School Science Fights / Release 02
Plan the school mock, generate fair pairings, deploy jurors, run each room, record independent scores and produce a validated result sheet — all without an account.
● Private by design: names and conflict declarations stay in this browser unless you choose to export them.
Give your science club time to investigate, prepare and practise. Follow a clear timetable before opening the pairing generator.
Choose your preparation period and mark off each action as it is completed. The roadmap covers scientific preparation, people, rooms, pairings, and the actual competition day. It complements the live tournament workbench below.
Week 1: Agree on the event format and organising roles. Week 2: Approve and release safe, open-ended problems. Week 3: Support students' investigations. Week 4: Confirm jurors, teams, rooms and equipment. Week 5: Validate pairings and rehearse the Fight format. Week 6: Run the event, verify results and debrief.
Planning note: Week allocations are recommendations, not official SOFU deadlines. Compressed plans retain all essential tasks; they simply combine more work into each week. Completed tasks are included in your private planner project download.
Open tournament generatorTwo or three preliminary-style Science Fights only. Every team completes its roles, and there are no quarter-finals, semi-finals or grand final options.
Review the Fight Academy ↗Science Fight problems should invite students to observe, measure, explain and challenge a phenomenon. They should not simply demand a textbook definition or an impossible invention.
Why do paper helicopters fall?
Invites a short explanation, but offers little investigative direction.A paper helicopter falls while rotating. Construct paper helicopters and investigate how blade dimensions and added mass affect their descent. Develop a model that explains your observations and its limitations.
Physical investigation · variables · measurements · modelInvestigate how a chosen environmental factor influences germination, using repeated groups and a suitable measure of success. Consider what the evidence cannot establish.
Investigate how a safely chosen variable affects the rate of gas release from an effervescent tablet in water. Model the observed trend and explain controls.
Vary blade geometry and mass, measure descent time across repeated drops and compare with a simplified aerodynamic model.
Choose the criteria your draft genuinely meets. This is a reflective quality check, not an automated scientific certification. A weak criterion tells you what to revise before giving the problem to teams.
Start by checking whether the proposed phenomenon is observable and safe to investigate.
Begin with something observable. Ask teams to investigate how a condition changes it, build an explanation and compare that explanation with evidence. Do not prescribe the whole apparatus or expected answer.
Biology: Compare germination under measurable, safe changes in water availability; use repeats and define what counts as germination.
Chemistry: Investigate a safe effervescence reaction by varying water temperature; measure a rate proxy, and discuss why it is imperfect.
Physics: Change paper-helicopter blade size and attached mass; quantify descent and rotation, then compare with a simplified model.
Final editorial test: Could two well-prepared teams legitimately arrive with different models or methods worth debating?
For safety and fairness, organisers should approve all proposed experiments, materials and venues before releasing a problem. Simulations can complement experiments but are not a substitute for independent evidence.
Choose your format, register teams and jurors, then generate a schedule that checks role rotation, repeated opponents and declared conflicts.
Your choice determines which team affiliations the pairing engine tries to separate. For example, an inter-house tournament should minimise rooms containing teams from the same house. General tournaments do not use affiliation separation.
Upload a CSV or Excel workbook, paste rows, or add teams manually. Team names must be unique. For grouped tournaments, supply a school, house or class for every team.
| Team name | House / group |
|---|
A conflict may apply to individual teams or an entire school, house or class. Jurors are assigned only to eligible rooms. Use the availability field if a juror cannot attend every round.
| Juror name | Conflicting teams | Conflicting groups | Available rounds |
|---|
Use | between multiple team/group names (for example: Team A | Team B). Leave available rounds blank for all rounds, or enter 1|3 for rounds 1 and 3. Conflicts are private and omitted from student schedules.
Role rotation and room sizes are mandatory. The generator then tries to minimise repeated opponents and same-group encounters. Juror conflicts and availability are always enforced; uncovered seats remain visibly unassigned.
Follow the abridged SOFU stage sequence. Record each juror’s independent role grades; the planner averages them before calculating team totals. Nothing is published to the website.
Generate a schedule on Step 04 to begin recording results.
Replacement jurors are checked against availability, same-round assignments and declared conflicts. Same-role room swaps and team substitutions are available before scoring begins. No stored score is transferred to a new team or juror.
Each role is counted once per team. When a room has two jurors, their grades are averaged for each role before adding team totals. Incomplete rooms are never silently converted into zero scores.
Generate a schedule on Step 04, then record grades in Step 05.
The planner handles logistics. The quality of the mock still depends on clear problems, fair jurors, honest data, meaningful experiments and thoughtful scientific discussion.
Open Fight Academy ↗
