IS set difficulty and HSNCT field expansion

[Important Bird Area]

Split from the IS set question discussion thread --JTH

bonus conversion

Here's a chart showing the IS-set bonus conversions of HSNCT teams, 2010-12 (2010 in yellow, 2011 in red, 2012 in blue).


IS set bonus conversion 2010-12 by black_throated_green_warbler, on Flickr

Not much movement visible here, and what there is likely attributable to field expansion.

[Stained Diviner]

That graph may be a case of appearances being deceiving. If you follow the 20 PPB or 15 PPB line, there are significantly more teams getting higher than those amounts in 2012 than 2010. The colored lines are close together vertically because a team going up by 1-2 PPB is not significant vertical movement on that graph, though it is a significant percentage of the change NAQT should be aiming for. Basically, if you have the same amount of movement from 2012 to 2014 that you had from 2010 to 2012, then NAQT will be where it should be. (Of course, it would be better to have the movement take place from 2012 to 2013 than from 2012 to 2014.)

Obviously, my analysis is not meant to be definitive, since I am looking at a little graph of an incomplete nonrepresentative sample, but I do think that graph is better news than it at first appears to be. (I'm assuming that the reason the graph doesn't show 200, 224, and 240 teams is that NAQT did not have IS data on all HSNCT teams.)

[Important Bird Area]

(I'm assuming that the reason the graph doesn't show 200, 224, and 240 teams is that NAQT did not have IS data on all HSNCT teams.)

Correct; teams not shown here either 1) played A-series instead of regular IS or 2) qualified at a tournament that did not report bonus conversion stats.

[Important Bird Area]

there are significantly more teams getting higher than those amounts in 2012 than 2010.

Note that some amount of this effect has nothing to do with the difficulty of the IS sets and is rather a result of the expanding HSNCT field (ie, there are some teams being added to the field at high bonus conversion rates).

[Mechanical Beasts]

there are significantly more teams getting higher than those amounts in 2012 than 2010.

Note that some amount of this effect has nothing to do with the difficulty of the IS sets and is rather a result of the expanding HSNCT field (ie, there are some teams being added to the field at high bonus conversion rates).

Does field expansion predominantly result in the addition of teams that are above-average for the HSNCT field?

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

Yeah, I doubt this is the case. There are more and more good teams now than there were ever before, and I would imagine if the HSNCT had kept around the size it was at when I was in high school, you would see most of the same teams who were good enough to go 5-5 or better still showing up and making the statistics for the event look even better, because those teams would be the ones getting bids earliest/most often. I strongly suspect that increasing the field has mostly served the interests of bad teams who still want to get the "nationals experience" by continuing to allow the same kinds of wildcard teams who used to go 2-8 or whatever a continued chance to go 2-8 by giving them more than enough room to register, with or without an actual bid.

[Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-TN)]

On that topic, did NAQT ever answer the question of whether or not wildcard bids ever have been rejected? I would really like to know the answer to that, especially since the field seems to keep getting larger.

[ryanrosenberg]

Yeah, I doubt this is the case. There are more and more good teams now than there were ever before, and I would imagine if the HSNCT had kept around the size it was at when I was in high school, you would see most of the same teams who were good enough to go 5-5 or better still showing up and making the statistics for the event look even better, because those teams would be the ones getting bids earliest/most often. I strongly suspect that increasing the field has mostly served the interests of bad teams who still want to get the "nationals experience" by continuing to allow the same kinds of wildcard teams who used to go 2-8 or whatever a continued chance to go 2-8 by giving them more than enough room to register, with or without an actual bid.

On the other hand, there are good teams that for whatever reason didn't go to HSNCT prior to this year, that, due to outreach and/or their teams getting better (possibly as a function of the increased amount of studying resources over the past two years) are now attending HSNCT. I'd be interested in seeing the data on teams that didn't attend any of the last two or three HSNCTs that attended HSNCT 2012, and seeing whether that sampling was more of less in line with the general profile of the field.

[Important Bird Area]

there are significantly more teams getting higher than those amounts in 2012 than 2010.

Note that some amount of this effect has nothing to do with the difficulty of the IS sets and is rather a result of the expanding HSNCT field (ie, there are some teams being added to the field at high bonus conversion rates).

Does field expansion predominantly result in the addition of teams that are above-average for the HSNCT field?

I think most of the teams added by field expansion are average or below-average teams. I just wanted to point out that there are several playoff teams added in the expansion sequence (like 2012 Ardsley), so that some of the "there are more teams in 2012 capable of scoring 20+ ppb on an IS set" effect shown is the result of outreach, not of making IS sets easier.

[Important Bird Area]

On that topic, did NAQT ever answer the question of whether or not wildcard bids ever have been rejected? I would really like to know the answer to that, especially since the field seems to keep getting larger.

We decline wildcard bids every year, Charlie.

2012 stats (no names attached):

23 wildcards accepted, 5 wildcards declined

[Important Bird Area]

increasing the field has mostly served the interests of bad teams who still want to get the "nationals experience" by continuing to allow the same kinds of wildcard teams who used to go 2-8 or whatever a continued chance to go 2-8 by giving them more than enough room to register, with or without an actual bid.

This is not really how wildcard bids to HSNCT operate in practice.

Stats from the 2012 HSNCT:

208 teams qualified outright, and compiled a record of 1069-1011 (0.514 winning percentage).

19 wildcard teams compiled a record of 98-92 (0.516 winning percentage). The wildcard teams, on average, were just a bit better than the teams that qualified at tournaments.

13 standby teams compiled a record of 33-97 (0.254 winning percentage), which is about what one would expect.

[Important Bird Area]

I'd be interested in seeing the data on teams that didn't attend any of the last two or three HSNCTs that attended HSNCT 2012, and seeing whether that sampling was more of less in line with the general profile of the field.

Schools attending their first HSNCT: 252-308 (0.450 winning percentage)

Schools that had attended at least one previous HSNCT: 948-892 (0.515 winning percentage)