2011-2012 POI Rankings
Points Details After Stanford
Team Rankings After Stanford
Computed using POI’s gradual diminishing return formula ((100% of points from best tournament)+(95% of points from 2nd Best)+(65% of points from 3rd Best)+(30% of 4th Best)+(10% of 5th Best)).
Please Note: This year POI points from state qualifiers and later invitationals such as SCU2 will be factored into the rankings before California Cup decisions are made. Because of this additional consideration, the number of points needed to autoqual for the California Cup has been raised from 16 to 19.
1. Los Gatos SG (Silverman & Gilbert) 35.5
2. Windsor FJ (Fauss & J. Jeffrey) 24.825
3. Bishop O’Dowd CD (A. Carson & Dierkx) 22.275
4. Mira Loma ML (Mecklai & Leibenhaut) 20.15
5. Saratoga AC (Agrawal & Chiang) 19.175
—————————————————————-
6. Leland NW (Nguyen & Wu) 18.225
7. Windsor SJ (Steiger & P. Jeffrey) 17.675
8. Valencia KP (Khokar & Patel) 15.05
9. Oaks Christian BW (Beach & Waller) 14.225
10. Lynbrook RY (Ying & Rao) 13.7
11. Bishop O’Dowd CZ (A. Carson & Zepeda) 13.5
11. Los Osos DJ (Daden & Jiang) 13.5
13. Leland HC (Han & Chiu) 13.3
14. Bishop O’Dowd PA (Perl & Accinelli) 13.225
15. Centennial HB (Hicks & Brewer) 12.8
16. Oxford Academy CS (Chaudhary & Sandhoefner) 12.75
17. Gunn YA (Ye & Atlas) 12.675
18. Bishop O’Dowd ZV (Zepeda & Vegis) 12.275
19. Windsor FZ (Foster & Ziedrich) 12.175
20. Bentley RD (Riley & Durant) 11.75
21. Leland DS (Deghuee & Sonkowsky) 11.725
22. Bakersfield Christian RT (Riggs & Taylor) 11
22. Polytechnic HS (Harmon & Sanders) 11
22. Wilton JB (Jankowski & Brewer) 11
25. El Dorado RM (Rapp & Moore) 10.75
26. Leland AK (Ahir & Kamat) 10.5
26. Oxford Academy PR (Perdew & Ramirez) 10.5
28. Santa Rosa BF* (Burch & Fields) 10.275
29. Granite Bay GH (Gupta & Habashi) 10
29. James Enoch MW (Marsh & Walbridge) 10
29. Valencia FS (Faraldo & Savant) 10
29. Westview HK (Hudson & Kandaswamy) 10
33. Leland CY (Chen & Yun) 9.5
34. Leland KT (Kang & Tseng) 8.775
36. Gunn NO (Neff & Oyer) 8.5
36. Santa Rosa VD (Vonseggern & Delattre) 8.5
36. Esperanza CC (Chang & Chin) 8.5
36. Gabrielino SR (Singleton & Rodriguez) 8.5
36. Irvington LM (Lam & Manzur) 8.5
41. Miramonte TF (Tuemmler & Fehrnstrom) 8.3
41. James Logan CC (Chang & Chang) 8.3
41. Oaks Christian RY (Rebbe & Young) 8.3
44. Foothill BM (Ballmer & Miller) 8
45. Crescent Valley LQ (Liu & Quian) 7
45. West Ranch MD (Morgan & Dewey) 7
47. Analy LW (Lindenbusch & Williams) 6.85
47. Bishop O’Dowd SZ (Seideman & Zepeda) 6.85
47. Centennial RK (Reed & Kleinman) 6.85
50. Gabrielino TT (Trinh & Tran) 6.5
50. Dougherty Valley TZ (Tu & Zhu) 6.5
50. Northwood AS (Ahuja & Shastry) 6.5
50. Notre Dame FV (Furniss & Vaddi) 6.5
50. Notre Dame LA (Lunia & Ahemed) 6.5
50. Peninsula GL (Gianvecchio & Lim) 6.5
50. San Marino WT (Wong & Thai) 6.5
50. Granite Bay GH* (Gupta & Holzer) 6.5
50. Sierra Canyon HS (Hariz & Shokar) 6.5
59. Bentley PP (Pracar & Pracar) 6
59. Dougherty Valley KW (Konath & Wang) 6
59. New Canaan AL (Abhi-Raman & Luchs) 6
59. Peninsula CP (Crossman & Pond) 6
59. Redlands KK (Kim & Karpouzis) 6
59. San Marino KT (Khoshanan & Thai) 6
59. Sanger HL (Holquin & Lopez) 6
59. Simi Valley GM (Godoy & Mckinnon) 6
59. Wilton JH (Jensen & Hiestand) 6
68. Los Gatos FE (Flechsig & Esslinger) 5.925
68. Dougherty Valley MK (Mahmood & Keefer) 5.925
70. Windsor RS (Roady & Schneider) 5.5
70. Milpitas OG (O’Brien & Grillo) 5.5
72. Analy MD (Mizutani & Dimick) 5.425
73. Bishop O’Dowd CR (A. Carson & Reynes) 5
73. Cleveland RT (Revello & Tuchman) 5
73. Corvallis AM (Allen & Morago) 5
73. Crescent Valley PS (Parron & Steinaurer) 5
73. Carlsbad KO (Kuperman & O’Loughlin) 5
73. El Modina SB (Steffensen & Burnett) 5
73. Peninsula KN (Kumar & Noch) 5
80. CLASH BV (Browatzke & Vehrs) 4.5
80. El Cerrito AT (Akpan & Terman) 4.5
80. Irvington DG (Dhinakaran & Gill) 4.5
80. James Logan RW (Recinto & Wong) 4.5
80. Marlborough KK (Kang & Kasten) 4.5
80. Clash CK (Clark & Kim) 4.5
80. Evergreen Valley KP (Khan & Park) 4.5
80. Prospect NL (Nguyen & Latta) 4.5
80. Carlsbad MR (Maldi & Rohring) 4.5
89. Analy CN (Cotherman & Noe) 4
89. Bishop O’Dowd AZ (Anderson & Zepeda) 4
89. Bishop O’Dowd WC (Walsh & Crosby) 4
89. Claremont AC (Ali & Cusic) 4
89. Clash TS (Tcheau & Soiland) 4
89. Dougherty Valley AL (Abueg & Ling Soh) 4
89. Dougherty Valley MP (Mau & Pok) 4
89. Granite Bay AT (Asokan & Tom) 4
89. Los Gatos DA (Doyle & Adam) 4
89. Lynbrook PK (Parthasarathy & Kandalam) 4
89. Manchester Essex MR (Martz & Rodier) 4
89. Mira Loma RL (Ryabov & Liu) 4
89. Santa Rosa FB (Foote & Beloberk) 4
89. Mountain View LH (Leybzon & Holton) 4
89. Peninsula CG (Choi & Gianvecchio) 4
89. Peninsula KS (Kang & Silvano) 4
89. Saratoga TZ (Taggarsi & Zhang) 4
89. Shady Side CC (Cao & Costa) 4
89. Stockdale KM (Kannappan & Munoz) 4
89. Washington CC (Chung & Chaus) 4
89. Wilton SC (Schaefer & Clifford) 4
110. Analy WG (Wilcox & Goldstein) 3
110. Bishop O’Dowd AV (Anderson & Vegis) 3
110. Bishop O’Dowd CP (G. Carson & Perl) 3
110. Claremont DM (Davis & Maine) 3
110. Cleveland RR (Revello & Rosen) 3
110. Cleveland SR (Sandin & Ross) 3
110. Cypress DP (Dickinson & Park) 3
110. Honor Academy KS (Kimm & Shibuyaa) 3
110. James Logan RS (Rook & Sugino-Sue) 3
110. North Hollywood MO (Magana & Ohayon) 3
110. SOCES KS (Kabir & Silverberg) 3
110. SOCES VS (Vuong & Semon) 3
110. Southridge FM (Fragga & Marrott) 3
110. Westview BW (Bhatt & Want) 3
124. Analy AB (Alameida & Burns) 1.5
124. Bishop O’Dowd SR (Seideman & Reynes) 1.5
124. Bishop O’Dowd ZP (Zepeda & Perl) 1.5
124. Dougherty Valley GS (Ganesh & Sharan) 1.5
124. Dougherty Valley HP (Hua & Patil) 1.5
124. Las Lomas HD (Herro & Dec) 1.5
124. Livermore DH (Dec & Herro) 1.5
124. Miramonte BA (Bahramipour & Asadi) 1.5
124. Miramonte HB (Hasanain & Bata) 1.5
124. Miramonte HK (Han & Kirk) 1.5
124. Miramonte MH (McDonald & Henry) 1.5
124. Miramonte TC (Ting & Conklin) 1.5
124. Sonoma Academy PN (Pope & Nolan) 1.5
124. Windsor TG (Tocchini & Gabel) 1.5
65 Comments to 2011-2012 POI Rankings
Leave a Reply
non-breaking 4-2 is 3 points I think
Ya I was just wondering because of the fact that there were around 33 teams at Pepperdine and there were 9 non-breaking 4-2′s.
Half the Pepperdine field were novices, pulled up to the open division. If you look at the packet, teams like Jefferson HS (which entered only novice), for example, got beaten up on by real Varsity teams. If you take out the ‘gimme’ wins on those teams, 4-2 becomes much less impressive.
At Prospect, we did mix up our teams mid-season: Prospect Nguyen-Latta is now Prospect Srinivasan-Latta and Prospect Mittal-Nguyen, among other changes. How does this affect the rankings, other than making things unnecessarily confusing (our apologies)?
Don’t worry about that, partnerships switch up all the time (In my junior year, I scored POI points with 4 different partners…).
At the moment, we treat all separate partnerships as completely different teams. Towards the end of the year, we will create the complete rankings, which will include individual standings within the team standings (check out last year’s results to see how that works).
Thanks to Mr. Morris for updating this with great alacrity.
Points DETAILS reflecting Stanford are up. The rankings for teams and schools will follow shortly.
POI Rankings have been updated completely with the results from Stanford. As always, if you suspect there is an error, please notify us via a comment.
Congratulations to the 5 teams currently automatically qualified for the California Cup: Los Gatos SG, Windsor FJ, Bishop O’Dowd CD, Mira Loma ML, & Saratoga AC.
Can the Windsor Invitational not include [what I believe are not well conceived] pop culture and metaphorical resolutions?
And, please, Windsor, learn from the mistakes of Stanford?
Do not give STUPID “pretend-to-be-value” resolutions like these from 2 years ago:
Knowledge should be valued over belief.
Pretty please do not tarnish the name of Parli more.
Come on, all these stupid resolutions just give more weight to rhetoric and pretty talk and further devalue real research and analytical argumentation. Maybe the Windsor parli teams are better at the former, but please do not forget everything discussed on the past several threads, throw it out the window, and resort to stupid resolutional-making.
The coach of Windsor: I know you approved the Stanford resolutions. Learn from their failures.
Please be constructive (and hopefully objective) with your criticism…calling things stupid twice in a post doesn’t lend you much credence as an advocate for your position. I also felt the tone was vaguely threatening…you might want to avoid that in the future.
Mr. St.-Amant read the POI discussion that resulted after the Stanford tournament and has undoubtedly taken the opinions of the Parli community into account. This, however, doesn’t mean you’ll be seeing all policy resolutions, nor will metaphorical resolutions be necessarily abolished entirely (some people still like those resolutions!).
I am in agreement with Mr. Morris. While this site does offer a public forum to voice criticism regarding all things parli, the tone of the criticism has, at times, become personal and insulting (as well as anonymous).
As for lobbing insults at Windsor, come on. Windsor’s Fauss & Jeffrey won UOP, a very policy-heavy invitational and came in second at MLK (a tournament very similar to Stanford in terms of resolutions). Their consistency speaks more to talent and adaptability than a proclivity for a specific type of resolution.
While I do not agree with the tone of “Lol,” he does have a point. The resolutions are increasingly becoming “dumbed down” and not very well-constructed, imho.
Will the suggestions in the previous few threads be heeded when making resolutions for future parli tournaments… or will the status quo be maintained…?
I–although not entirely approving of “Spiderman is better than Batman”–am against the idea of taking away of either metaphorical or value motion, they give both sides a more educational debate since it provides both the burden to think on their feet, not use prepared cases or be entirely evidence heavy…. that’d be policy.