**FIRST EMAIL**/2013 Championship Registration/2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadlines/As [Archive]

Mark McLeod

13-09-2012, 15:31

**FIRST EMAIL**/2013 Championship Registration/2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadlines/Ask an Expert Call

Greetings Teams:

2013 Championship Registration: Championship Registration for Pre-Qualifying Teams opens on 10/11/12 at noon EST in TIMS: https://my.usfirst.org/frc/tims/site.lasso. Pre-Qualifying teams are as follows:

Hall of Fame teams
Original and Sustaining teams
2012 Championship Engineering Inspiration Award winner
2012 Einstein teamsNew this season: Open Championship registration has changed to open Championship wait list registration. During this enrollment period, FRC teams will immediately go onto a wait list for the FIRST Championship.

As the number of FRC teams and events continue to grow, the number of merit-based qualifying teams also grows. We can't predict the exact number of slots that will be available to veteran teams through an open registration process, but the number is likely to be small.

We will release FIRST Championship slots to wait listed teams as the season progresses and we become comfortable that all merit-based qualifying teams (teams winning awards at 2013 events that qualify them to go to Championship) are being accommodated.

For more information on Championship registration, including information on wait list registration dates, please visit: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/championship-eligibility-criteria.

As a reminder, initial regional and initial qualifying event registration opens on Thursday, 9/27/12 at noon EST.
2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadlines: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/calendar/.

Ask an Expert Call: Join Senior Mentors Mike Siegel and Mike Henry for the Ask an Expert call "FRC Team Mentor Orientation 101". The call will be taking place on Wednesday, 9/19/12 at 7 pm EST. You can find details on all of this season’s Ask an Expert calls here: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/frc-senior-mentor-teleconference-recordings.

Go Teams!

Alpha Beta

14-09-2012, 14:03

**FIRST EMAIL**/2013 Championship Registration/2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadlines/Ask an Expert Call

We will release FIRST Championship slots to wait listed teams as the season progresses and we become comfortable that all merit-based qualifying teams (teams winning awards at 2013 events that qualify them to go to Championship) are being accommodated.

How is the wait list cleared?

Is it first on first off?
Longest absence from champs goes first?
Merit criteria based on robot performance in season?

I thought it was first on first off, but when 188 and 1732 both made it into Champs off the waitlist at the last minute in 2011 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1054431&postcount=271) I started to wonder if their was some handpicking or if their number just happened to be up. Two great teams for sure.

Does FIRST publish the waitlist or let you know in any way how far down the list you are?

waialua359

14-09-2012, 14:45

BrendanB

14-09-2012, 16:32

FIRST has not published the waitlist the past several years and they have already mentioned that no list will be currently.
Personally, I think they should.
If a larger part of the priority is given to teams that sign up on the waitlist first, it makes sense to show whether you are, for example, #5 on the list vs. #100.

Travel plans and expenses arent something that a team can just whip up and call it a day.

I hope FIRST considers this! That will be a train wreck waiting to happen if teams are notified after week 7 qualifiers register.

If not....

I predict that Championship won't be at max capacity this year.

Mark McLeod

21-09-2012, 16:46

Phyrxes

21-09-2012, 16:51

I think its an interesting idea but wonder what kind of time table you would be under to pull it together.

Akash Rastogi

21-09-2012, 16:53

Laaba 80

21-09-2012, 16:55

What do you think about the adoption of Wild Card Slots for the 2013 FIRST Championship (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Wild-Card-Slots-for-the-2013-FIRST-Championship) for Regional Finalist teams?

That is an awesome change! The only thing I dont like about it is that finalists from the earlier weeks get left out.

IndySam

21-09-2012, 16:56

What do you think about the adoption of Wild Card Slots for the 2013 FIRST Championship (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Wild-Card-Slots-for-the-2013-FIRST-Championship) for Regional Finalist teams?

My response.

I don't like this idea at all. Why is a team who gets one of these slots just because they are lucky enough to be at a regional where there is a duplicate winner deserve the spot any more than a team that wasn't lucky enough to be at a regional with a duplicate winner? This will also favor teams who attend late season regionals.

This will also leave very few spots (if none at all available) for wait listed teams.

Please don't do this. But if you do, at least give the spot to the team who is the highest seed that didn't earn a spot by being lucky enough to win.

XaulZan11

21-09-2012, 17:06

I think it is better than the old system, but still has flaws. Teams that play at earlier regionals are severely disadvantaged, alliance selections may be affected (if teams are smart), and there will be conflicted motives as teams may want to play the tougher, but already qualified, alliances in the finals. Teams may have to choose if they want to put themselves in position to more likely win the event or qualify for the championship. While not as severe, it reminds me a little of the 2010 ranking system.

It is certainly a step in the right direction, but I hope the details alliavate some of my concerns.

Siri

21-09-2012, 17:28

I like the idea, but I don't like the execution much either. First, I agree with IndySam that it has a very weird element of luck to it. (There's always luck, but be-at-this-event luck seems to push it to me.) It also seems to be rather arbitrarily limited: why doesn't it include other pre-qualified teams? What about double qualifiers from the same event: winner winning Chairman's? Or if one of the culture winners qualifies earlier? Someone gets a shot if I (haha) win Chairman's and then an event but not an event and then a Chairman's?

What might be the downsides to taking all/most/some of the double-qual slots and turning them into 1+ at-large wildcard/merit-ranked/lottery bids? Still less room for buy-ins,* but at least it avoids some of the win vs qualify and early vs late event issues.

*I still feel like there must be a better way to do the buy-in thing. Ok, maybe there's a case for the inspiration it can lend to less-winning teams, but shouldn't everyone have to do something? Write an persuasive essay, give a presentation, volunteer/liaison...something? Everyone's got something more than just a fast finger to offer. <<Crazy talk.

Travis Hoffman

21-09-2012, 17:31

I think Canadian teams who attend Waterloo and GTR West are partying tonight. ;)

Gregor

21-09-2012, 18:18

I think Canadian teams who attend Waterloo and GTR West are partying tonight. ;)

:D

BrendanB

21-09-2012, 18:40

Whatever they decide it won't be 100% fair.

Good move FIRST, I support thee as a week one competitor!

waialua359

21-09-2012, 18:55

My response.

I don't like this idea at all. Why is a team who gets one of these slots just because they are lucky enough to be at a regional where there is a duplicate winner deserve the spot any more than a team that wasn't lucky enough to be at a regional with a duplicate winner? This will also favor teams who attend late season regionals.

This will also leave very few spots (if none at all available) for wait listed teams.

Please don't do this. But if you do, at least give the spot to the team who is the highest seed that didn't earn a spot by being lucky enough to win.
You bring up some discussion worthy points.
But we all know the current system isnt fair either.
Why should Hawaii teams who cant log in to sign up for CMP on the waitlist vs. US mainland teams, be penalized to fall further on the waitlist.

In the past, we waited almost 20-30 minutes of constantly trying to sign in to sign up for CMP.

Its definitely a step in the right direction.

Siri

21-09-2012, 19:52

Why should Hawaii teams who cant log in to sign up for CMP on the waitlist vs. US mainland teams, be penalized to fall further on the waitlist.

In the past, we waited almost 20-30 minutes of constantly trying to sign in to sign up for CMP.Honest question: what's the difference between the mainland and OCONUS signups? We've had similar waits for TIMS, and we're in Pennsylvania. I thought it was just a location-independent server overload (or some much more technical term).

Gregor

21-09-2012, 22:26

So lets see if I understand the wildcard slots correctly.

If a team has won RCA, RAS, EI, or the regional at a previous regional, the alliance captain, first pick, and second pick will qualify in that order based on how many teams from the winning alliance have qualified by winning one of the aforementioned awards?*

If a team has pre-qualified in anyway, (i.e. HOF, pre registering), this is not applicable?

Is all this correct?

*that is the run on sentence of run on sentences

Mr. Lim

21-09-2012, 22:34

I think Canadian teams who attend Waterloo and GTR West are partying tonight. ;)

And the ones who were planning on going to GTR-E are reconsidering?

I think there might be some unintended consequences here... I wouldn't want a great event like GTR-E to have difficulty attracting teams because of the Wild Card system.

...BUT overall I definitely think it's a step in the right direction!

Lil' Lavery

21-09-2012, 22:36

The new wild card system is far from being perfectly fair, but show me a system that is fair. I can't believe anyone would actually object to that change, as it's clearly more "fair" (in terms of allocating spots to deserving/succesful teams) than the previous system. I don't see how anyone could argue that it's not an improvement over previous years.

And I'd hardly categorize attending an event where you have to compete against a team good enough to earn multiple bids to championship as "lucky."

That being said, I did propose something similar (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1152976&postcount=49) in another thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105317), but with a caveat.
My thought on that was to draw from teams who attended either event. So, for your example, both the teams at Chesapeake and Connecticut would be eligible to fill 181's extra spot and would be sorted by whatever criteria is selected.

Obviously, this does increase the chances of ties in a point-based system. Additionally, any biasing in the ranking system towards running more qualification matches (FiM/MAR rankings reward 2 points per qualification win) or larger events (FIRST's proposed ranking system would award 50 points to the #1 seed at a 50 team event but only 35 points for a #1 seed at a 35 team event) would have to be considered as well. But I think this is a less fundamentally flawed system than encouraging later season events.

Michael Blake

21-09-2012, 23:34

I've been told by very reliable folks that the District Model is coming here to Texas in the next 2-3 years... and that the number of Texas teams, as it stands now, that will qualify for CHAMPIONSHIP is 16 based upon an accumulation of points...

The TOP 16 Texas point accumulators go to the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!

This new approach, adding teams from the Regional FINALIST pool, seems like a "bridge" to start to laying track for the coming District Model for the rest of FRC FIRST.

IMHO... when the District Model becomes dominant, IRI will rise even further in relevance and prestige... UNLESS Districts are able to build a stable of super-capable teams to feed to CHAMPIONSHIP like they've done in Michigan.

Gregor

21-09-2012, 23:37

IMHO... when the District Model becomes dominant, IRI will rise even further in relevance and prestige... UNLESS Districts are able to build a stable of super-capable teams to feed to CHAMPIONSHIP like they've done in Michigan.

Are you implying that Championships will become weaker due to this system?

Michael Blake

21-09-2012, 23:51

Are you implying that Championships will become weaker due to this system?

SURE...

Use Texas as an example... I'll say that AFTER the Top 8 teams domiciled in Texas (some prominent Texas FIRSTers would argue "Top 6") you get a pretty steep drop in competitive (on the field) capabilities...

SO, being generous with my estimate, in the District Model, you'd have about 8 teams regularly qualifying for CHAMPIONSHIP that probably wouldn't qualify as often as Alliance-WINNERS in the Regional format.

District Model, IMO, broadens the eligibility for CHAMPIONSHIP to LESS competitive (on the field) teams...

Gregor

22-09-2012, 00:04

akoscielski3

22-09-2012, 00:07

I think Canadian teams who attend Waterloo and GTR West are partying tonight. ;)

I am now happy about attending Waterloo and GTR west! :D
But it doesn't matter cause My goal is still to beat 2056. and I would be happier if I won an event to make my way to champs. Rather than going because 2056 already has there slot. Don't get me wrong, I'll take that spot.

I don't know how else they would do it though? Maybe they could keep track of the teams Qualifying points, and the left over spots are given to those teams that have the highest QP's but didn't qualify for champs yet?

Either way, I believe the 2013 Championships will be the most competitive event ever. Maybe even bigger than IRI will be?

Michael Blake

22-09-2012, 00:13

So lets say those same 8 teams went off to win 2-3 more regionals each, and maybe an EI or an RCA along the way. The spot that they took up goes to the waiting list (last year) which has no corolation at all to robot performance. Now when they qualify multiple times, their additional spot(s) goes to a team that is in the position they are from a high performing robot. In Texas, the next 8 teams with the "best" robot will qualify, instead of random teams which could very well be the worst team in Texas.

I fail to see how the wildcards (and disticts) lowers the level of teams competing at championships.

Gregor, you're comparing apples-to-oranges...

Specifically, I was talking about the upcoming Texas District Model... NOT this new "bridge" qualification that is for Regionals.

I fail to see how... (and disticts) lowers the level of teams competing at championships.

In Texas District Model, I think the competitiveness (on the field) of the _second_ batch of 8 teams (out of 16 qualified by points) will be lower than the teams they'll replace from other states that used to qualify for CHAMPIONSHIP as Alliance-WINNERS, and now also Alliance-FINALISTS (if slot[s] available)..."

Again, UNLESS Texas becomes like Michigan District with CRAZY competitive depth in their team pool...

akoscielski3

22-09-2012, 00:18

Note that only performance in the 2013 FRC season is considered in creating and awarding Wild Card slots. Championship status based on pre-qualification (Original and Sustaining Teams, Hall of Fame Teams, 2012 FIRST Championship Winners, etc.) has no bearing on this system.

I am a little confused by this. Does this mean that even though 1114 and 2056 are already going to world championships, that If/When 1114/2056 win at GTR East the Finalists don't get the wild card? Or will the finalists get the wild card still??

Michael Blake

22-09-2012, 00:28

I believe the 2013 Championships will be the most competitive event ever. Maybe even bigger than IRI will be?

I have to AGREE on 2013 CHAMPIONSHIP...

Though, IMO that will change over the years when the District Model rolls across-the-land as the dominant competition format... UNLESS your District is like Michigan.

As for IRI, I don't agree... since I see IRI as a Championship-of-the-CHAMPIONSHIP with 90%+ of the _INVITED_ teams competitive (on the field) enough to make CMP Division Elims (should ALL fall-into-place over 3 days)... and 60%+ competitive enough to make it to Einstein (should ALL fall-into-place over 3 days)...

Mr. Lim

22-09-2012, 00:38

SURE...

Use Texas as an example... I'll say that after the Top 8 teams domiciled in Texas (some prominent Texas FIRSTers would argue "Top 6") you get a pretty steep drop in competitive (on the field) capabilities...

SO, being generous with my estimate, in the District Model, you'd have about 8 teams regularly qualifying for CHAMPIONSHIP that probably wouldn't qualify as often as Alliance-WINNERS in the Regional format.

District Model, IMO, broadens the eligibility for CHAMPIONSHIP to LESS competitive (on the field) teams...

Wow, this is a very different perspective!

I suppose it just goes to show how different the regions of FRC really are. I could throw out 16+ Championship calibre Ontario teams in a heartbeat:

1114, 2056, 188, 610, 3161, 907, 772, 1503, 2852, 1241, 781, 1310, 2200, 2809, 1334, 1075, 2702, 4001... I could go on, and I know I missed some.

I would love for all these teams to compete at World Championship on a regular basis. I genuinely think they'd be very competitive.

By qualifying only Alliance Winners, very few of these teams get a chance to go. Most are not quite good enough to win, but not bad enough to be a 2nd pick.

The district model is something I know a lot of us in Ontario are looking forward to. These Wild Cards are a great step forward, although I'm quite concerned about teams avoiding GTR-East now.

I do have a question though... Under the current qualification system in Texas, don't you feel that many of your current Top 8 (or 6) teams fail to qualify year after year?

EricH

22-09-2012, 00:56

I am a little confused by this. Does this mean that even though 1114 and 2056 are already going to world championships, that If/When 1114/2056 win at GTR East the Finalists don't get the wild card? Or will the finalists get the wild card still??

As I read it, for the wild card to be in play at all, any qualifiers in the winning alliance must have qualified for the 2013 Championship in the calendar year 2013 (this is what is effectively meant by excluding pre-qualifiers). So, if 1114 and 2056 and 4334 team up at GTR East and win the event, with 1 RCA and 1 EI, there will be no wild card unless one of the three has previously won an event or RCA or EI. But, if that same alliance shows up at GTR West, having won GTR East or another regional event, and wins there, then there are three wild cards in play, which can be picked up by the finalist alliance (all three members, then the backup if one of the three has already qualified and a backup is used).

Michael Blake

22-09-2012, 01:18

I do have a question though... Under the current qualification system in Texas, don't you feel that many of your current Top 8 (or 6) teams fail to qualify year after year?

I'm not sure WHAT you're driving at with "many" [failures]?!! I think your premise is wrong...

In Texas, over the last several years... 118 Robonauts, 148 Robowranglers, 624 CRyptonite, and 1477 Texas Torque have dominated as Regional Alliance-WINNERS at Regionals and gone to the CHAMPIONSHIP. SOMETIMES winning multiple Texas Regionals in the same season shutting-out access (via a WIN) to CMP for the 5th-8th best Texas teams... is THIS _any different_ in your Canadian territory?!

MY POINT, in talking specifically about Texas, was that we have a steep drop-off in really competitive (on field) teams after the Top 8... UNLIKE Canada, as you say... ;-)

Michael Blake

22-09-2012, 02:34

***CLARIFICATION***

Mr. Lim... certainly the FRC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP is AWESOME and _desirable_ to compete at, BUT I believe entry should feel-exclusive and be _tough_ to obtain... NO LESS than it is in the 2013 Regional format.

IF in the District model, teams that you say are CMP-caliber but don't normally qualify because they don't WIN their Regionals NOW get to go to CHAMPIONSHIP _regularly_... HOW does that help with the team's development to excellence?!

In the District Model by broadening the amount of teams in a bounded geographic-region that can go to CMP, aren't you LOWERING-the-bar of entry?

HOW does that do any good for students in their quest to problem-solve to excellence/competitiveness... to strive to be #1?!

waialua359

22-09-2012, 02:51

Michael Blake

22-09-2012, 03:02

Geez, with all this talk about district models and how they'll be popping up in more and more regions, that sure leaves the rest of us at greater disadvantage every year.

**We better start doing more than 2-3 regionals per year......otherwise, they'll be none left to compete in away from home, and way less chances to meet/play with other teams and qualify.

You know, Glenn... ANOTHER thing that _kills me_ on this District Model is that ONLY Texas teams are proposed to be able to compete in the Texas District?!

Aloha... hope all is well !! ;-)

ttldomination

22-09-2012, 08:48

In the District Model by broadening the amount of teams in a bounded geographic-region that can go to CMP, aren't you LOWERING-the-bar of entry?

No to the no.

In 2013 there are 4 Texas Regionals, which is a grand total of 16 spots to worlds, pending the same qualification rules for worlds. Assuming that a team manages to grab a couple of those spots, let's assume that the number of teams representing from Texas is roughly 10.

Now, under the pre-district, pre-wildcard system, the 6 open spots go to anyone. Doesn't matter the quality of the team, or the team's robot.

In the wildcard system, the 6 open spots go to members who either played in finals or their backups, which we can say is drastic improvement.

I'm not 100% sure how the district system works, but if you say that the top 16 teams in points go, I still see that as a drastic improvement over the older model.

- Sunny G.

Lil' Lavery

22-09-2012, 10:28

The district model does not lower the bar to entry at Championship. If anything, it raises it.

The amount of qualification spots available to a district is based on the amount of spots available at the regionals encompassed in that district. Michigan had three regionals prior to their district system, and thus was allocated 18 (3 Chairmans, 1 EI, 1 Rookie All-Star, 3 MSC winners, 10 points-based) qualification spots at Championship. MAR had two regionals, and thus was allocated 12 spots (2 Chairmans, 1 EI, 1 Rookie All-Star, 3 MAR Winners, 5 points-based). 16 spots seems low for Texas, given that there are now four Texas regionals (Dallas, Alamo, Lone Star, Lubbock), each qualifying six teams for Championship. If it were based off of the FiM and MAR structure, there should be 24 teams (4 Chairman's, 1 EI, 1 Rookie All-Star, 3 Texas winners, 15 points-based) qualifying out of a Texas district system.

So right off the bat, 16 teams is already more selective to qualify for Championships than Texas would have been. But more to the point, it definitely shifts the competitive spectrum up. Currently multiple winners open spots to the FRC "general population" on the waiting list. That waiting list has no indication of quality, other than the teams on it can afford another event (and thus probably aren't struggling to exist at all). If you were to somehow quantify robot performance (and I'm not going to get into a OPR debate right now), I'd wager that the expected value of a team on the waiting list is lower than the expected value of a team qualifying via the point system (or the wild card system for that matter).
Additionally, currently you're qualifying four winners who were a second round selection at their regionals. These robots are, in large, not on par with the Texas elite teams. You're already opening the door to a number of teams who are lower on the competitive scale. In a district system, only one second round pick qualifies via winning the district championship, and that team is miles ahead of the second round selections who win most regionals. While neither 1640 (2nd round pick MAR) nor 830 (2nd round pick FiM) reached the eliminations at Championship, they posted a combined 12-5 record in their divisions and clearly belonged at the event.
Beyond that, while the amount of Chairman's qualification spots remains the same, the amount of qualifications from Rookie All-Star and Engineering Inspiration decreases. While Rookie All-Star can be impacted by robot performance, EI is not. I'd wager again if you were to take the expected value of robot performance from the additional RAS and EI winners and compare it to the spots garnered by the point system, the point system would be higher.

mwmac

22-09-2012, 10:50

Geez, with all this talk about district models and how they'll be popping up in more and more regions, that sure leaves the rest of us at greater disadvantage every year.

**We better start doing more than 2-3 regionals per year......otherwise, they'll be none left to compete in away from home, and way less chances to meet/play with other teams and qualify.

If, as expected, the district model comes to the west coast soon, you should expect to see YYC (Calgary), SLC (Salt Lake), PHX (Phoenix) and DEN (Denver), on your boarding pass.

Michael Blake

22-09-2012, 12:05

Bongle

22-09-2012, 12:08

The new wild card system is an improvement, but it's only half-fair. Not sure how to make it better though.

An elimination tournament is good at determining who the best competitor is, but is pretty poor at determining who the second-best competitor is. The final pits the winner of the "left" elimination tournament against the winner of the "right" elimination tournament. You can say that the two teams are the best alliances of the "left" and "right" sides, but you can't say that the finalist alliance is better or worse than any of the teams in the winning alliance's branch, since you have never really compared them. In fact, it is possible that all the alliances in the winner's elimination bracket were better than the finalist alliance.

The finalist team can be said to be the best of their branch of the elimination tree, but there's no way of telling if they're better than any of the teams that the regional winners defeated on their way to the final.

So now everyone will really want to be on the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, or 7th alliance I guess :)

Alpha Beta

22-09-2012, 12:36

What do you think about the adoption of Wild Card Slots for the 2013 FIRST Championship (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-Wild-Card-Slots-for-the-2013-FIRST-Championship) for Regional Finalist teams?

I like it. Last year we won two regionals, facing 1208 in the finals of both. They made it to champs on an open registration, but in this system would have earned a wild card spot at the St. Louis regional. A tremendous boost to groups of regionals which have a large number of teams in common.

If a team who wins a Regional in 2013 – in other words, if a team who is a member of the Winning Alliance – has already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013, a ‘Wild Card’ slot is created at the Regional which they just won.

I wish each regional could ensure 6 unique qualifiers, but that is not how Frank's teaser reads on the blog. For example when we won both the regional and EI in Kansas City last year (a week 1 event) it would have been nice to give the wild card to 935, the finalist captain. They later went on to win the Dallas West regional and qualify for champs anyway... but would have then created a wild card opportunity at the Dallas West which would have gone to 2468 I believe.

Wild Card slots are filled in the order of Finalist Alliance Captain, Finalist First Pick, Finalist Second Pick, and Finalist Backup Team. Wild Card slots are passed to the next team in order only if the team occupying that Wild Card slot has, itself, already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013.

Last year a great team could have avoided the coop bridge, affecting the rankings of their partners and opponents, and be content to be another team's top pick. The wildcard system gives preference to the finalist captain over the finalist first pick and could encourage teams to fight more for that captain's spot.

At some regionals the top alliance is considered so dominant that other teams might perceive they are fighting for the finalist captain position, and the wild card spot. This could lead to top 8 teams declining invitations to be someone's top pick if there is likely only one wild card spot up for grabs at a regional instead of two. I'm thinking in particular of the team slated to be the #6 alliance captain refusing the #4.

Looking forward to hearing the details of this system.

PS. It would be interesting to have someone post a list of all the multiple qualifiers from last year and track who the wildcards would have been.

Andrew Lawrence

22-09-2012, 14:21

I'm kinda confused - does this mean my team can still "pre-register" to be on the waiting list for champs?

scottandme

22-09-2012, 15:16

The district model ends up sending higher quality teams to CMP, no question.

As explained earlier - MAR replaced 2 regionals.

Before (PHL and NJ Combined):
2 Chairman's
2 Engineering Inspiration
2 Rookie All Star
6 Winners - (2) alliance captains, (2) 1st round picks, (2) 2nd round picks

After (MAR):
2 Chairman's
1 Engineering Inspiration
1 Rookie All Star
3 Winners - (1) alliance captain, (1) 1st round pick, (1) 2nd round pick
5 Next highest by qualifying points

It's pretty clear that the district model sends a significantly higher quality of team (on-field performance) to CMP. I seem to recall an EWCP cast where someone from the Michigan system said that they designed the system to emphasize on-field performance.

1. There are now fewer spots for RAS and EI. RAS may be a competitive team, but there's no guarantee of that, especially at a Regional with a small pool of rookie teams. EI isn't a robot award, so no guarantee of quality. The RAS from a district of 100 (MAR) or 200 (MI) should be better than one from a regional 1/2 to 1/4 the size.

2. Regional/District winner spots cut in half. Teams qualify to attend the Region Championship, leading to a much more competitive event. The MI and MAR region championships were both significantly more competitive than the next best Regional (higher match scores, higher average OPR, etc). The teams that eventually win this event should be of higher quality than would emerge from a traditional Regional (this year: 341,25,67,469 - enough said). The 2nd round pick robot is much more likely to be competitive as well (24th best robot out of 100-200 teams vs 24th best robot out of 40-60 teams).

3. (5) spots based on seeding points from 2 district events AND the region championship. This ends up being all of the very good teams who weren't lucky enough to win the region championship event (but very likely won a district event).

The district model guarantees 7 excellent robots (2x winners, 5x points), and 1 very good robot (2nd round winner) to championship (8 of the 12 spots). Two traditional regionals only guarantees 4 good to excellent robots going to championship (4 of the 12 spots).

If you want a perfect example, look at 118 this year. They had one of the best robots of the year, yet it took them 3 regional events to earn their bid to championships. If Texas was a district model they would safely qualify every year, either via region championship win or by points.

As far as I see it, the only downside of the district model is not knowing if you qualify until week 7, and the logistical issues that come with that. Flying to CMP is basically out of the question at that point. We would have qualified via points at the MAR championship, but since we won Montreal we had already booked our flights and hotel rooms, and avoided that nightmare.

Sean, THANKS for this excellent explanation... AND it all makes sense to me...

So _you do_ feed to CMP MORE competitive (on the field) teams by reducing the amount of Rookie All Stars and Engineering Inspiration and replacing them with high point accumulators in the District Model.

IF you overlay this model you explained JUST on Texas (assuming the caliber of teams remains pretty-much the same)... won't some Texas teams, maybe a good amount, REGULARLY qualify for CMP in District Model when they don't _regularly_ qualify under the 2005-2012 Regional format?

NOT saying this is good/bad... just trying to understand this quantitatively...

BTW... the 16 teams in the Texas District was told to me months ago before Lubbock was announced, so I think you're right about the increase to 24 teams.

akoscielski3

22-09-2012, 16:08

I'm kinda confused - does this mean my team can still "pre-register" to be on the waiting list for champs?

Yes they can, but the teams will only be offered the chance to go to champs from the wait list AFTER all the competitions are done.

The only way I can see this being better is taking all the empty slots and offering them to the next highest seeding teams in every regional that have not qualified for champs yet. However it would be tough because In what order do you go in for regional's until the rest of the spots are all gone (if that makes sense)?

IndySam

22-09-2012, 17:00

The new wild card system is far from being perfectly fair, but show me a system that is fair. I can't believe anyone would actually object to that change, as it's clearly more "fair" (in terms of allocating spots to deserving/succesful teams) than the previous system. I don't see how anyone could argue that it's not an improvement over previous years.

And I'd hardly categorize attending an event where you have to compete against a team good enough to earn multiple bids to championship as "lucky."

You can't imagine? I know you have a better imagination than that:) Oh and I never use the word fair.

My biggest objection is not to giving those extra spots out on a merit basis it's more about giving it to the runner-up alliance, I just don't think that would be the best way. How are they really anymore deserving of the spot than any other alliance that the regional winner defeated? They just had better timing.

I would much rather see them reward teams that did well during the qualifying part of the tournament. That would at least give some extra emphasis to doing well in qualifying.

Heck I would prefer they eliminate the automatic rookie seeds and give those spots out on a merit basis also.

BrendanB

22-09-2012, 18:56

You can't imagine? I know you have a better imagination than that:) Oh and I never use the word fair.

My biggest objection is not to giving those extra spots out on a merit basis it's more about giving it to the runner-up alliance, I just don't think that would be the best way. How are they really anymore deserving of the spot than any other alliance that the regional winner defeated? They just had better timing.

I would much rather see them reward teams that did well during the qualifying part of the tournament. That would at least give some extra emphasis to doing well in qualifying.

Heck I would prefer they eliminate the automatic rookie seeds and give those spots out on a merit basis also.

I see where you are coming from because we can all look back and say, "Well the finalist at my event wasn't that great", but that doesn't mean they don't deserve to go. Under the old system, teams who had the money had the opportunity to go regardless of their performance on the field. That doesn't make those teams less deserving to go to the Championship. Regardless, making it to the finals is still an achievement we all recognize.

Looking back at GSR over the years here are the finalists.I know GSR is week 1 but its the event I have the most knowledge in so this is mostly fictionary.

2012: 1519, great robot they qualified at their second regional(NCR). 2614 would have received 1519's spot but it would have gone to 1771 due to 2614's win in Pittsburg. 2791 or 885 could have received the slot if 1519 hadn't taken it.
2011: 131, great robot that year.
2010: 1922 was the finalist but won in Boston a few weeks later. I think the slot would have been given to 2648 they have been one of the NE teams that deserves to qualify for CMP. 2648 had a very good machine and an amazing team behind it.
2009: Team 40 would have gotten the slot. Amazing robot that year thankfully they made it in through the waitlist.
2008: 1512 also good. 58 (probably the best non hurdling and non lapbot of 2008) or 1517 would have received it if 1512 had passed.
2007: 1073 also good. 1474 or 501 would have received the slot if 1073 had passed.
2006-past: I remember the players but not who was the captain.

I apoligize for any errors in the above list. A few alliances I am usure who the captain was. The list was based the team who the Wild Card fell on always said yes. It is very cool to see who this would have effected down the road! :]

While the system isn't perfect an underlying theme is that any of GSR's finalists or benefitors had capable robots or great robots that didn't compete at CMP. I do know of other teams that would have benefited from this new system who were great robots that deserved to attend but didn't make it.

In the end, neither system is perfect but this new system attempts to fill slots of pre-qualified robots through other good teams at the same event. Geographically the same number of teams should qualify from each regional under the new system. I think it is great for teams who go into a regional knowing another great team competiting has already qualified and if they win the slot is still available instead of going to the team who clicked submit quicker months earlier.

What is interesting is when it says, "It’s possible for a Wild Card slot to go unused, and unused Wild Card slots will not be replaced or backfilled."

What does this mean? I remember back to the North Carolina Regional in 2010. Of the three event winners (1086, 1902, and 48) 1086 and 1902 had already qualifed along with two of the finalists (1519 and 1772). Already there is an unused Wild Card because no backup bot was used, but if 1741 (the third robot of the finalists alliance) hadn't been able to use their Wild Card slot, would those two slots from NCR 2010 just go mute and not be "replaced or backfilled" by waitlisted teams?

Alpha Beta

22-09-2012, 19:14

PS. It would be interesting to have someone post a list of all the multiple qualifiers from last year and track who the wildcards would have been.

30 Teams were multi-qualifiers for champs in 2012 according to the 1114 database. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2669) 2056 alone qualified 4 times and would have created 3 (edit = 2) wild cards. In total these 30 teams took 69 slots (or in other words an additional 39 slots.)

Not every multi-qualifier would have created a wild card since several people double qualified in their first event. (Maybe the GDC will have those create a wild card as well.) What seems odd at the moment is that a team who double qualifies in their first event and then wins a 2nd event only generates one wild card (1986), while a team who qualifies at an early event and double qualifies at a second event would generate two wild cards (340). Instead of 39 wild cards, this group would have only generated 22. Edit: Ignore the gray. Only 19 wild cards. Still odd that a team who earns RCA at their first regional and is a part of the winning alliance in their second regional generates a wild card, but the reverse order would not.

Below are all the multi-qualifiers.

16 KC (RW), IL (RW), DA (RW)
48 PIT (RW), PIT (RCA), WI (RW)
148 IL (RW), DA (RW)
181 MD (RW), CT (RW)
233 FL (RW), FL (RCA), MA (RW)
234 TN (RW), TN (RCA)
246 MA (RW), MA (RCA)
281 SC (RW), SC (RCA)
340 ROC (RCA), OH (RW), OH (RCA)
359 HI (RW), TX (RW)
384 VA (RW), VA (EI)
971 SAC (RW), SJ (RW)
987 CA (RW), NV (RW)
1114 ON (RW), ON (RCA), WAT (RW)
1311 GA (RCA), NC (RW)
1477 STX (RW), LA (RW), LA (EI)
1507 ROC (RW), OH (RW)
1540 OK (RW), OK (RCA)
1592 FL (RW), SFL (RW)
1714 DMN (RW), DMN (EI)
1717 CA (RW), CAF (RW)
1983 WAS (RW), WAS (RCA)
1985 MO (RW), MO (RCA)
1986 KC (RW), KC (EI), MO (RW)
2046 WA2 (RW), WA2 (RCA)
2056 ON (RW), WAT (RW), WAT (RCA), ON2 (RW)
2169 DMN (RW), DMN (RCA)
3990 QC (RW), QC (RAS)
4001 ON2 (RW), ON2 (RAS)
4226 MN2 (RW), MN2 (RAS)

Now to go figure out who the wildcards would have been.

Patrick Flynn

22-09-2012, 19:54

What seems odd at the moment is that a team who double qualifies in their first event and then wins a 2nd event only generates one wild card (1986), while a team who qualifies at an early event and double qualifies at a second event would generate two wild cards (340). Instead of 39 wild cards, this group would have only generated 22.

It is my understanding that a team like 340 would have only created one wildcard slot, this is because they won both EI and regional win at their second regional after already qualifying at their first regional. And only the RW spot would have become a wild card.
If a team who wins a Regional in 2013 – in other words, if a team who is a member of the Winning Alliance – has already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013, a ‘Wild Card’ slot is created at the Regional which they just won.
It appears that EI and RCA would not create wild card slots even if the teams that are receiving them at their second regional had already qualified. This also means that a team that receives RW, RCA, RW in that order at three different regional would create one wild card slot while a team winning in the order of RCA, RW, RW would create 2.
I believe that this also means that the numbers you provided for total wild card slots should be lower because 2056 and 1114... would only have created 2 wild card slots because you have to exclude their RCA

Alpha Beta

22-09-2012, 20:13

I believe that this also means that the numbers you provided for total wild card slots should be lower because 2056 and 1114... would only have created 2 wild card slots because you have to exclude their RCA

You are more correct. I got stuck somewhere between what I wanted Frank to say, and what he actually said. It looks like there would have only been 19 wild card slots generated, with 16 and 2056 generating 2 each. (1114 would have only generated 1 wild card.)

The RW's in bold below would have generated a wild card under the new guideline.
(Edit: Wild Card berths would have been offered to the teams in blue.)

16 KC (RW), IL (RW) 111, DA (RW)3676
48 PIT (RW), PIT (RCA), WI (RW)2481
148 IL (RW), DA (RW)2948
181 MD (RW), CT (RW)1071
233 FL (RW), FL (RCA), MA (RW) 125 already won NY so it would go to their first pick 2084
234 TN (RW), TN (RCA)
246 MA (RW), MA (RCA)
281 SC (RW), SC (RCA)
340 ROC (RCA), OH (RW)188 was offered 1507's spot, so 1270., OH (RCA)
359 HI (RW), TX (RW) 624 and 1477 already qualified, so their third finalist member 2773 would go.
384 VA (RW), VA (EI)
971 SAC (RW), SJ (RW)1868 won chairman's at SAC, so it would go to 3256.
987 CA (RW), NV (RW) 2485
1114 ON (RW), ON (RCA), WAT (RW) 1503
1311 GA (RCA), NC (RW) 2614 already won Pit, so 1771.
1477 STX (RW), LA (RW) 2992 , LA (EI)
1507 ROC (RW), OH (RW) 188
1540 OK (RW), OK (RCA)
1592 FL (RW), SFL (RW) 1065
1714 DMN (RW), DMN (EI)
1717 CA (RW), CAF (RW) 1323, but also qualified due to EI at same event.
1983 WAS (RW), WAS (RCA)
1985 MO (RW), MO (RCA)
1986 KC (RW), KC (EI), MO (RW) 1208
2046 WA2 (RW), WA2 (RCA)
2056 ON (RW), WAT (RW) 2852, WAT (RCA), ON2 (RW) 3161
2169 DMN (RW), DMN (RCA)
3940 OHC (RW), OHC (RAS) (added in edit)
3990 QC (RW), QC (RAS)
4001 ON2 (RW), ON2 (RAS)
4226 MN2 (RW), MN2 (RAS)

PS. It looks like Dallas East and Waterloo (and Buckeye) would have been the real finds last year with 2 wild card spots generated each.

PPS. Could 111 have declined the wild card berth (since they are a hall of fame team) and would it have passed on to Team Hammond (71) keeping their championship streak alive?

Siri

22-09-2012, 20:25

As far as I can tell, these are the would-be wildcards for each multi-qualifying team.
Letters signify whether they went to Worlds anyway: 9(6) yes, 10(13) no.
Teams in parentheses would have wild-carded if double-qualifying a one event (first or otherwise) would have generated another card (as corrected and discussed above)

16: 111Y, 3676N
48: (2641N), 2481N
148: 2948N
181: 1071Y
233: (180Y), 125Y
234: (2386N)
246: (125Y)
281: (2642Y)
340: 188N, (1551N)
359: 624Y
384: (346N)
971: 1868Y
987: 2034N
1114: (610Y), 1503N
1311: 2614Y
1477: 2992N
1507: 1270N
1540: (2389N)
1592: 79Y
1714: (2052N)
1717: 1323Y
1983: (3663N)
1985: (1288N)
1986: 1208Y
2046: (1510N)
2056: 3161N, (244Y) 2852N
2169: (2220Y)
**3940: (3193N)
3990: (176N)
4001: (2634N)
4226: (3293N)

I haven't checked the second-tier rundown (i.e. if the the pre-qualification of these wildcards would have wild-card qualified someone else later). The most striking thing about this list to me though, is that many multi-qualifiers actually didn't generate extra spots (or at least as many as they should). I think it's 19 and 19? The wildcard system would have sent 10 more teams to World last year, but omitted 13 simply because the teams that beat them did it at one event instead of two or their first event instead of their second.

IndySam

22-09-2012, 20:29

you guys mean 3940.

Siri

22-09-2012, 20:34

you guys mean 3940.For some bizarre reason, QC* is Montreal and OHC is Queen City. In reality we missed 3940 at Queen City.

3940: OHC (RW), OHC (RAS)
3990: QC (RW), QC (RAS)

Fixed.

*Ok, not bizarre per say, but still. :P (MTL and QC probably would have been less confusing.)

smistthegreat

22-09-2012, 20:37

PS. It looks like Dallas East and Waterloo would have been the real finds last year with 2 wild card spots generated each.

Buckeye also would have provided 2 wild card spots, as RWs 1507 and 340 both qualified earlier at FLR (RW and RCA, respectively).

Karthik

22-09-2012, 20:47

Now to go figure out who the wildcards would have been.

Sure, why not.

From the original list, posted by Alpha Beta, I've removed all the teams who double qualified at the same event, and did not qualify again. Next, I eliminated the initial qualifying instance of each team. That leaves us with 17 teams generating 19 potential wild card spots. From here I sorted these potential spots by the week that the regional occurred at, to make sure we capture any new wildcard spots generated by wildcard spots created earlier in the season. An extra wild card spot was created by 111 earning a wild card at Midwest, and then going on to win Minnesota North Star. The final results are below, with a list of the 20 wild cards, along with when, where and who they were generated by.

Some immediate observations:
- Only one wild card spot was created prior to week 4
- Wild card spots went to non alliance captains 6/20 times, with a 2nd pick earning one just once.
- The 111 situation is a bit odd, since they're a pre-qualified Hall of Fame team, yet they can still generate a wild card spot by being a wild card, even though they don't need a wild card. It works based on what we know of the rules, but it's definitely counter-intuitive

Team Event Week WC
1477 LA 3 2992
16 IL 4 111
233 MA 4 78 (1st pick), 125 bypassed -- already qualified
1986 MO 4 1208
340 OH 4 188
1507 OH 4 1551 (1st pick)
1114 WAT 4 1503
2056 WAT 4 2852
48 WI 4 2481
181 CT 5 1071
16 DA 5 3676
148 DA 5 2948 (1st pick)
111* MN2 5 3293
2056 ON2 5 3161
1592 SFL 5 79
971 SJ 5 3256 (1st pick), 1868 bypassed -- already qualified
1717 CAF 6 1323
1311 NC 6 1771 (1st pick), 2614 bypassed -- already qualified
987 NV 6 2034
359 TX 6 2773 (2nd pick), 624 & 1447 bypassed -- already qualified

Alpha Beta

22-09-2012, 21:09

LOL... It looks like several of us were editing / working on the 2012 retroactive wild card teams at the same time...

EricH

22-09-2012, 21:46

PPS. Could 111 have declined the wild card berth (since they are a hall of fame team) and would it have passed on to Team Hammond (71) keeping their championship streak alive?
No. Under the Wild Card rules...

Wild Card slots are passed to the next team in order only if the team occupying that Wild Card slot has, itself, already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013. (emphasis mine)

So, 111 could have declined the wild card berth, but at that point it would have become unused/unusable.

BrendanB

22-09-2012, 22:48

So based on this year the Wild Card wouldn't have made much of a difference and with more regions moving to the district system it will be used less and less.

So waitlisted teams will still be used a lot for RCA, HOF, and Original teams when they qualify for CMP through awards and winning events.

Lil' Lavery

22-09-2012, 23:39

BTW... the 16 teams in the Texas District was told to me months ago before Lubbock was announced, so I think you're right about the increase to 24 teams.
Texas still had four regionals last year, with both Dallas East and Dallas West.

You can't imagine? I know you have a better imagination than that:) Oh and I never use the word fair.
I have quite an imagination, but with that imagination I can also imagine the gripes and objections that can be created to any system put in place.

My biggest objection is not to giving those extra spots out on a merit basis it's more about giving it to the runner-up alliance, I just don't think that would be the best way. How are they really anymore deserving of the spot than any other alliance that the regional winner defeated? They just had better timing.

I would much rather see them reward teams that did well during the qualifying part of the tournament. That would at least give some extra emphasis to doing well in qualifying.
If you're going to make that argument, you should probably disclose that 829 was the #1 seed at two events last year, but didn't reach the finals at either event. You pretty clearly have circumstances that would impact your opinion on this matter. It's only natural you would favor a system that rewards qualification success.

I can see and understand the logic behind that argument, but why is that any better of a system than finalists? Basing championship qualification off of a series of matches played with random partners and against random opponents? Hardly any less based on luck than where you fall in the elimination bracket.

And of course the finalists are more deserving than the other teams the winning alliance defeated. Are they "better" than the other alliances? Not automatically. But they are certainly more deserving. They defeated two opposing alliances in the elimination tournament. They won their matches. The same can't be said of alliances that fell in the quarter or semi-finals.

Michael Blake

23-09-2012, 00:34

Texas still had four regionals last year, with both Dallas East and Dallas West.

Yep... but I got the 16 slots number from someone pretty-high in the FIRST hierarchy... that's all I know regarding proposed in Texas.

Michael Blake

23-09-2012, 01:32

Some immediate observations:
- Only one wild card spot was created prior to week 4
- Wild card spots went to non alliance captains 6/20 times, with a 2nd pick earning one just once.
- The 111 situation is a bit odd, since they're a pre-qualified Hall of Fame team, yet they can still generate a wild card spot by being a wild card, even though they don't need a wild card. It works based on what we know of the rules, but it's definitely counter-intuitive

Hey Karthik! ;-)

Since I'm STILL relatively new and trying to decipher the-lay-of-the-land I could use some help... is it your conclusion that the 2013 eligibility criteria will INCREASE the overall competitiveness (on the field) at CMP by displacing the teams who have in the past used the wait-list to garner a spot?

Also, could you weigh-in on the District Model as if it was deployed several years from now and is the _dominate_ format nationwide... as to whether the overall competitiveness (on the field) at CHAMPIONSHIP would be HIGHER compared to the 2013 Regional rules that feed teams to CMP?

I can't get anybody who's defended/promoted the District Model here to overlay it on Texas and weigh-in on my question... so, I'm giving up on that discussion...

I guess what I'm concerned about, with the District Model, is LOSING the _height_ of the mountain that a non-current powerhouse team has to climb here in Texas to be Regional-WINNERS.

We have 4-5 elite/powerhouse teams that have dominated the Texas Regionals (field performance) for 4-5 years and I am JAZZED by the _enormity_ of the challenge to problem-solve our way to ONE or TWO WINS where we're up against/with these exemplar Texas teams... I DO NOT want it to be easier to qualify for CHAMPIONSHIP, I want that bar to be HIGH... and I want the Bronc Botz to _strive_ for the reward of a CMP slot year-after-year...

I just think that attitude/approach makes for a better team AND a better environment to expose teens to in order to help shape/prepare them for the _real world_. PLUS, it puts trophies in the case _and_ BLUE BANNERS on the wall... ;-)

REAL WORLD = TOP PERFORMANCE... otherwise, get used to Ramen Noodles dinner or living in your childhood bedroom.

Aren Siekmeier

23-09-2012, 02:10

I can't get anybody who's defended/promoted the District Model here to overlay it on Texas and weigh-in on my question... so, I'm giving up on that discussion...

Not sure if I'm one to take heed of, but I have no doubts that a District model implemented anywhere with sufficient density will do nothing but raise the bar for those going on to the Championship. Yes, District wins will be easier in Texas than Regional wins once were, but rightly so with the teams more spread out among events, and the idea is that the District events are at a lower level, so to speak. To move on to the World Championship, you still have to compete and do very well at the State/Region Championship (in this case the Texas State Championship), and it seems unambiguous to me that this would be much more difficult than advancing from one of the former Texas Regionals, since you now have all 4-5 of the powerhouses you mentioned and many other competitive teams who have made it through the district selection at the same event (rarely the case with the current model).

I think this has been explained already, and it sounds like you are afraid that the talent distribution in Texas drops off too fast for the above (maintained by high caliber out of state teams gracing you with their presence) to work. However, I also posit that the district model works wonders to raise the bar for everyone by encouraging more involvement and commitment via 2+ events. The teams have to come back and do it again, so they start seeing they need to continue to improve to have any shot, they can't just drop it until next year after the first event. It also builds community and a competitive spirit between teams seeing each other more at different events.

I myself am eager for Minnesota or some equivalent region to move over to this model, since we are quickly reaching a so-called "critical mass" (more like density) that makes the District system very appealing (for many other reasons as well). The exclusion of outside teams, however, is one feature I find very undesirable and that I hope will change.

As for the change at hand for the Regional model everywhere, I was wary when I first heard, but I'm liking it more and more. There are going to be issues, but this HAS to be better than filling those spots off the waitlist, right? (If you are mostly concerned with the level of competition at and the meaningfulness of getting to the championship event, which it seems we all are. Some might argue for the old waitlisting as a way for lower caliber teams to still get students inspired and pick themselves up by seeing the caliber of Champs every once in a while, but I suggest that the district model does this very well.)

PayneTrain

23-09-2012, 02:54

The primary motivation behind the district system was cutting the massive overhead of running three regionals in Michigan and instead truly operate only one regional and now 10 events that as a whole cost less than a regional and now supports nearly 200 teams... 200 mind-blowingly competitive teams chomping at the bit for the last four seasons.

Now the increased quality of the FRC product is being matched with the lower costs in MAR, and HINT HINT other states and regions will probably throwing their hat into the ring by the next season HINT HINT.

I have discussed this before at length, and barring an unfortunate missing external HDD and college coursework beating me down, I would have even more to talk about with respect to districts. This move by FIRST was not only to eliminate what I call the "Fastest Finger" competition for leftover CMP spots, but positions the league to move a qualification only via district->regional/"destination regional" tournaments within the next few years (I hope/think).

Ideally I think we could do something like this:

CMP representation would not be dissimilar to congressional representation, where a competing state/province/region of states/provinces are given the "standard six" spots guaranteed and the rest distributed based on team population. Under this format, the Michigan State Championship would ideally generate 26 at-large bids on top of the "standard six". I guess FIRST would not be too picky and would allow MSC to distribute the 26 spots however they choose: go down the final standings and pick the top 26, pick multiple SCA/EI/RAS awards, give a spot to everyone in elimination play, or whatever.
If the state of Virginia were to possibly go to a district system in 2014 for who knows why and this distribution system were used, VA would 6 spots on top of the standard six.

There are so many ways FIRST could navigate CMP to a purely-qualified-only event that I can't coherently spell out at 3am, but I do love the district system and what it could bring to the sport so I am always eager to talk about it (especially with people working for VirginiaFIRST) so it can be difficult to shut me up from espousing its benefits and necessity in what we will look back as the pre-district era instead of the modern era.

dellagd

23-09-2012, 03:32

Regardless, It generates more spots for Champs that is actually based on performance, So I think its a good thing.

IndySam

23-09-2012, 09:17

If you're going to make that argument, you should probably disclose that 829 was the #1 seed at two events last year, but didn't reach the finals at either event. You pretty clearly have circumstances that would impact your opinion on this matter. It's only natural you would favor a system that rewards qualification success.

Yes, 829 was a #1 and #2 seed but would not have received a wild card in either instance had the top unqualified seed been given a spot last year.

IKE

23-09-2012, 09:38

Sure, why not.

....snip....
Some immediate observations:
- Only one wild card spot was created prior to week 4
- Wild card spots went to non alliance captains 6/20 times, with a 2nd pick earning one just once.
...snip...
Great analysis.
It would seem that later season events would give you a slight edge as the event winner could be a multiple which would give you some additional chances of making it to the championship. While that additional slot may not seem like much, for a non-rookie team, it is essentially an additional 1 slot compared to the 5 non-rookies can compete for or a 20% advantage. For 6/20, it would be 2 additional slots relative to the 5 you can compete for or a 40% bump...

There are some teams that from the outside appear to strategically approach early season events. I wonder if now they will instead take on late season events as several of those late season events now have essentially an additional slot.

PayneTrain

23-09-2012, 10:26

2012: 1519, great robot they qualified at their second regional(NCR). 2614 would have received 1519's spot but it would have gone to 1771 due to 2614's win in Pittsburg. 2791 or 885 could have received the slot if 1519 hadn't taken it.

Can anyone see a bunch of teams left out in the cold try to jump on Chesapeake for a last chance regional situation? I think having MAR and MSC the same weekend diminishes that, but cash-rich teams in the northeast or deep south trying to put a quality robot in CMP could sneak into Baltimore.

2614 also won the RCA in North Carolina. Why couldn't FIRST retroactively reward a Wild Card to a team in Pittsburgh because of this? This could all become very confusing endeavor to understand. VAR was weaker than the tea they serve in the college cafeteria last year, but 384's EI and tournament wins would have allowed the alliance captain 346, one of three robots that kept the regional OPR average from flatlining, got left out in the cold and fell to like, 30th in the highly competitive DCR. I do support the idea of wild cards, and as I hinted earlier, this is a step in the right and expected direction.

Is the Wild Card system the one FRC deserves, or just the one it needs right now?

BrendanB

23-09-2012, 11:47

Can anyone see a bunch of teams left out in the cold try to jump on Chesapeake for a last chance regional situation? I think having MAR and MSC the same weekend diminishes that, but cash-rich teams in the northeast or deep south trying to put a quality robot in CMP could sneak into Baltimore.

2614 also won the RCA in North Carolina. Why couldn't FIRST retroactively reward a Wild Card to a team in Pittsburgh because of this? This could all become very confusing endeavor to understand. VAR was weaker than the tea they serve in the college cafeteria last year, but 384's EI and tournament wins would have allowed the alliance captain 346, one of three robots that kept the regional OPR average from flatlining, got left out in the cold and fell to like, 30th in the highly competitive DCR. I do support the idea of wild cards, and as I hinted earlier, this is a step in the right and expected direction.

Is the Wild Card system the one FRC deserves, or just the one it needs right now?It is a gamble to register for an event with the goal of getting a wild card slot. It is a risk i wouldnt take and I doubt most teams will take because it is dependent on your competitors success months down the road.

Based on Karthik's information this isn't a game changer. I see this as FIRST moving away from the waitlist.

Mr. Lim

23-09-2012, 12:56

In Texas, over the last several years... 118 Robonauts, 148 Robowranglers, 624 CRyptonite, and 1477 Texas Torque have dominated as Regional Alliance-WINNERS at Regionals and gone to the CHAMPIONSHIP. SOMETIMES winning multiple Texas Regionals in the same season shutting-out access (via a WIN) to CMP for the 5th-8th best Texas teams... is THIS _any different_ in your Canadian territory?!

No, but it is very different than the District Model, where 5th-8th are punching their tickets to CMP... even if they don't outright win a competition.

That aspect alone increases the competitiveness of the Texas teams sent to CMP. A group that includes the 5th to 8th best teams is more competitive than one that includes the 24th to 27th best instead.

Whether you think this is better (philosophically) for your region, is subject to debate.

There is merit to giving your region's weaker teams the opportunity to go to CMP, but with CMP slots becoming a rarer commodity, someone is going to be left out.

Michael Blake

23-09-2012, 13:16

That aspect alone increases the competitiveness of the Texas teams sent to CMP. A group that includes the 5th to 8th best teams is more competitive than one that includes the 24th to 27th best instead.

This is true... and I'm factoring that more into my thinking on this...

There is merit to giving your region's weaker teams the opportunity to go to CMP, but with CMP slots becoming a rarer commodity, someone is going to be left out.

THIS is true too, as my own team greatly benefited from being the 24th robot in our rookie debut in 2011 going on to WIN with 16 Bomb Squad and 148 Robowranglers... I don't think our present trajectory would be as steep if we didn't get the opportunity to experience the "rush" of the Regional-WIN and then the awesomeness of CHAMPIONSHIP competition...

I think I'm warming-up to this District Model thingy...

Gregor

23-09-2012, 13:50

It is a gamble to register for an event with the goal of getting a wild card slot. It is a risk i wouldnt take and I doubt most teams will take because it is dependent on your competitors success months down the road.

Based on Karthik's information this isn't a game changer. I see this as FIRST moving away from the waitlist.

Maybe you wouldn't register at one event to try and get the wildcard spot, but I can see teams NOT registering at a different event because there is no chance of a wildcard slot.

EricH

23-09-2012, 17:32

Is the Wild Card system the one FRC deserves, or just the one it needs right now?

I think it's the one it needs right now. Here's why:

Back in 2009, the wild card was implemented in Michigan's district system--but it wasn't called that. It was more of: "Michigan gets 18 slots at Championship. They will fill them with their state winners, RCA, EI, RAS, and enough other teams from the top of their state rankings to fill out 18 slots." In 2012, MAR got the same scenario: 12 slots to fill with their top teams.

As districts expand to more areas (and the rumblings are that there will be at least 2 if not more new district areas in 2014), this system will be going into place in more and more places. The Wild Card is going to prepare teams for this transition. Once FRC is entirely districted, the Wild Card will probably disappear.

The other thing it does is eliminate one of the "favorite" CD discussions that happens every few years about how multi-event teams aren't being fair because they go to multiple events and take slots away from teams in a region that should really go because... If it's a later-season event, then there is definitely a chance that the wild card will be in play, and a reasonable chance that it is used.

Siri

23-09-2012, 20:29

The other thing it does is eliminate one of the "favorite" CD discussions that happens every few years about how multi-event teams aren't being fair because they go to multiple events and take slots away from teams in a region that should really go because... If it's a later-season event, then there is definitely a chance that the wild card will be in play, and a reasonable chance that it is used.I think this is still my main question about the system: why is it (seemingly arbitrarily) limited to such specific cases, and why does it so heavily favor later events, or setups in which winning teams happen to win RCA/EI/RAS and then RW but not vice-versa? Transparency would be really great here, IMO.

PayneTrain

23-09-2012, 22:46

I think it's the one it needs right now. Here's why:

Back in 2009, the wild card was implemented in Michigan's district system--but it wasn't called that. It was more of: "Michigan gets 18 slots at Championship. They will fill them with their state winners, RCA, EI, RAS, and enough other teams from the top of their state rankings to fill out 18 slots." In 2012, MAR got the same scenario: 12 slots to fill with their top teams.

As districts expand to more areas (and the rumblings are that there will be at least 2 if not more new district areas in 2014), this system will be going into place in more and more places. The Wild Card is going to prepare teams for this transition. Once FRC is entirely districted, the Wild Card will probably disappear.

The other thing it does is eliminate one of the "favorite" CD discussions that happens every few years about how multi-event teams aren't being fair because they go to multiple events and take slots away from teams in a region that should really go because... If it's a later-season event, then there is definitely a chance that the wild card will be in play, and a reasonable chance that it is used.

The Wild Card would not necessarily disappear, I believe, but will evolve into an at large pool in conjunction with the evolution of CMP to qualify-only and the evolution of traditional regional competitions to state/super-regional multi-competition structures.

In the post before my Dark Knight reference, I talked about for the nth time about the structure I find ideal for this utopia where the rivers flow golden with district events and empty into a tranquil sea of merit-only slots for CMP.

If by preparing you mean "making teams realize the added stress on merit qualification and not fastest-finger qualification will stick around" and by "go away" will evolve into the at large pools we see in MAR and FiM, then we're on the same page.

And I guess with the Wild Card idea afoot now CD can only deal with people making 10 threads about the remaining topics of: mentor-built robots, adults on the drive team, elitism in FIRST, the GDC didn't think ______ through and now we might as well dissolve as a team, and all the other topics that fill me with all kinds of ::ouch:: ... :D

I think this is still my main question about the system: why is it (seemingly arbitrarily) limited to such specific cases, and why does it so heavily favor later events, or setups in which winning teams happen to win RCA/EI/RAS and then RW but not vice-versa? Transparency would be really great here, IMO.

I fear we won't even sniff a deeper answer until kickoff when the manuals are published.

EricH

23-09-2012, 23:29

If by preparing you mean "making teams realize the added stress on merit qualification and not fastest-finger qualification will stick around" and by "go away" will evolve into the at large pools we see in MAR and FiM, then we're on the same page.
That's what I was getting at. There will be more wild cards in future--but they will be the district qualification pools when the transition is complete.

Alpha Beta

25-09-2012, 09:12

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-09-24-12

FRC Blogged - Wild Card Slots II and Ask and Expert Call Postponed

Blog Date:
Monday, September 24, 2012 - 14:57
Wild Card Slots II

My post Friday generated a relatively large number of comments. Rather than answer them individually, let me provide a little more insight here.

The purpose of the new system is to provide broader distribution of merit-based slots in situations where single teams win more than one Championship qualifying award over the course of several Regionals.

With the limited number of slots we have for Championship, we had to make some difficult decisions regarding how many specific situations we could cover while still notifying teams quickly of their eligibility for a slot and ensuring we could keep the team count to 400. Reasonable people can disagree about whether or not we covered all the right situations, or if we should be trading waitlist slots for merit-based slots, or if this provides appropriate consideration to teams attending earlier regionals, but I see this as a step in the right direction starting where we are, right now.

Also, let me put what I said in the earlier blog regarding pre-qualified teams in another way. Pre-qualified teams, by definition, have qualified for Championship before the season has started. There is no case in which qualifying for Championship before the 2013 season starts has any effect on this system. So, if you have a question in your mind that starts ‘For Wild Card slots, what if a pre-qualified team….’, stop, and tell your mind that pre-qualification, with respect to this system, has no relevance. Only performance within the season itself matters.

In addition, as noted in my blog, District teams are eligible for Wild Card slots when they go to traditional Regionals, just like everyone else is. Finally, teams given Wild Card slots will have the same shipping rules and privileges as all other teams going to Championship.