives more opportunities for local papers to celebrate a high scoring player. One reason to reduce the size of sections in other grades is to allow for better balancing the number of players per section chief, but the K-1 section operates in its own room and works better with a single, carefully selected, section chief overseeing the entire room (no need to balance the load over multiple section chiefs) while the other 24 sections were spread over 13 section chiefs.
Only K-6 had a smaller championship section than K-1.
If you are concerned about sub-800 players having a shot at awards then focus on class prizes for K-1 championship (all of the other championship sections have them). K-3 Championship: 1100-1199; 1000-1099; 900-999; 800-899; Under 800; Unrated.
If the K-3 class borders were each copied at 300 points less for K-1 (seeing as K-3 had a 300 point drop from the K-5/K-6 championship sections) then you would have three 8xx players at 4.5-2.5, fourteen 7xx players at 4-3, four 6xx players at 4-3, one 5xx player at 3.5-3.5 (and more at 3-4) and one sub-500 player at 3-4 with two more at 2.5-4.5.
Since K-1 U500&unr already takes unrated players there is probably not a need for an unrated class award in K-1 championship which had only one unrated player (who scored 2-5) while K-1 U500&unr had two unrateds getting place medals plus five more getting tied for 25th.
And remember that additional class awards in K-1 might not be all that great an idea. It is just being thrown into the mix in response to the original proposal.
Having three sections probably wouldn’t hurt the “opportunities for local papers to celebrate a high scoring player” and would give more opportunities for local papers to celebrate a player winning a section.
I think adding class prizes to the K-1 Championship section if the current two section format is kept is a good idea. However, I think it would be better to structure the sections so more players have an opportunity to play in a section that is more appropriate for their level.
Also, what do you think about tweaking the sections at the High School and Middle School Nationals as follows:
Current High School sections (6 total):
K-12 Championship
K-12 U1900
K-12 U1600
K-12 U1200
K-12 U800
K-12 Unrated
Proposed new High School sections (7 total):
K-12 Championship
K-12 U2000
K-12 U1700
K-12 U1400
K-12 U1100
K-12 U800
K-12 Unrated
I see several advantages to this:
The Championship section is very competitive with a lot of Masters and Experts that I think it would be beneficial for players rated in the 1900’s to have an under section they could play in.
The new format would have 300 rating point sections instead of some of the sections being 400 rating point sections so more players would have an opportunity to play in a section that matches their level of play (The Middle School Nationals has 300 or 200 rating point sections, and the Elementary Nationals has 200 rating point sections with the K-6 sections so why not do something similar for the High School?).
Current Middle School sections (7 total):
K-8 Championship
K-8 U1700
K-8 U1400
K-8 U1100
K-8 U900
K-8 U700
K-8 Unrated
The Championship section is very competitive with a fair number of Masters and a lot of Experts and Class A players that I think it would be beneficial for players rated in the 1700’s to have an under section they could play in.
The current K-8 U700 section, which has only occurred since 2022, has had multiple perfect scores twice already so making the lowest rating-based section U600 instead of U700 would decrease the number of players in this section and make it less likely there would be multiple perfect scores. Multiple perfect scores in an under section might not be the biggest issue in the world but it’s probably better to avoid if possible. (Also, if you are wondering why I have both U1000 and U800 sections in my proposal instead of just a U900 section, which would have all the sections at 300 rating point intervals, is because the current U900 section has been quite big and my proposal of making the lowest rating-based section U600 would make the U900 even bigger and thus would run a higher risk of their being multiple perfect scores).
One year does not a trend make. Are you basing your analysis on one year or more than one year? Looking solely at SN data is not a good idea. The Scholastic Council has a subcommittee that reviews sections at the spring nationals routinely. They use data over multiple years.
As they always say in a mutual fund prospectus: Past results are no guarantee of future performance.
I’ve been a part of some of those post-tournament analysis sessions trying to figure out what needs to be done differently in the future.
Many of the factors that ultimately determine total turnout as well as the breakdown by age and skill levels are ones that are not known at the time the event is booked or the event specifics finalized.
Basically, when they design or reconfigure an event they’re making what they hope is an educated guess.
One of the more telling comments in Friday’s EB forum was the statement that turnout might have been quite a bit higher from certain cities if the people there weren’t worried earlier in the year that SuperNationals might become the site of ICE raids. It seems likely that issue was not on anyone’s radar screen when the planning for SuperNationals 8 got into full swing a good two years ago.
Hotels and convention centers lost billions during COVID, and one thing I’ve heard consistently from people in the hospitality industry is that the hotels and convention centers have changed their rules and contracts to push even more of the risk onto the organizers of the events being held, and it was already a rather one-sided arrangement.
So far there have been three standalone National Middle School Championships and one as part of Supernationals. Prior to that it was the National Junior High with ninth grade also included. It seems to be jumping the gun to make further changes with that limited history in only TX (twice), GA and FL. The K-8 only history is affected by both the changes in structure and post-Covid.
The National High School changes have twice as much history with the U1900 section being added after the 472-player championship section in 2015 (one 6.5-0.5 and no perfect score). The 2019 structure readily allowed five section chiefs with one handling both the smaller U1900 and the much larger Unrated (that year had an unusually high number in the Unrated section).
The National Elementary attendance has not yet settled down with less than 1600 last year. Pre-Covid numbers were often over 2200.
Looking at the some of the last Junior High Nationals that took place, the K-8 sections still had some Masters and a number of Expert and Class A players (and that’s with some high rated players who could have played in the K-8 who opted to play in the K-9). I think this shows even more that it would be beneficial for the K-8 to have a U1800 section so players rated in the 1700’s have an under section they could play in.
Also, it looks like the middle school is going to be in Texas every year now.
Also, I think it would be good to add a K-6 U1600 section at the Elementary Nationals (currently the highest under section is K-6 U1400). The current K-6 Championship and K-5 Championship sections are very competitive with a fair number of experts and a lot of Class A (1800-1999) and Class B (1600-1799) players that I think it would be beneficial for Class C (1400-1599) players to have an under section they could play in
In addition, I would combine the K-6 Championship and K-5 Championship sections into one since the K-6 Championship section is almost all 6th grade and we already have the Grade Nationals (there used to be K-5 under sections but those have been eliminated).
As the chair of the Sections subcommittee, I can take your recommendations into account. Let’s take it offline from here .
We must be very careful with any section change. That’s why we look at this. I have spent my entire time on SC reformatting how we review this in order to ensure all of the above.