(Beginning in 2009, CAD dropped traditional school size-based divisions and grouped each team according to their score. At state, the 20 highest scoring teams compete in Division I, regardless of school size. The next 20 and final 20 qualifying teams compete in Divisions II and III, respectively.)
Three years later, decathletes and coaches on this forum still praise or attack the new system every time CAD comes up. One of the better arguments for score-based divisions:
QUOTE (Juggernaut @ Mar 15 2011, 06:04 PM) 
I have experience on both sides of the fence (bottom of DI and near the top of DII), so I will try to put my two bits in:
Last year we were also invited as an at-large team for CA state. Based on our score, we ranked 20th and consequently at the bottom of D1. I would be lying, if I said that our motivation/drive to study diminished a bit. As much as we would like to say that it's not about the medals, it does play some role. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we did not medal individually (besides, of course, the top scorer on each team).
This year, we placed 25th after regionals and ranked 5th in DII. If you take a look at the scores, there were nine teams separated by less than 1000 points, with 6 of them within 220 points of each other. Knowing that we were actually competing with teams similar to our level, drove and motivated us immensely. Being a third year team, it becomes necessary to show some materialistic "items" and tangible results before the school administration adds some support. Recruiting also becomes easier as students seem to be attracted by large trophies and many medals.
In my opinion, I think the greatest benefit the divisions have is to allow teams, especially young ones without years of foundation, to experience State competition in the sense that we not only get to be recognized among teams our level but to also see that even though we did well, that there are many teams that are ahead of us. The role of the divisions is to play a role of a "minor league" in that teams should use their success in the lower divisions to push/strive even higher.
Last year we were also invited as an at-large team for CA state. Based on our score, we ranked 20th and consequently at the bottom of D1. I would be lying, if I said that our motivation/drive to study diminished a bit. As much as we would like to say that it's not about the medals, it does play some role. Unfortunately, or fortunately, we did not medal individually (besides, of course, the top scorer on each team).
This year, we placed 25th after regionals and ranked 5th in DII. If you take a look at the scores, there were nine teams separated by less than 1000 points, with 6 of them within 220 points of each other. Knowing that we were actually competing with teams similar to our level, drove and motivated us immensely. Being a third year team, it becomes necessary to show some materialistic "items" and tangible results before the school administration adds some support. Recruiting also becomes easier as students seem to be attracted by large trophies and many medals.
In my opinion, I think the greatest benefit the divisions have is to allow teams, especially young ones without years of foundation, to experience State competition in the sense that we not only get to be recognized among teams our level but to also see that even though we did well, that there are many teams that are ahead of us. The role of the divisions is to play a role of a "minor league" in that teams should use their success in the lower divisions to push/strive even higher.
One of the better arguments against score-based divisions:
QUOTE (Imaginary @ Mar 16 2011, 07:31 PM)
I personally feel that the Divisions separation is a little harsh. A handful of points at county put us in DI. We had a "veteran" team, and since everyone knew what DI state awards would be like (we were DI last year and only won one medal), just about all of us tanked at Sacramento after performing rather well at county.
The same thing actually happens to my team every year. We would qualify for state in DI and if we were out of serious contention for medals, we'd see a several thousand point drop at state and maybe win one or two medals only with ridiculous scores (920+).
This didn't really bother me (I had to compete as honor anyway -- could have been an 8k varsity had I drawn the right straw) since I was just chasing the arbitrary 8k overall, but being at the end of DI really killed my teams over and over again. I probably sound a little bit bitter, but State was pretty disappointing. It just really sucks (for the lack of a better word) to sit through an entire ceremony without winning a single medal across an entire team only to find out that we could have been extremely competitive had we been DII.
I honestly don't think cutting DI off at 10 teams would make a huge difference in the distribution of DI medals. That would, however, have made plenty more individuals happier about the outcome of the state tournament. But if that were to happen the 10th place team would probably complain about how they'd have cleaned up in DII. Er...I'll stop typing nonsense now.
The same thing actually happens to my team every year. We would qualify for state in DI and if we were out of serious contention for medals, we'd see a several thousand point drop at state and maybe win one or two medals only with ridiculous scores (920+).
This didn't really bother me (I had to compete as honor anyway -- could have been an 8k varsity had I drawn the right straw) since I was just chasing the arbitrary 8k overall, but being at the end of DI really killed my teams over and over again. I probably sound a little bit bitter, but State was pretty disappointing. It just really sucks (for the lack of a better word) to sit through an entire ceremony without winning a single medal across an entire team only to find out that we could have been extremely competitive had we been DII.
I honestly don't think cutting DI off at 10 teams would make a huge difference in the distribution of DI medals. That would, however, have made plenty more individuals happier about the outcome of the state tournament. But if that were to happen the 10th place team would probably complain about how they'd have cleaned up in DII. Er...I'll stop typing nonsense now.
With three years' worth of scores and placements on DDSIC (http://demidecscores.gilslotd.com/wiki/Regionals/California, http://demidecscores.gilslotd.com/wiki/State/California), we can measure the divisions system's effects pretty well:
Lower Half of Division I vs. Upper Half of Division II
2011
Range of Score Changes:
Teams 11-20: -2,260.4 to 1,873.0
Teams 21-30: -2,608.0 to 2,281.4
Range of Rank Changes:
Teams 11-20: -12 to +5
Teams 21-30: -13 to +10
2010
This year's results offers the strongest evidence for those arguing that division placement hurts the motivation of teams placing just above 20th. The average overall state score and rank of teams 21-30 actually bested the overall state score and rank of teams 11-20. Westminster, Stockdale, Vanden, and West Valley in Division I all declined by a 4-digit number, while the largest score decline in the top of Division 2 was Hamilton's -732. Also noteworthy: Only one team in the top of Division 2 moved down in the rankings, while only two teams in the bottom of Division 1 moved up in the rankings.
Range of Score Changes:
Teams 11-20: -3,416.8 to +257.2
Teams 20-30: -732.9 to +1,053.4
Range of Rank Changes:
Teams 11-20: -22 to +4
Teams 21-30: -5 to +12
2009
Range of Score Changes:
Teams 11-20: -2,753.4 to 2,239.0 (-2,753.4 to 1,594.0 without the Casa Grande outlier)
Teams 20-30: -1,128.6 to 1,003.3
Range of Rank Changes:
Teams 11-20: -7 to +8
Teams 21-30: -5 to +5
Averages for all three years (2009, 2010, 2011)
I believe 2010 offers the best insights into the effects of the division system. With the 11th place team at 42,368.50 and the 30th place team at 41,206.20, the teams in this range were all very, very similar. So we can truly measure the behavior of schools that were all moderately competitive at almost exactly the same level.
Studying 2011 and 2009 numbers don’t offer this advantage because the larger disparities between the 11th place team and the 30th place team show that we are looking at a wider range of schools (some super competitive, some less competitive) whose behaviors will differ regardless of the division system. This difference is most evident in the 2009 Casa Grande team jumping from 12th place overall to 4th in all of California.
So the score-based division system definitely hurts the motivation of schools that get shafted into the bottom of Division I by a few hundred points when they get lucky in subjectives, and boosts the teams close to them in the top of Division II, if only to a slight extent.
Note that Arroyo Valley reached its first state berth in 2011 and Tracy had not made state since 2005. So the inexperience (and subsequent score decreases) of these two teams in the top of Division II in 2011 skewed the stats quite a bit away from my conclusion. Excluding these two teams, the average score increase for the top of Division II becomes 445.4 and the average rank increase becomes 1.5 (for 2011). And the average for all three years change to -7.91 score change, 2.13 rank increase. (for DII)
Seeing how much of a difference outliers make (Tracy 2011, Arroyo Valley 2011, Casa Grande 2009) in the final stats... shows that 3 years' worth of data (30 teams in each sample) is definitely not enough to quantify the effects of this score-based division system, but hopefully we have enough of a big picture to lead to some really stimulating discussions like this: http://demidectalk.com/index.php?s=&sh...ost&p=60367. =)
