View Full Version : New Championship Layout 2015
Justin Montois
25-04-2014, 10:10
FIRST just announced that the 2015 FIRST Championship in St. Louis will take place in 3 venues. FLL & FTC will be in different venues while FRC will remain in the Edward Jones Dome and Convention Center.
I think it's a big change that could be a sign that the FRC Championship will be bigger next year. 6 fields? 600 teams?
I'm interested in what people think about this change.
Be prepared for 8 divisions next year. This move by FIRST is massive.
Steven Donow
25-04-2014, 10:12
Playing field will be double the size. Gotta have room for the splashes of the water.
/sarcasm
But in all seriouness this is crazy. Good crazy. Interesting how it seems like this means the field of teams will be bigger when it seems like FIRST has been trying to downsize Champs...
I hope that having dedicated venues means that FLL and FTC will have their championships grow as well. Both, FLL especially, have had a criminally low number of championship teams given the size of the programs.
I believe it's FLL in the Renaissance Grand, with JrFLL and FTC at Union Station. The latter venue seems a bit far, doesn't it?
If they want to use the entire America's Center for FRC, I think there's one big implication: 8 fields (either 2 per division or 8 divisions). Which is an awesome idea. We get to expand AND increase matches/team.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. St Louis does not seem to have the infrastructure to support another 200 teams.
It also seems questionable whether there are another 200 teams that deserve to be at Champs.
Justin Montois
25-04-2014, 10:18
I believe it's FLL in the Renaissance Grand, with JrFLL and FTC at Union Station. The latter venue seems a bit far, doesn't it?
If they want to use the entire America's Center for FRC, I think there's one big implication: 8 fields (either 2 per division or 8 divisions). Which is an awesome idea. We get to expand AND increase matches/team.
I love the thought of 2 fields for each division. That would be awesome. I hope you're right!
I love the thought of 2 fields for each division. That would be awesome. I hope you're right!
You really want to have to scout 2 different fields at one competition?
Justin Montois
25-04-2014, 10:22
You really want to have to scout 2 different fields at one competition?
As long as the fields aren't too far apart, it might not be too bad. A pain, yes, but I'm all about more matches.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. St Louis does not seem to have the infrastructure to support another 200 teams.
It also seems questionable whether there are another 200 teams that deserve to be at Champs.
If I were FIRST, I'd go to 8 divisions of 60 teams. 80 more teams means Championship won't overflow (which it was probably going to). Fewer teams per division means there'll be easily 12+ matches/team.
If I were FIRST, I'd go to 8 divisions of 60 teams. 80 more teams means Championship won't overflow (which it was probably going to). Fewer teams per division means there'll be easily 12+ matches/team.
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
And Justin, I dont think the EJD can handle 8 full FRC fields. Can it?
If I'm not mistaken, this is what the footprint layout will look like. The yellow line is about 1 mile, as-the-crow-flies from the entrance to the Dome to Union Station.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/img/752/7523f8ea19116249cbd477862862bf79_l.jpg
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
And Justin, I dont think the EJD can handle 8 full FRC fields. Can it?
It can house ~10 FRC size fields around the perimeter the floor (assuming 40x80 allotments). The problem is noise pollution from adjacent fields, as they're pretty close together.
Personally, I think 4x doublefield divisions are more likely than 8x singlefield.
Using doublefield divisions reduces the noise pollution issue (since 2 fields share a common audio feed), doesn't add a round to Einstein (which is already pinched for time), doesn't need as many volunteers as 8 divisions (but DOES need *some* more than 4x singlefield).
Additionally, doublefield divisions have much higher match throughput. 8x singlefield gives more matches/team by reducing the number of teams playing in a division. 4x doublefield improves utilization.
Also: I don't understand why people say scouting a doublefield division is too difficult. The fields are adjacent to one another, you can sit centrally and watch both. In 2004 and 2006 the Canadian/Toronto regional did exactly this, and it worked just fine. They played with 12 and 16 Elims alliances too.
It can house ~10 FRC size fields around the perimeter the floor (assuming 40x80 allotments). The problem is noise pollution from adjacent fields, as they're pretty close together.
Eh, I don't know about 10 fields...I don't even know about 8. Chief Dephi users have argued about this in the past:
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1374155_10152227807456102_1213643150_n.jpg
(Image credit: Patrick Flynn)
Using doublefield divisions reduces the noise pollution issue (since 2 fields share a common audio feed), doesn't add a round to Einstein (which is already pinched for time), doesn't need as many volunteers as 8 divisions (but DOES need *some* more than 4x singlefield).
Are you expecting the FTAs, Refs, Field Reset, Game Announcers, Emcees, and Queuing Volunteers to constantly run between the two fields?
Additionally, doublefield divisions have much higher match throughput. 8x singlefield gives more matches/team by reducing the number of teams playing in a division. 4x doublefield improves utilization.
If a single field has one division of 120 teams with 10 matches each, and a double field has two divisions of 60 teams each with 10 matches each, wouldn't it still result in the same amount of matches played per team? A doublefield may decrease the wasted time between matches though, which could increase the total number of matches player per team.
Also: I don't understand why people say scouting a doublefield division is too difficult. The fields are adjacent to one another, you can sit centrally and watch both. In 2004 and 2006 the Canadian/Toronto regional did exactly this, and it worked just fine. They played with 12 and 16 Elims alliances too.
The 2006 Greater Toronto Regional only had 72 teams total, while having a doublefield division at Champs could be almost double that. Seating is already cramped as it is with 100 teams per division. I don't see having two fields with 150 teams total cramped together working out. Only a small majority would be able to actually sit centrally to both fields, most spectators will probably be towards the end of one of the two fields.
Eh, I don't know about 10 fields...I don't even know about 8. Chief Dephi users have argued about this in the past:
https://scontent-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/1374155_10152227807456102_1213643150_n.jpg
(Image credit: Patrick Flynn)
Depends entirely on how much space you allot per field. Double field divisions allow you to put them a bit closer together.
I calculated several years ago (2011 IIRC) that you can fit 10 FRC fields (I think I calculated on 40'x70' plots), on an NFL Football field. Both Georgia Dome and EJD have floors considerably larger than an NFL field (EJD is bigger).
Are you expecting the FTAs, Refs, Field Reset, Game Announcers, Emcees, and Queuing Volunteers to constantly run between the two fields?
IIRC, when it was done in Toronto (in 2004, 2006, and to a lesser extent 2011), you needed less than two regionals worth of nearly every volunteer type.
Instead of doubling the number, you increase it by some (say, 30-50%), and give the people (who will be working harder due to the non-stop nature of a double field event) more breaks more often.
Remember: We're getting a new control system (and likely upgraded/new FMS to go with it). There is no reason that it couldn't be designed to support 2 sets of field hardware from a single scorpion-case-replacement.
If a single field has one division of 120 teams with 10 matches each, and a double field has two divisions of 60 teams each with 10 matches each, wouldn't it still result in the same amount of matches played per team? A doublefield may decrease the wasted time between matches though, which could increase the total number of matches player per team.
That's exactly what I was getting at. The time that field reset is doing their job is wasted for teams. Double field divisions significantly reduce that. 2x Single Field Divisions to replace one singlefield division will give twice the matches in the same time, sure. But it does so at the cost of doubling ALL of the field equipment PLUS all of the volunteers.
Doublefield divisions don't need to double SOME of the field equipment (mostly the computers) and don't need to double the volunteers, just increase it some. They don't generate quite 2x the throughput though. They get maybe ~85-90% of the way.
I worked out last year, that each of our four divisions could go up to 140 teams/division, 12 matches per team by doublefielding the divisions, without extending the schedule at all. Additionally, doublefield divisions allow you to run a 16-alliance elimination bracket in approximately the same time frame, which gets more teams into CMP elims.
The 2006 Greater Toronto Regional only had 72 teams total, while having a doublefield division at Champs could be almost double that. Seating is already cramped as it is with 100 teams per division. I don't see having two fields with 150 teams total cramped together working out. Only a small majority would be able to actually sit centrally to both fields, most spectators will probably be towards the end of one of the two fields.
While I agree seating is a bit of a challenge, you're comparing seating 140-150 teams to watch two fields, regardless of whether its 2 divisions or 1. Most spectators are not scouts, and thus aren't as picky about vantage point.
Toronto used to be played in an OHL Hockey Arena (Hershey Centre) with 5,500 seats. From what I recall, there were plenty of open seats still. EJD seats 66,000. (AFAIK, we stick mostly to the 1xx series sections, which represent maybe 40% of EJD's total, still ~6x bigger than Hershey Centre for an event a little over 4x the size).
cadandcookies
25-04-2014, 13:02
I'm more curious about how the extra teams will be chosen. More than six qualifying awards? Just more wildcards? Quantity of regionals increasing that much?
Very much looking forward to it. I'm sure we'll hear more once plans are solidified. I wouldn't be surprised if FIRST was still deciding what the setup will be. I'll have to wait until we get more detailed plans, but on paper this looks like a seriously good thing for the program.
I'm also curious about how much FLL/FTC visiting will be eliminated by this change. One of the cool things about Champs has been being able to visit teams from the other programs. I'm guessing separate venues will severely reduce that.
I'm more curious about how the extra teams will be chosen. More than six qualifying awards? Just more wildcards? Quantity of regionals increasing that much?
Very much looking forward to it. I'm sure we'll hear more once plans are solidified. I wouldn't be surprised if FIRST was still deciding what the setup will be. I'll have to wait until we get more detailed plans, but on paper this looks like a seriously good thing for the program.
I'm also curious about how much FLL/FTC visiting will be eliminated by this change. One of the cool things about Champs has been being able to visit teams from the other programs. I'm guessing separate venues will severely reduce that.
The 2014 regionals/districts combined were already sending >400 teams.
Several new regionals are coming online each year.
As more district regions come online, you can dial up or down the amount of teams sent to CMP based on team density and available space at CMP easily. Plus in the early years of increased capacity, you simply go to the waitlist again.
DonRotolo
25-04-2014, 16:51
I believe it's FLL in the Renaissance Grand, with JrFLL and FTC at Union Station. The latter venue seems a bit far, doesn't it?There's a convenient train system that takes a total of 2 blocks walking - a station at EJD and (of course) Union Station.
2 fields per division? Really? Why not just 8 divisions? :confused:
As for 8 (or 9) fields on the floor, no problem. Plenty of room.
Or maybe smaller fields...:ahh:
2 fields per division? Really? Why not just 8 divisions? :confused:
Wouldn't it be nice to have 8 alliances on Einstein? It would be more of a traditional elimination, with a standard schedule (no need for a mandatory 6 minute timeout between matches).
I'm gonna be that guy to interject for a moment and say, just because they're moving the other programs to other venues, doesn't mean FRC is expanding.
A. In terms of in the Dome, we're only really losing FTC, so space doesn't become that available. Einstein will still have to be there. Yes we could physically fit in more, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want too. Noise pollution, and just the feeling of being butted up against another field would detract from the experience.
B. In terms of pits, yes this opens up space for a lot more teams. But also this allows FIRST to add a lot more features utilizing that space, including displays, a practice field for each division, space to make an epic Finale, and other things like that.
I think this move is more about letting the other programs grow their championships/Festivals, and less about FRC getting to grow. I could be wrong, but that's my $0.02.
I'm gonna be that guy to interject for a moment and say, just because they're moving the other programs to other venues, doesn't mean FRC is expanding.
A. In terms of in the Dome, we're only really losing FTC, so space doesn't become that available. Einstein will still have to be there. Yes we could physically fit in more, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want too. Noise pollution, and just the feeling of being butted up against another field would detract from the experience.
B. In terms of pits, yes this opens up space for a lot more teams. But also this allows FIRST to add a lot more features utilizing that space, including displays, a practice field for each division, space to make an epic Finale, and other things like that.
I think this move is more about letting the other programs grow their championships/Festivals, and less about FRC getting to grow. I could be wrong, but that's my $0.02.
Also, space for more involved ceremonies and other such things. FIRST got a lot of backlash for putting a concert stage in the dome in 2011 at the expense of 2 FRC fields, and now does not have to make such compromises.
jbsmithtx
25-04-2014, 17:41
The 2014 regionals/districts combined were already sending >400 teams.
Several new regionals are coming online each year.
As more district regions come online, you can dial up or down the amount of teams sent to CMP based on team density and available space at CMP easily. Plus in the early years of increased capacity, you simply go to the waitlist again.
How did this work then? Even if teams qualiied, were they rejected? Obviously we have 400 teams only
How did this work then? Even if teams qualiied, were they rejected? Obviously we have 400 teams only
Enough teams ate multiple spots.
Frank said at his live Frank Answers Fridays this morning that they're looking at about 600 FRC teams at Championship. Extra divisions and other logistics are still being worked out.
PVCpirate
25-04-2014, 18:03
I think this move is more about letting the other programs grow their championships/Festivals, and less about FRC getting to grow. I could be wrong, but that's my $0.02.
^^ This. Does anyone know how many FTC teams competed this year? I thought it was something like 2000 but I can't find a number anywhere. Sounds like there are 128 teams at their championship, I'd be interested to know how that compares to the total number. And I know FLL has a minuscule number of teams that get to go. I think it's time for these programs to unchain themselves from FRC and start recognizing more deserving FIRST teams each year.
orangemoore
25-04-2014, 19:04
^^ This. Does anyone know how many FTC teams competed this year? I thought it was something like 2000 but I can't find a number anywhere. Sounds like there are 128 teams at their championship, I'd be interested to know how that compares to the total number. And I know FLL has a minuscule number of teams that get to go. I think it's time for these programs to unchain themselves from FRC and start recognizing more deserving FIRST teams each year.
I don't know the total number of teams in the world but I would bet at a minimum there are 3000 +. To put in perspective there are currently 108 FTC teams in the state of Illinois.
GaryVoshol
25-04-2014, 20:24
Frank said at his live Frank Answers Fridays this morning that they're looking at about 600 FRC teams at Championship. Extra divisions and other logistics are still being worked out.
Hopefully they will figure out a way so that any FLL team in the world has the opportunity to qualify for the World Festival. As it stands now, they can't support enough teams to allow each championship event can send one team to the WF. Not even ONE TEAM per event. If you are in the wrong event this year, you can't go.
If they can't expand FLL to allow every team the opportunity to qualify, then what benefit is separating the venues? FLL doesn't get to be inspired by seeing FRC and FTC.
Hopefully they will figure out a way so that any FLL team in the world has the opportunity to qualify for the World Festival. As it stands now, they can't support enough teams to allow each championship event can send one team to the WF. Not even ONE TEAM per event. If you are in the wrong event this year, you can't go.
If they can't expand FLL to allow every team the opportunity to qualify, then what benefit is separating the venues? FLL doesn't get to be inspired by seeing FRC and FTC.
The reason FIRST gets to fly so many nations' flags over Einstein is that FLL is more globally diverse than FIRST's other programs. People call the World Festival a "championship" already, even though it is not. Losing the inspiration for the FLL "farm teams" would be a poor strategic move. Those of us in the FLL program really appreciate the support of local FRC teams at our tournaments. FIRST has worked diligently to craft the migration ladder. I would hate to see it suffer by a separation like this.
PVCpirate
25-04-2014, 21:47
The reason FIRST gets to fly so many nations' flags over Einstein is that FLL is more globally diverse than FIRST's other programs. People call the World Festival a "championship" already, even though it is not. Losing the inspiration for the FLL "farm teams" would be a poor strategic move. Those of us in the FLL program really appreciate the support of local FRC teams at our tournaments. FIRST has worked diligently to craft the migration ladder. I would hate to see it suffer by a separation like this.
Here's a question: Does the FLL World Festival take the entire 4 days of the FIRST Championship? Or could it be compressed to 3 1/2 or even 3 days. Then, there could be some sort of break and teams could be encouraged to go check out the FRC matches in the dome, since the new FLL venue seems to be pretty close. Point is, I don't think FIRST wants to lose the inspiration you refer to, and I don't think they rushed into this decision without thinking of that.
I don't think they rushed into this decision without thinking of that.
The fact this is going into effect for 2015 means that there's a good chance that when they were looking to sign the 2015-2017 contract, a city that could serve with multiple venues was something they were looking for. I mean we as the FIRST community have been talking about those events having their own venues for years, so I'm sure the same serious consideration has been happening at HQ.
I overall applaud the choice. I think the "Olympic Style" of having multiple venues in the same city on the same weekend is a smart choice. It allows each program to grow and shine on it's own, while still allowing the cross-inspiration of having them in close proximity.
Plus, if HQ is smart, they'll try to build in a couple FLL events at EJD/AC so they kids will get to see the big robots. ;)
CENTURION
25-04-2014, 22:59
Apparently this is where this reply should have gone, I'll just copy/paste:
Well I can't say I'm super happy with this idea.
I feel like FTC always seems to take a backseat because everyone just sees it as "FRC lite". Moving it to a whole other building, and out of the dome, will really take something away from the experience I think. And as much as I love FTC, I feel it already leaves something to be desired in the "inspiration" category.
It kind of feels like the other programs have been "downgraded".
Though maybe that's a little hasty of me.
If the new venue makes space for more FTC divisions and teams, that's good. But I still feel like FTC doesn't get quite the recognition it deserves.
orangemoore
25-04-2014, 23:06
If the new venue makes space for more FTC divisions and teams, that's good. But I still feel like FTC doesn't get quite the recognition it deserves.
I certainly feel the same way about how FTC is undervalued/not recognized like FRC is.
nicolelin
25-04-2014, 23:20
I was on FTC in the fall too (7641 M-SET Betta Fish) and I do believe that the FTC teams would appreciate the increase in size at championships. Only a very, very small fraction of teams get to compete.
Props to FIRST for organizing an event of that size next year.
PayneTrain
25-04-2014, 23:33
People have noticed issues with the venue getting cramped. FRC brings the eye candy and gets a higher percentage of slots. FTC and FLL invited to CMP/teams registered is so painfully, criminally low. You give fewer opportunities for teams to attend an event like worlds and they can't be postiviely affected by the event. I'm exited to try something new.
dpbuttram
26-04-2014, 01:07
If I were FIRST, I'd go to 8 divisions of 60 teams. 80 more teams means Championship won't overflow (which it was probably going to). Fewer teams per division means there'll be easily 12+ matches/team.
We had thought it would be awesome to see 8 divisions of 75 teams. 75 teams x 12 matches per team = 900 team/matches divided by 6 teams per match = an even 150 matches per field. No more unwieldy extra matches for some teams or a couple teams not getting the same as most other teams.
150 matches per field can be done over Thursday and Friday.
The winning alliances from all 8 fields move on Saturday for an Elite Eight type setup.
Field names?
1. Archimedes
2. Curie
3. Newton
4. Galileo
5. proposed - Pythagoras
6. proposed - Hubble
7. proposed - Euclid
8. proposed - Kepler
Any other suggestions?
Calvin Hartley
26-04-2014, 01:20
(Note: at this time I have not taken the time to read this entire thread... I shall do that later. Her are my thoughts anyway.)
My first thought is that I don't particularly like the idea of splitting up the programs. Being in the same venue makes it very easy to go over to the other programs and check them out. In different venues, I expect to see a lot less mingling of programs. I don't like that thought.
However, I cannot agree more with the thoughts about quantity of teams in the non-FRC programs. Being in other venues will allow those programs to grow their Championship presence.
I'm not sure what will happen with FRC in regards to size. Surely there appears to be reason for more teams to go, but will it be six divisions? Eight? Will there be fewer teams in each division? I am uncertain.
Whatever the outcome, this is exciting.
In terms of "mingling," what if all three events had their final take place on Einstien? FLL already does, they set up FLL fields on a bare FRC field Thursday and friday. Do qualifications/judging at the hotel, then come to the Dome Friday afternoon for the finals. FTC, same thing, quickly set up two fields on Einstien Friday night, bring all FTC teams into the dome Saturday morning, hold the eliminations and award ceremony. Spectators from FLL and FTC would come to the dome for the finals, and have plenty of time to do all the "mingling" they can, and hopefully stick around for the FRC elimination tournament. Meanwhile, the best teams from FLL and FTC would be brought onto the world's biggest robot stage.
Be prepared for 8 divisions next year. This move by FIRST is massive.
Yep. I think they're going 8.
Michael Hill
26-04-2014, 08:48
Booking hotels now for 2015</sarcasm>
But really, where are 600 teams supposed to stay? We're in Collinsville, IL right now, a good 20 minutes from the venue, and the manager told me hotels out here are completely booked with robotics teams. They don't have anywhere to put their business travelers.
ttldomination
26-04-2014, 08:55
But really, where are 600 teams supposed to stay? We're in Collinsville, IL right now, a good 20 minutes from the venue, and the manager told me hotels out here are completely booked with robotics teams. They don't have anywhere to put their business travelers.
This actually worries me most of all, and it's not just the 200 more FRC teams. Everyone in this thread seems to agree that the FLL and FTC championships are going to see some significant growth.
With 200 FRC + 200-300 (?) more FLL/FTC teams...?
- Sunny G.
Sean Schuff
26-04-2014, 12:48
It also seems questionable whether there are another 200 teams that deserve to be at Champs.
Ouch! I'm sure there are many teams out there that feel they deserve to be here this year and didn't make the cut for whatever reason. We plan to attend every year, whether we compete or not. This year we had a good robot and made it to the elim rounds at two regionals and didn't get to compete in St. Louis. We came down with 28 students and four mentors anyway to volunteer and support teams. In my humble opinion, this experience is rewarding on so many levels both on and off the field. Why would we want to limit the number of teams and, far more important, students who are impacted so positively by this event?
It seems we sometime lose focus of the "I" in FIRST. I am all about inspiring my students and helping them to find their passions. You don't accomplish that by limiting their opportunities. I'm excited to hear that FIRST is expanding the number of teams and students impacted by the championship!
Way to go FIRST!!
But really, where are 600 teams supposed to stay? We're in Collinsville, IL right now, a good 20 minutes from the venue, and the manager told me hotels out here are completely booked with robotics teams. They don't have anywhere to put their business travelers.
That *is* an interesting logistical problem. CMP is now growing to the point where not only is there only a handful of venues capable of hosting, but only a handful of cities that can even support the influx of visitors that CMP brings.
Long-term? I still think a move back to Orlando (and the OCCC) is the only real option. Orlando would certainly have the hotel density to support us.
goldenglove002
26-04-2014, 18:20
Booking hotels now for 2015</sarcasm>
But really, where are 600 teams supposed to stay? We're in Collinsville, IL right now, a good 20 minutes from the venue, and the manager told me hotels out here are completely booked with robotics teams. They don't have anywhere to put their business travelers.
The airport is also worth some concern. Flights were much more expensive and harder to come by this year. Large increase in the amount of people coming in to town? Yikes! Lambert is not very big.
CENTURION
26-04-2014, 18:36
Everybody's talking about a lot more divisions (eight even!), but I don't see it.
I mean, moving the other programs out only frees up space for one more field (where the FTC fields are). So where are the other three new divisions going to go?
The new division, plus more practice fields will probably fill up the newly freed pit space.
Chris Fultz
26-04-2014, 18:41
one option could be two fields per division, side by side. some volunteers move back and forth between the fields, others are set to one of them - that way you don't need 2x the volunteers - maybe 1.5x. More matches, faster cycle times, faster pace for the crowd. almost no down time.
AustinShalit
26-04-2014, 20:18
The next time FIRST moves Championships to a new city they are going to move it to a bigger city. St. Louis just cannot accommodate more teams....
The next time FIRST moves Championships to a new city they are going to move it to a bigger city. St. Louis just cannot accommodate more teams....
Also a hub city would be nice.
I get why St. Louis is attractive from the HQ perspective, the venue was almost built for FIRST Champs, the city works well with us, and it appears to be in the middle of the county.
BUT
The city isn't really capable of handling the influx of people, in terms of hotel and infrastructure. Also Lambert isn't a hub city, so getting flights into the city, and cheaply for that matter, is hard for almost everyone.
St. Louis has been great, but I hope for 2018 they look for a city that is a little more capable of handling us in areas outside of just the venue.
Also a hub city would be nice.
I get why St. Louis is attractive from the HQ perspective, the venue was almost built for FIRST Champs, the city works well with us, and it appears to be in the middle of the county.
BUT
The city isn't really capable of handling the influx of people, in terms of hotel and infrastructure. Also Lambert isn't a hub city, so getting flights into the city, and cheaply for that matter, is hard for almost everyone.
St. Louis has been great, but I hope for 2018 they look for a city that is a little more capable of handling us in areas outside of just the venue.
I dont know why they ever left Atlanta. Either go back to Atlanta or go way back to Orlando.
221Sarahborg
26-04-2014, 20:52
Having three separate venues compared to even two sounds crazy, which just tells you how quickly the expansion of FIRST is going. Maybe the growth rate thing on the Top Ten this year may not be so crazy if they're doing that next year. They'd probably move to a more legible city to accommodate for how many teams go to Nationals for how many there are in just a matter of years.
A lot of people are talking about more FRC teams being able to go, but I think the addition of new FRC teams will be pretty minimal. If more divisions are added, it will be to increase the amount of matches teams will play, and adding more teams is not how you do that. While thee might be a few more positions available, I doubt it will be significant. That would defeat what I think would be the main purpose of this move.
Anupam Goli
26-04-2014, 22:01
I dont know why they ever left Atlanta. Either go back to Atlanta or go way back to Orlando.
I'd love for it to come back to Atlanta, but with the new dome moving even farther from the GWCC than the current one is, I don't think FIRST will move back here. Unless teams like a 1 mile walk to and from the dome floor to the pits.
thatprogrammer
26-04-2014, 22:03
We had thought it would be awesome to see 8 divisions of 75 teams. 75 teams x 12 matches per team = 900 team/matches divided by 6 teams per match = an even 150 matches per field. No more unwieldy extra matches for some teams or a couple teams not getting the same as most other teams.
150 matches per field can be done over Thursday and Friday.
The winning alliances from all 8 fields move on Saturday for an Elite Eight type setup.
Field names?
1. Archimedes
2. Curie
3. Newton
4. Galileo
5. proposed - Pythagoras
6. proposed - Hubble
7. proposed - Euclid
8. proposed - Kepler
Any other suggestions?
Come on, we all know we need a field named tesla!
Come on, we all know we need a field named tesla!
Tesla, Hubble, Keplar, Maxwell
Come on, we all know we need a field named tesla!
I'd vote for Feynman.
thatprogrammer
26-04-2014, 22:30
Tesla, Hubble, Keplar, Maxwell
^ too perfect..
TOO PERFECT!
we must all spam frank until he uses his powers to make this real ;)
edit: also I think orlando might be a great place for 2018, if not seattle.
goldenglove002
26-04-2014, 22:34
I'd love for it to come back to Atlanta, but with the new dome moving even farther from the GWCC than the current one is, I don't think FIRST will move back here. Unless teams like a 1 mile walk to and from the dome floor to the pits.
Don't rule it out. It's only about 2/10ths of a mile from the door of building B to the doors of the new stadium. As long as there is a path from the convention center into the stadium for the robots, it would be a strong venue that could handle an expanded competition.
If you need visual reference, this was just released to show the idea for a convention center hotel. New stadium is in the bottom corner: http://media.bizj.us/view/img/2525771/gwcc-hotel-v05-final-sm*600.jpg
edit: also I think orlando might be a great place for 2018, if not seattle.
Where in Seattle would they put 4+ fields? I know of no building with enough room to do all of this xD
cadandcookies
26-04-2014, 23:44
I'd vote for Feynman.
+1.
Feynman would be an awesome name for a field.
Wayne TenBrink
27-04-2014, 00:16
Perhaps some day the NFL will play the Superbowl in the Kamen/FIRST Dome, which will be big enough to handle 8 FRC fields, with spacious pits for 600 teams, and comfortable grandstands that are just a few short steps away.
thatprogrammer
27-04-2014, 00:42
Where in Seattle would they put 4+ fields? I know of no building with enough room to do all of this xD
I do believe the Washington State Convention Center is big enough.. though I may be mistaken!
Also: Epicot is not the only center large enough in FL to hold the championships ;)
Wouldn't mind one in san diego either... Any place that can keep my floridian blood warm is good :P
Chief Hedgehog
27-04-2014, 00:55
I don't think it would ever happen, but I wonder if the Twin Cities could be a site in the future.
Amenities:
-'Fargo' and 'Grumpy Old Men' were filmed here ;)
-FRC at the new Vikings Stadium (larger than the former Metrodome)
-FTC/FLL could be at the Minneapolis Convention Center
-Former HUB of Northwest Airlines/Delta
- So it has the infrastructure
- There is a regional Airport in St Cloud that does a lot of flights to Chicago and the SW USA
-Mall of America could host many events
-Target Field could host a Twins night
-New Soccer Venue (if MN United and Twins can get a stadium built)
-2nd only to New York City in live theater per capita
-Is the third-largest theater market in the U.S.
-Has an expansive enclosed skyway that connects MPLS.
-THe area has an abundance of hotels and entertainment venues
-Is relatively safe *as long as you stay away from North MPLS
-has ever-increasing lines of Light Rail
(connecting from DTWN MPLS to MOA to StPaul to near StCloud).
-Has many Fortune 500 Corporations (Best Buy, PTC, Target, 3M, Medtronic, etc) to aid in the sponsorship.
Also, it already hosts the largest FRC event outside of the FRC Championships (MN North Star and 10,000 Lakes) - so it has the background of what to expect.
Any thoughts?
dictionaria13
27-04-2014, 01:02
I do believe the Washington State Convention Center is big enough.. though I may be mistaken!
It might take some doing. There isn't a one single giant open hall in the Convention Center like the one in St Louis, but if things were able to be spread out a little, it might work. The Convention Center is at the north end of the bus tunnel, one stop away from Westlake Center, which is the terminus of both the Light Rail to/from the airport and the monorail to/from Seattle Center. It isn't too far from Pike Place Market, and there are hotels nearby. Pretty much everything is within decent walking distance, as long as you don't mind hills.
As another option, the Tacoma Dome is about thirty miles south, and it is a giant domed field. It also has hotels nearby, though the transportation to/from the airport is a bit more difficult. (Our public transportation isn't that bad, as long as you're only trying to get in and out of Seattle. Elsewhere, it gets a bit spotty.)
More general pros: SeaTac airport is a decent sized hub, and there's no danger of either tornados or hurricanes (though April might be the wrong time of year for hurricanes anyway).
Cons: We're kind of all alone in our little corner of the country, and teams from elsewhere might have some trouble getting here as easily as they would to a more central (read: midwest) location.
Anyway, just the $0.02 of a local.
hiyou102
27-04-2014, 01:08
I do believe the Washington State Convention Center is big enough.. though I may be mistaken!
Midwest is usually best when it comes travelling for everyone. I think FIRST would like to keep it that way in order to make robot transport easiest.
Here's a question: Does the FLL World Festival take the entire 4 days of the FIRST Championship? Or could it be compressed to 3 1/2 or even 3 days. Then, there could be some sort of break and teams could be encouraged to go check out the FRC matches in the dome, since the new FLL venue seems to be pretty close. Point is, I don't think FIRST wants to lose the inspiration you refer to, and I don't think they rushed into this decision without thinking of that.
As an FLL team at the championships for the first time this year, we had mixed emotions when we heard this.
One one hand, it would be nice to have a shot at qualifying again next year because of the expanded field. On the other hand, one of the great things about the event was that all the programs were in the same location. We didn't have much down time to visit the FRC/FTC pits as it was this year (we really wanted to spend time there), and when the venue is at a different location next year, I don't see how that can happen at all. I have kids who are now FIRSTers for life because they can see their path forward in the progression of programs.
Another thought: FLL is hard to qualify for the World Festival (less than 0.5% of teams in the world get an invite, as opposed to about 10% - I think - of FRC teams). So, most FLL kids will never get the opportunity to attend anyway. Unless they are directly mentored by an FRC team, it doesn't seem likely that they will make the connection.
cadandcookies
27-04-2014, 01:31
Also, it already hosts the largest FRC event outside of the FRC Championships (MN North Star and 10,000 Lakes) - so it has the background of what to expect.
Any thoughts?
It has been suggested :) I would be surprised if it happened as early as 2018, but give it another decade of infrastructure, growth, and FIRST development, but at that point we're so far into the future it's relatively impossible to predict.
I was all giddy with excitement about having 6 to 8 fields in the dome next year and then eliminations happened and Archimedes took up space on the backside of my field blocking my exit and Galileo was backing all the way up towards my front.
Now I'm concerned where are we supposed to put all these teams during elims.
Chief Hedgehog
27-04-2014, 03:16
It has been suggested :) I would be surprised if it happened as early as 2018, but give it another decade of infrastructure, growth, and FIRST development, but at that point we're so far into the future it's relatively impossible to predict.
I am not sure if I follow you here. The infrastructure (planes, trains,automobiles and walking) is better than what St Louis has or has proposed.
The growth is a question when it comes to FRC involvement - but considering the vast structure of MnSCU or UofM - the bodies are there if FRC MN is ready to ask. Between students from MSU-Mankato, SCSU, UM-TC, and UMD, there are more than enough bodies to help coordinate if FRC MN wanted to push this.
As for future - yes, 2018 seems a little too soon, but not out of the realm of possibility.
I do believe the Washington State Convention Center is big enough.. though I may be mistaken!
well it might be big enough for all the fields, but it's not exactly a good spectator arena (which was what i meant, there is no place big enough in seattle to hold more than 2 fields and have seats for them, etc.)
-edit-
just saw the other post above about this and i agree the tacoma dome could potentially work (though it's still fairly small compared to the venue in st.louis)
rich2202
27-04-2014, 10:18
Pits
The pits for FRC take up about 2 and 1/3 of 6 halls. So, pits could double to 4 2/3, leaving 1 1/3 halls for the displays and stores.
Fields
While the Field could physically hold 8 fields, the issues are:
1) Spectator viewing of the fields; and
2) Traffic lanes.
You could have 2 fields on each end like Newton/Archimedes for 4 fields; and
2 fields on the far side from Alley; and
Possibly one more field on the side with the Alley.
While more fields could fit, it would be hard to get spectators (in the center of the field), or one would be right in front of the Alley. Maybe the Center is reserved for the Einstein field and stage.
Volunteers
About the only staff you could "share" with an adjacent field are the Refs and some of the Field Reset people. The FTA's, queuing, announcers, and others, are needed for the entire play and staging time.
Divisions
Assuming there are 7 fields, I think there should be dedicated divisions for:
1) Rookie teams. A rookie team that made it through winning a region/district could chose to compete with the rookies or in the regular divisions.
2) Teams that did not win a regional/district.
Let's say that leaves 4 divisions made up of solely Regional/District winners. Those would be the ones to compete on the Einstein field. In this configuration, the 4 Competing division fields would be the two on each end of the stadium. The other fields could be done by Friday night, and be torn down and out of the way for the Einstein finals, leaving a lot of seating with a view of the center of the stadium.
MARS_James
27-04-2014, 10:33
Divisions
Assuming there are 7 fields, I think there should be dedicated divisions for:
1) Rookie teams. A rookie team that made it through winning a region/district could chose to compete with the rookies or in the regular divisions.
2) Teams that did not win a regional/district.
Let's say that leaves 4 divisions made up of solely Regional/District winners. Those would be the ones to compete on the Einstein field. In this configuration, the 4 Competing division fields would be the two on each end of the stadium. The other fields could be done by Friday night, and be torn down and out of the way for the Einstein finals, leaving a lot of seating with a view of the center of the stadium.
Just gonna throw out a two problems with this.
1. Where do you put the teams who qualified under the district system that didn't win there district championship or even a single district such as 1640 our Einstein Finalist
2. Do wild card winners go in the non-win division or the winner divisions like 1477 our Archimedes winner or 2848 our Einstein Winner
I am just going to say that splitting divisions by how you got here is a slippery slope and should not be done.
BrendanB
27-04-2014, 11:00
I was all giddy with excitement about having 6 to 8 fields in the dome next year and then eliminations happened and Archimedes took up space on the backside of my field blocking my exit and Galileo was backing all the way up towards my front.
Now I'm concerned where are we supposed to put all these teams during elims.
It did get very crammed behind Archimedes and Curie with how close those two fields were on the corner. When you stop and think about it, due to the 4 team alliance set up it added 32 teams to the elimations meaning compared to previous years you had more than a division added to the crowds behind the fields.
thefro526
27-04-2014, 11:19
Just gonna throw out a two problems with this.
1. Where do you put the teams who qualified under the district system that didn't win there district championship or even a single district such as 1640 our Einstein Finalist
2. Do wild card winners go in the non-win division or the winner divisions like 1477 our Archimedes winner or 2848 our Einstein Winner
I am just going to say that splitting divisions by how you got here is a slippery slope and should not be done.
1) 1640 qualified through being one of the highest ranked teams in MAR after the final points sort. District Finalist, District Championship Alliance Captain, and played in Elims at their first district.... and a Division Winner in 2013.
2) 1477 was the reigning world champion.
There NEEDS to be a split at the championship, or there will never be a TRUE championship. The fact that there are teams that cannot control a game piece or positively contribute to an alliances overall effort really lowers the overall caliber of an event that is considered to be our 'Championship.' With that being said, we are fortunate enough to have crowned the best teams for the past few years, but not without a lot of undo stress along the way.
A team doesn't need to 'Win' to qualify for the championship, they can qualify however they make it work. But to truly play for a championship, that team should at least be able to complete the game objective.
There are a bunch of ways to make this work, one is putting them in their own division, with creates a lot of its own issues - mainly being that many of these teams will never get to interact with some of the most inspirational teams in FRC, but at the same time, ruining a top teams season isn't all that inspirational either....
An off the wall idea is to use some portion of load in day to give each team a chance to show their stuff on an open field... Those who cannot actually complete the game objective at some basic level are put into the match schedule differently, in a different 'class' or something, and any matches that are played with them (or an unbalanced amount from one alliance to the other) are treated as surrogate matches for the teams that are truly there to compete for the championship.... Now they're interacting with the top teams, and being inspired by the best, and at the same time those 'best teams' aren't being punished by the luck of the schedule at our 'Championship' event.
Tesla, Hubble, Keplar, Maxwell
Galois.
Would be nice to have the 'M' in STEM get some representation ;)
Galois.
Would be nice to have the 'M' in STEM get some representation ;)
+1 for the Galois Field joke :)
+1 for the Galois Field joke :)
Perhaps we could call the winning alliance the "Galois group?" :P
StillDefective
27-04-2014, 14:16
On the point of noise pollution, FTC had 2 divisions with two fields RIGHT next to each other, and Curie next to those and it wasn't much of a problem. Whoever did the sound setup knows their stuff, because if you sat in the right place, you would only notice the field that you were watching and not any of the adjacent ones.
On the point of noise pollution, FTC had 2 divisions with two fields RIGHT next to each other, and Curie next to those and it wasn't much of a problem. Whoever did the sound setup knows their stuff, because if you sat in the right place, you would only notice the field that you were watching and not any of the adjacent ones.
I wasn't in the stands for Archimedes and Newton for very long, but I can imagine that it gets pretty confusing as you get closer to where their stands blend. That kind of crossover (of both seats and sound) would be significantly more common if we wedged another 2 fields into the dome.
I wasn't in the stands for Archimedes and Newton for very long, but I can imagine that it gets pretty confusing as you get closer to where their stands blend. That kind of crossover (of both seats and sound) would be significantly more common if we wedged another 2 fields into the dome.
As a member of Archimedes queuing, I can say that both sound and seating might be a problem if you sat between the two fields. If you are worried about not to hear, you could have sat behind the red driver station, since no one was over there.
PayneTrain
27-04-2014, 16:11
I wasn't in the stands for Archimedes and Newton for very long, but I can imagine that it gets pretty confusing as you get closer to where their stands blend. That kind of crossover (of both seats and sound) would be significantly more common if we wedged another 2 fields into the dome.
It wouldn't be any more of a problem than sitting in the corner between Curie and Archimedes or Newton and Galileo. Adding two more fields isn't insane, especially if you take out Saturday morning quals and start alliance selections first thing in the morning to turn Einstein into a round robin.
tindleroot
27-04-2014, 16:11
Seeing that only one part of the dome is moving next year (FTC), I feel that for FRC First should make a rookie team division. Given a solid influx of new teams each year, FIRST could add a division of 50-100 rookie teams that qualify from rookie all-star, etc. Even though this division would not compete in Einstein, there would still be 3 (or 4) World Rookie Championship teams. Plus, the competition would not be as rough for rookie teams, so rookies would have a solid chance to win compared to relatively little chance as it stands now. Teams would feel more inspired by other rookie teams as well as the prospects of being in one of the major divisions the following year. More non-rookie teams would also be able to fill in spots at nationals that rookies currently have. I feel that if First played this right, adding a rookie division would make a better experience for all teams with more competitive divisions, giving rookies easier competition, and still trying to provide that inspiration to work harder in the future. However, I am not sure how successful rookie teams (winning regionals, etc.) would work; maybe they would just qualify like the rest of the veteran teams.
tindleroot
27-04-2014, 16:14
On the point of noise pollution, FTC had 2 divisions with two fields RIGHT next to each other, and Curie next to those and it wasn't much of a problem. Whoever did the sound setup knows their stuff, because if you sat in the right place, you would only notice the field that you were watching and not any of the adjacent ones.
I agree, being in Curie myself. Maybe also if they set up curtains in between each field like the ones behind the screens it would help isolate each division without making them farther apart. You could still see other divisions simply by walking over to them.
Seeing that only one part of the dome is moving next year (FTC), I feel that for FRC First should make a rookie team division. Given a solid influx of new teams each year, FIRST could add a division of 50-100 rookie teams that qualify from rookie all-star, etc. Even though this division would not compete in Einstein, there would still be 3 (or 4) World Rookie Championship teams. Plus, the competition would not be as rough for rookie teams, so rookies would have a solid chance to win compared to relatively little chance as it stands now. Teams would feel more inspired by other rookie teams as well as the prospects of being in one of the major divisions the following year. More non-rookie teams would also be able to fill in spots at nationals that rookies currently have. I feel that if First played this right, adding a rookie division would make a better experience for all teams with more competitive divisions, giving rookies easier competition, and still trying to provide that inspiration to work harder in the future. However, I am not sure how successful rookie teams (winning regionals, etc.) would work; maybe they would just qualify like the rest of the veteran teams.
By suggesting this, you are implicitly saying that rookies are guaranteed to be less capable than veteran teams and should not even be given a chance to play (win?) with & against veteran teams. I think this is an incorrect assumption.
There are so many counter examples of rookies that outshine veteran teams.
tindleroot
27-04-2014, 17:35
By suggesting this, you are implicitly saying that rookies are guaranteed to be less capable than veteran teams and should not even be given a chance to play (win?) with & against veteran teams. I think this is an incorrect assumption.
There are so many counter examples of rookies that outshine veteran teams.
This is not quite my point. I know some rookie teams can be successful; there was one who made it to Einstein this year. However, it has shown over the years that veteran teams by nature have more success since they have more experienced coaches who understand the logistics of first. There are exceptions; I agree there should be a way to address them and give rookie teams a chance to win. However, history has shown in general rookie teams are not up to the caliber of the veterans. I agree this is the flaw in my idea and I believe some modified implementation of this idea will make the championships a better experience for all teams.
PayneTrain
27-04-2014, 17:45
There NEEDS to be a split at the championship, or there will never be a TRUE championship.
Isn't there already a split where you go from 100 teams on a division down to 32?
one option could be two fields per division, side by side. some volunteers move back and forth between the fields, others are set to one of them - that way you don't need 2x the volunteers - maybe 1.5x. More matches, faster cycle times, faster pace for the crowd. almost no down time.
Well Chris, have you worked as a volunteer this year? I have. Your theory of sending volunteers back & forth between fields is insane. If you have noticed, not all volunteers are young. If you didn't have these multi-aged volunteers, you would not have enough volunteers for any FIRST event. After 6 weeks of District & Regionals most volunteers are getting a little tired. It IS a rewarding experience, but we as volunteers can only stretch ourselves so much. I am all for adding more fields to CHAMPS, but add more volunteers to make it work right. I leave those thoughts to all who have made it possible this year. Thanks & I'm looking forward to be beside all those great people next year.
Dustin Shadbolt
27-04-2014, 20:04
If you have noticed, not all volunteers are young. If you didn't have these multi-aged volunteers, you would not have enough volunteers for any FIRST event. After 6 weeks of District & Regionals most volunteers are getting a little tired. It IS a rewarding experience, but we as volunteers can only stretch ourselves so much. I am all for adding more fields to CHAMPS, but add more volunteers to make it work right...
This. I'm definitely looking at volunteering next year, and I can't wait to see how the new layout works out.
Dominick Ferone
27-04-2014, 22:50
Being a mentor of a rookie team and alumni from a veteran team I can say rookies can put up a hard fight. As 1511 may be able to tell you ( as I may have some numbers wrong). 65 rookie competed out if the 410 new ones. 16 of them were alliance captains with 5 of them being as hgh as second seed. I was apart of one of the 5 and when I told teams were second seed they would say "oh you had an easy schedule" and it isn't true. We played the part we were supposed to and so did our alliance members and when it comes down to it rookies only differ from veterans some times in just terms of overall budgets. I know veteran teams with less man power and mentors than rookies. We also had many judges, volunteers, spectators and teams say to us you don't look like rookies with how our Bot was made. Rookies have won before and continue doing so and some rookies are sister teams of big names and can be a deadly force. Don't discount them for being first year teams. Between 4 mentors we had 25+ years of first experience.
Rebecca Wasmer
27-04-2014, 23:21
Being a mentor of a rookie team and alumni from a veteran team I can say rookies can put up a hard fight. As 1511 may be able to tell you ( as I may have some numbers wrong). 65 rookie competed out if the 410 new ones. 16 of them were alliance captains with 5 of them being as hgh as second seed. I was apart of one of the 5 and when I told teams were second seed they would say "oh you had an easy schedule" and it isn't true. We played the part we were supposed to and so did our alliance members and when it comes down to it rookies only differ from veterans some times in just terms of overall budgets. I know veteran teams with less man power and mentors than rookies. We also had many judges, volunteers, spectators and teams say to us you don't look like rookies with how our Bot was made. Rookies have won before and continue doing so and some rookies are sister teams of big names and can be a deadly force. Don't discount them for being first year teams. Between 4 mentors we had 25+ years of first experience.
This, this, and more this.
Being a mentor for rookie team 4930 this year we played our very first match at championship against 33 and won. Our coach was also an alumni of a veteran team, 340, so our drive team was guided by capable hands. Our robot could do some things that veteran teams we played with could not do. Although the thought of a rookie division is something that has crossed my mind, being able to play against and with some "big name teams" is inspiring and also a great experience. Throwing the rookies in their own division makes it so they don't get to see teams who have been doing this for a while unless they specifically go to another division. Our students spent a lot of their time at Championships scouting the teams we were going to play with and against so we could figure out the best strategy. I feel like they would have learned a lot less had they not had to watch the veteran teams compete.
scooty199
28-04-2014, 02:30
I heard some mention of Round Robin.
I'm against a Round Robin after the past 2 years watching VEX attempt at one. With the possibility of more fields and teams, I think things are better off in groups of 4 or 8 than a round robin.
Andrew Schuetze
28-04-2014, 11:21
We had thought it would be awesome to see 8 divisions of 75 teams. 75 teams x 12 matches per team = 900 team/matches divided by 6 teams per match = an even 150 matches per field. No more unwieldy extra matches for some teams or a couple teams not getting the same as most other teams.
150 matches per field can be done over Thursday and Friday.
The winning alliances from all 8 fields move on Saturday for an Elite Eight type setup.
Field names?
1. Archimedes
2. Curie
3. Newton
4. Galileo
5. proposed - Pythagoras
6. proposed - Hubble
7. proposed - Euclid
8. proposed - Kepler
Any other suggestions?
How about some serious research and suggestions for naming potential new divisions after famous females? Is Marie Curie the only famous female in STEM? Seriously:] :] :]
Do some research on these and others and then post some suggestions:
Lise Meitner (1878-1968)
Emmy Noether (1882-1935)
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (1900-1979)
Barbara McClintock
Ada Byron (Countess of Lovelace)
...
The Curie curse has been broken so bring on more female division names.
MARS_James
28-04-2014, 11:50
Any other suggestions?
I decided to look at this in terms of STEM so a quick google search of famous Scientists comes up with: Darwin, Hawking, Bohr, Pasteur, and Aristotle.
Technologists: Turing, Gates, Jobs, Zworykin and Lovelace
Engineers: Wright, Eiffel, Benz, Tesla, and Nobel
Mathematicians: Descartes, Euclid, Riemann, Gauss, and Euler
PVCpirate
28-04-2014, 12:10
Supposing we have an 8 alliance Einstein next year, I wonder if FIRST will explore other options than a typical 8 alliance tournament. That format has between 14 and 21 matches, and this will likely be closer to 21 since these are division winning alliances. One alternative is the 8 teams are divided into 2 groups of 4, each alliance in a group plays the other 3, and the top alliance from each goes to the finals. This keeps the match count lower; there would be 14 or 15 matches.
Also, a note on VEX using a round robin, since they have 5 divisions, they really don't have a choice(besides not having 5 divisions). Any other system will give an advantage to some divisions.
Any other suggestions?
Noether (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/science/emmy-noether-the-most-significant-mathematician-youve-never-heard-of.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
scooty199
28-04-2014, 12:40
Supposing we have an 8 alliance Einstein next year, I wonder if FIRST will explore other options than a typical 8 alliance tournament. That format has between 14 and 21 matches, and this will likely be closer to 21 since these are division winning alliances. One alternative is the 8 teams are divided into 2 groups of 4, each alliance in a group plays the other 3, and the top alliance from each goes to the finals. This keeps the match count lower; there would be 14 or 15 matches.
Also, a note on VEX using a round robin, since they have 5 divisions, they really don't have a choice(besides not having 5 divisions). Any other system will give an advantage to some divisions.
Yeah they don't have much of a choice, but I really don't think it's implemented well. At all. When teams IN the Round Robin don't know what's going on really. There was too much extra stuff.
That smaller group play if done right can be ok. You could also just make it single eliminations.
AllenGregoryIV
28-04-2014, 13:08
Grace Hopper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper)
A pioneer in the field, she was one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer, and developed the first compiler for a computer programming language
Joel_Hurd
28-04-2014, 13:23
I think the answer is not increasing the size of the Championship event (For FRC at least) but adding another week to the season, and lengthening the playoffs.
There isn't a single city that will be able to accommodate the size of FIRST in 5 years. That's why I believe we should keep it the same size, and add a few play in events. You could split it East Coast, West Coast, Midwest, South, and divvy up international teams evenly.
I know there would be out cry that people won't be able to experience the Championship event, but look at how many people experience the super bowl? We're at a point where championships can't be as all inclusive "everybody come on in and gather round" as it used to be, you play to win, and if you don't make it, you watch it on TV and use it as drive for the next season.
Jay O'Donnell
28-04-2014, 13:26
I think the answer is not increasing the size of the Championship event (For FRC at least) but adding another week to the season, and lengthening the playoffs.
There isn't a single city that will be able to accommodate the size of FIRST in 5 years. That's why I believe we should keep it the same size, and add a few play in events. You could split it East Coast, West Coast, Midwest, South, and divvy up international teams evenly.
I know there would be out cry that people won't be able to experience the Championship event, but look at how many people experience the super bowl? We're at a point where championships can't be as all inclusive "everybody come on in and gather round" as it used to be, you play to win, and if you don't make it, you watch it on TV and use it as drive for the next season.
I agree with your points about expansion, but I disagree about your point about the championships not being as inclusive. FIRST world champs is more than a competition, it's an inspiring event meant to change the world. If we send less teams to this inspiring event, how are we changing the world in a more positive way?
Chris is me
28-04-2014, 13:26
I don't like splitting off rookies into their own division, at least forcing them to do so. Maybe rookies can optionally play in a weaker division, but treating them as second class robots *purely* based on age when tons of veteran teams can't play either is unfair.
I also think the rookie / bad team "problem" is going to fix itself as districts become the norm everywhere. The real problem is that there should be some number of Rookie All Stars at champs, but that number is probably less than one per regional. A similar argument could be made for second pick regional winners, but there are many that were essential to their alliance and made the Championship elims so this can't be a blanket change. As we go to Districts, fewer slots are given to RAS / EI and more spots are given to high performing robots. The only second pick which guarantees qualification is the district champion whom has always deserved to play at Champs. If everyone could switch to districts tomorrow, this problem would be barely noticeable.
Until then, I'm not sure there's a great solution. Perhaps RAS would enter your team into a draft where the top X rookie teams advance to Champs - based on the district point system applied to that event. Maybe some kind of "scoring check" to ensure your team has the basic ability to manipulate a game piece or otherwise positively contribute to an alliance. But none of these ideas sound all that great, honestly.
Chris Hibner
28-04-2014, 13:29
Field names?
1. Archimedes
2. Curie
3. Newton
4. Galileo
5. proposed - Pythagoras
6. proposed - Hubble
7. proposed - Euclid
8. proposed - Kepler
Any other suggestions?
I may be biased since he grew up near my hometown, but I'd like to nominate Claude Shannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon)
All of the mathematics that go into modern communication was created by Shannon. This guy was brilliant. Everything about your cell phone, internet connection, digital TV, and virtually everything else in modern communications can be attributed to Claude Shannon - and the most amazing part is he did it all in 1948! Talk about being ahead of his time - it took around 40 years before most of his work could even be put to the test. He is a true "rock star" role model in that all current students could relate - especially given their propensity to use a cell phone.
...the perspective introduced by Shannon's communication theory (now called information theory) is the foundation of the digital revolution, and every device containing a microprocessor or microcontroller is a conceptual descendant of Shannon's publication in 1948: "He's one of the great men of the century. Without him, none of the things we know today would exist. The whole digital revolution started with him."
tkell274
28-04-2014, 13:41
I am very against the idea of seperating rookie teams away from everyone else at champs. 4451 last year was a power house and 5122 was a finalist at the NE champs and I'm sure there are boat loads more that I do not have the experience of knowing that show that rookie teams can compete with everyone else.
As for the field space, although it was rather miserable, FRC was able to fit two full fields and an exhibition field for CARD in 2011 in the pit area with everything else. With the four fields in the dome now and more space now that FTC and FLL are gone, it is totally possible for FIRST to impliment four more fields in the pit area, even though it might make things a little more crowded.
I also really like the idea of 75 teams per division with the four team alliance set up for eliminations. That allows another 200 teams to go to champs and another 128 teams a slot in eliminations. It also eases the insanity of scouting and allows for the same number of matches to be played in less time which can mean alliance selections on friday night and more elimination matches on saturday. Maybe moving Einstein to best of 5 or best of 7 and really forcing teams to show the endurance of their robot.
We had thought it would be awesome to see 8 divisions of 75 teams. 75 teams x 12 matches per team = 900 team/matches divided by 6 teams per match = an even 150 matches per field. No more unwieldy extra matches for some teams or a couple teams not getting the same as most other teams.
150 matches per field can be done over Thursday and Friday.
The winning alliances from all 8 fields move on Saturday for an Elite Eight type setup.
Field names?
1. Archimedes
2. Curie
3. Newton
4. Galileo
5. proposed - Pythagoras
6. proposed - Hubble
7. proposed - Euclid
8. proposed - Kepler
Any other suggestions?
I'd like to put in my requests for additional FTC fields. As the current two are related to electricity ( the Kite/key and the light bulb) how about Tesla (MCs and announcers would have fun with Tesla vs Edison) and Volta ("I say Alessandro you say Volta!" :ahh: ).
Of course the FTC championship field would get the Da Vinci name!
My top four picks for new divisions in order
Schrodinger
Euclid
Pythagoras
Riemann
Surely we should have a field named Faraday given our robots wouldn't work so well without electric motors.
Banderoonies
28-04-2014, 18:52
I would love to see a Rookie Division so that a rookie champion can be crowned each year :)
MamaSpoldi
01-05-2014, 10:39
Grace Hopper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper)
^^ I second this nomination. Grace Hopper is well-known in the field of Computer Science and one of my personal idols. A truly inspiring woman in STEM.
I may be biased since he grew up near my hometown, but I'd like to nominate Claude Shannon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Shannon)
I support this.
Alan Anderson
01-05-2014, 11:10
Grace Hopper has been on my short list of potential field names for a long time.
Clarke, McAuliffe, Asimov, Tsiolkovsky, Sagan, Teller...
Marconi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guglielmo_Marconi).
MrTechCenter
01-05-2014, 11:17
Does anyone else think Houston would be a good city to host Champs? I know it was done back in 2003 in the Astrodome and it was terrible, but now it would be a lot different. There is still the Reliant Center Convention Center but now it has the new and modern Reliant Stadium. Assuming that there is a connection between the two (I have no idea if any sort of tunnel exists), I think the two venues would have more than enough space. Reliant Arena is also right there and could be used as the FTC or FLL venue, keeping one of them very close to the FRC venue, although this might conflict with the NBA playoffs if the Rockets make it.
Also, Houston was Continental Airlines' main hub and is now a major hub for United Airlines after the merger, meaning flights wouldn't be a problem. As far as hotels and things to do in the city, I wouldn't know, but Houston being the big city that it is, I don't think that would be much of a problem.
Chris Hibner
01-05-2014, 11:38
Does anyone else think Houston would be a good city to host Champs? I know it was done back in 2003 in the Astrodome and it was terrible, but now it would be a lot different. There is still the Reliant Center Convention Center but now it has the new and modern Reliant Stadium.
When the championship was in Houston, the fields were in Reliant Staduim (not the Astrodome). The pits were in the Astrodome. The biggest problem was to get from the pits to the field it required going up 4-5 floors of ramps and then back down again. It literally took about 20-25 minutes to get from the pits to the playing field (or back). If your match turnaround time was less than 60-90 minutes, it wasn't even worth going back to the pit.
Also, most hotels and restaurants were rather far away if I remember correctly.
AllenGregoryIV
01-05-2014, 11:42
Does anyone else think Houston would be a good city to host Champs? I know it was done back in 2003 in the Astrodome and it was terrible, but now it would be a lot different. There is still the Reliant Center Convention Center but now it has the new and modern Reliant Stadium. Assuming that there is a connection between the two (I have no idea if any sort of tunnel exists), I think the two venues would have more than enough space. Reliant Arena is also right there and could be used as the FTC or FLL venue, keeping one of them very close to the FRC venue, although this might conflict with the NBA playoffs if the Rockets make it.
Also, Houston was Continental Airlines' main hub and is now a major hub for United Airlines after the merger, meaning flights wouldn't be a problem. As far as hotels and things to do in the city, I wouldn't know, but Houston being the big city that it is, I don't think that would be much of a problem.
I wish it would make sense as the 10 minute drive would me much nicer then than the 13 hour drive but sadly it wouldn't be good. In 2003 we were in Reliant Stadium, it was brand new. The pits were in the Astrodome which is probably going to be demolished in a few years, as the renovation plans were voted down. Any other space in the complex is way to far away for the pits. Downtown we have the George R. Brown Convention Center (home of the Lone Star Regional) and the Toyota Center (Where the Rockets play) but they aren't close enough for what we need to host championships.
If FIRST went to 6 divisions of 80 teams they could grow to up to 6 divisions of 100 teams then look at further expansion. If you took the 6 divisions and broke them into 2 Finalist divisions of 3 alliances each then had a playoff where 2 teams move to Einstein for finals.
1 vs 2
1 vs 3
2 vs 3
Top team moves on and the final 2 teams play 1 game to move the winner on. Yes we would be adding a few more matches but it seems like a good solution.
notmattlythgoe
01-05-2014, 12:44
I like the idea of 8 divisions with 60 teams each. This would mean FIRST would only have to invite 80 additional teams next season. IT also would keep the round robin even so surrogate matches would not need played by any teams.
This also just adds an additional round of matches on Einstein with the 8 winning alliances facing off in quarter finals.
MattRain
01-05-2014, 12:52
Im personally sad to see the FTC divisions leaving the same Staduim floor. :( . I loved being able to watch my FTC team compete along with watching the FRC fields. Its going to be interesting next year I guess. From all the pictures I can find of Union though, I have no clue as to where they are going to put the FTC fields.
PayneTrain
01-05-2014, 12:53
I like the idea of 8 divisions with 60 teams each. This would mean FIRST would only have to invite 80 additional teams next season. IT also would keep the round robin even so surrogate matches would not need played by any teams.
This also just adds an additional round of matches on Einstein with the 8 winning alliances facing off in quarter finals.
Thing about 6 divisions versus 8 is that you can probably squeeze in two more FRC fields in the dome if you take out the FTC spot and move around some of Einstein, but with 8 divisions you're likely going to be moving a number of fields out of the dome and that doesn't come off as ideal.
notmattlythgoe
01-05-2014, 12:55
Thing about 6 divisions versus 8 is that you can probably squeeze in two more FRC fields in the dome if you take out the FTC spot and move around some of Einstein, but with 8 divisions you're likely going to be moving a number of fields out of the dome and that doesn't come off as ideal.
This is true. If they could find a way to fit it I think it would be ideal. I like the idea of getting as many matches in as possible with smaller divisions during qualification matches. This year you only saw 50% of your division on the field, which does not lead to a very good ranking system.
PVCpirate
01-05-2014, 13:53
If FIRST went to 6 divisions of 80 teams they could grow to up to 6 divisions of 100 teams then look at further expansion. If you took the 6 divisions and broke them into 2 Finalist divisions of 3 alliances each then had a playoff where 2 teams move to Einstein for finals.
1 vs 2
1 vs 3
2 vs 3
Top team moves on and the final 2 teams play 1 game to move the winner on. Yes we would be adding a few more matches but it seems like a good solution.
I think you're on to something, if you just have your two Finalist division winners move on to a final 3 match series, it's 8-9 matches, which is essentially the same as past Einstein matches. This means Einstein takes roughly the same amount of time, and we could have the same or more quals matches per team.
Mr_D_Mentor
12-05-2014, 22:21
I think 8 divisions is a good idea because smaller divisions mean a more balanced competition. But it doesn't mean there needs to be 8 fields. Each field could have two divisions alternating games. Maybe Curie-A & Curie-B share a field and have a playoff to see who goes to Einstein. Expansion could be implemented in increments of 6 per division, starting with 54 or 60. If there are 2 divisions of 54, with each team getting 10 matches, there would be 180 matches compared to 167 matches with the current set-up.
If FIRST went to 6 divisions of 80 teams they could grow to up to 6 divisions of 100 teams then look at further expansion. If you took the 6 divisions and broke them into 2 Finalist divisions of 3 alliances each then had a playoff where 2 teams move to Einstein for finals.
1 vs 2
1 vs 3
2 vs 3
Top team moves on and the final 2 teams play 1 game to move the winner on. Yes we would be adding a few more matches but it seems like a good solution.
FIRST could go old school and do Double Elimination Brackets like they used to back in the dark ages of FIRST.
BrendanB
13-05-2014, 11:32
FIRST could go old school and do Double Elimination Brackets like they used to back in the dark ages of FIRST.
I have an original copy of the elimination bracket from 1996 hanging on my wall if anyone wants to see how it used to be done.
Clinton Bolinger
13-05-2014, 12:02
My thoughts on 2015 CMPs:
8 Divisions - 8 Fields
64 Teams Per Division
32 Teams Make the Eliminations (4 Team Alliances)
12 Matches Per Team (Thursday & Friday)
Alliance Selection Friday Night
1-2 Hour Robot Work Period for Alliances
Division Awards during the Elims (like 2014)
Division Eliminations Saturday Morning
Division Winners Move to Einstein
Einstein Eliminations (QF, SF, F) Saturday Afternoon
Fields Configured in a "/ \" Shape, which allows for the following:
Spectators can watch more robot action (similar to VEX events)
Field Reset takes place when the other field is playing a match
Robots Connect to the field and get setup while other match is being played
Two MCs that pass the audience back and forth
My favorite part is alliance selection on Friday Night (talk about GP) ... this would allow for the alliances to talk about their strategy, scout / watch videos on their opponents, and maybe even "hang out" that evening. The downside that people will bring up is the 32 x 8 Teams (256) that do not make the eliminations.
But I still think there is plenty of things to do:
Check out Jr. FLL, FLL, FTC
Goto the Arch
Goto the City Museum
Goto the Finale Party Thing
I Don't Know ... WATCH the Elimination Matches
Check out the teams that made the Elims
-Clinton-
AdamHeard
13-05-2014, 12:11
My thoughts on 2015 CMPs:
8 Divisions - 8 Fields
64 Teams Per Division
32 Teams Make the Eliminations (4 Team Alliances)
12 Matches Per Team (Thursday & Friday)
Alliance Selection Friday Night
1-2 Hour Robot Work Period for Alliances
Division Awards during the Elims (like 2014)
Division Eliminations Saturday Morning
Division Winners Move to Einstein
Einstein Eliminations (QF, SF, F) Saturday Afternoon
Fields Configured in a "/ \" Shape, which allows for the following:
Spectators can watch more robot action (similar to VEX events)
Field Reset takes place when the other field is playing a match
Robots Connect to the field and get setup while other match is being played
Two MCs that pass the audience back and forth
My favorite part is alliance selection on Friday Night (talk about GP) ... this would allow for the alliances to talk about their strategy, scout / watch videos on their opponents, and maybe even "hang out" that evening. The downside that people will bring up is the 32 x 8 Teams (256) that do not make the eliminations.
But I still think there is plenty of things to do:
Check out Jr. FLL, FLL, FTC
Goto the Arch
Goto the City Museum
Goto the Finale Party Thing
I Don't Know ... WATCH the Elimination Matches
Check out the teams that made the Elims
-Clinton-
I ran the numbers on the plane back and agree on the Thurs-Fri 8 division setup.
I don't like that it waters down the divisions a bunch, but if we're going to more divisions this happens no matter what.
It deepens the elims at champs without adding any funky structure.
Interesting ideas. I see one area of concern from the scout groups perspective...alliance selection Friday night leaves little time prior to selections to do a detailed analysis and ranking of prospective teams. It takes our guys at least 4 hours to do a thorough job of ranking prospects.
Clinton Bolinger
13-05-2014, 12:21
Interesting ideas. I see one area of concern from the scout groups perspective...alliance selection Friday night leaves little time prior to selections to do a detailed analysis and ranking of prospective teams. It takes our guys at least 4 hours to do a thorough job of ranking prospects.
Possibly have a 2 hour "dinner" break, then the last match for all of the teams, before alliance selections begin. We would probably make a rough list on Thursday Night and refine the list all day Friday before alliance selection.
Hopefully the depth of CMPs will start to mimic MSC, as more and more areas go to the District Model.
-Clinton-
Wayne TenBrink
13-05-2014, 12:21
I completely agree with Clint. 8 divisions would allow up to 800 teams to play 10 matches (although I would prefer 64 teams/division with 12 matches). Friday alliance selection would complicate things, but it would be great to have an evening to work out strategy, etc. If I were one of the teams that didn't make it into the eliminations on Saturday, I would gladly do something I rarely get to do (except during Einstein, unfortunately) - just sit back and enjoy some good matches.
XaulZan11
13-05-2014, 12:28
We would probably make a rough list on Thursday Night and refine the list all day Friday before alliance selection.
I'd have my team take it a step further and put teams in tiers even before the event started (I've done it for myself the past two years to determine overall depth of the field). This past year, I believe there was only 6 or 8 teams on Curie that did not have any match videos online.
On the whole I really like this layout. In the short run, it may water down the eliminations too much but with more places moving to districts, the depth of the 64 teams will only improve.
AdamHeard
13-05-2014, 12:33
Interesting ideas. I see one area of concern from the scout groups perspective...alliance selection Friday night leaves little time prior to selections to do a detailed analysis and ranking of prospective teams. It takes our guys at least 4 hours to do a thorough job of ranking prospects.
I overlooked that in Clinton's post, my plan is the same except selections Saturday morning, then 1-2 break before elims start.
Jared Russell
13-05-2014, 12:42
I'd rather have quals later into the afternoon/evening on Friday to ensure that each team gets as many plays as possible, and then do selections first thing Saturday morning. I predict that giving each alliance captain a whole evening (with full knowledge of the standings) to come up with their pick list will increase the quality and strategic depth of eliminations in huge ways.
I totally agree with everything else in Clinton's post and would be VERY excited to see it implemented!
Tom Bottiglieri
13-05-2014, 12:44
I'd rather have quals later into the afternoon/evening on Friday to ensure that each team gets as many plays as possible, and then do selections first thing Saturday morning. I predict that giving each alliance captain a whole evening (with full knowledge of the standings) to come up with their pick list will increase the quality of eliminations play and strategic depth in huge ways.
I wonder if teams would even show up to the venue on Saturday if they were not picked on Friday.
I wonder if teams would even show up to the venue on Saturday if they were not picked on Friday.
This has to be the main concern with Friday night alliance selections. Obviously all of us on CD would stick around, but nobody wants to see empty stands for Einstein, least of all FIRST with their sponsors, VIPs, and speakers.
From a team perspective, I don't think Friday night or Saturday morning is absolutely superior. In a game like this one, where strategising is incredibly important, being able to work with your partners all evening is great. But in a more regular game, I'd prefer to have the time to refine a pick list. Currently, that last half hour before alliance selections is just awful. Would personally lean towards Saturday morning alliance selections, with a break afterwards (there's time for it, gone are 2 hours of quals, only adding about an hour to Einstein).
Clinton Bolinger
13-05-2014, 13:14
I'd rather have quals later into the afternoon/evening on Friday to ensure that each team gets as many plays as possible, and then do selections first thing Saturday morning. I predict that giving each alliance captain a whole evening (with full knowledge of the standings) to come up with their pick list will increase the quality and strategic depth of eliminations in huge ways.
I totally agree with everything else in Clinton's post and would be VERY excited to see it implemented!
Saturday Morning would work as well and there is still potential for the first few teams to get together Friday night to make their remaining pick list for the next morning.
I like the idea of having all night to refine the pick lists and not guessing what the ranks will be after everyone plays their last match.
Either way I hope we increase the number of matches per team and decrease the number of teams per division. 100 Teams is way too many teams properly scout and rank (via the actual FIRST ranking).
-Clinton-
PayneTrain
13-05-2014, 13:35
Either way I hope we increase the number of matches per team and decrease the number of teams per division. 100 Teams is way too many teams properly scout and rank (via the actual FIRST ranking).
-Clinton-
It is really unfortunate that at Championships I only share the field with half of my division. The other half might as well not even be on the same division.
With 12 matches to play (6 on Thursday and 6 on Friday) I can play with/against everyone in the division once if there are 60 teams. It doesn't have to be absolutely everyone, so even a number like 66 or 72 teams in a division would allow me to see the overwhelming majority of teams in my division.
Chris is me
13-05-2014, 13:38
Why not have alliance selection first thing Saturday morning? Maybe even alliance selection before opening ceremonies to allow more strategy or inspection time.
Benefits of this over Friday night are numerous:
Qual matches can go as late as desired Friday
Teams get essentially all of the time they need to make pick lists.
Rankings are known for certain during pick list meetings, allowing for better strategy.
No "surprise captains" without lists (happens less often at Champs but occasionally an issue)
Saturday doesn't have to be rushed, allowing for a longer Einstein
No team would ditch Saturday morning as they might still be playing
I think 6 divisions of 70-80 teams is probably the way to go. A round robin on Einstein would mean 6 matches total for the "semi finals" (compare to 4-6 for current semis) and then the top two advance. Tiebreakers could either be a rubber match or highest total score. Finals are same old best of three.
Mike Norton
13-05-2014, 14:03
Place to hold the Championship: Walt Disney Florida
1) Big Airport cheap to fly into
2) Lots of hotel rooms
3) Lot of things to do during down time
4) EPCOT big into new technology
5) Lots of space for all the teams.
6) Good weather in April.
7) Very safe
About rookies going to Championship. If they earn the right to go the same way as any other team then great. But they need to change the way seeding rounds are held. They would have to really randomize the seeding.
I wonder if teams would even show up to the venue on Saturday if they were not picked on Friday.
More seats for Einstein!
I wonder if teams would even show up to the venue on Saturday if they were not picked on Friday.
Sadly, I don't know that we would. That's a >$2,000 decision for our team, and we're comparatively small (30 members).
About rookies going to Championship. If they earn the right to go the same way as any other team then great. But they need to change the way seeding rounds are held. They would have to really randomize the seeding.What do you mean? They're already random, within the constraints of an FRC schedule. Randomness means that some teams will get "lucky" and some will get "unlucky". Or are you suggesting that they make the schedules non-random? They tried that before, it didn't work too well...
Bmarshall645
13-05-2014, 15:53
Place to hold the Championship: Walt Disney Florida
1) Big Airport cheap to fly into
2) Lots of hotel rooms
3) Lot of things to do during down time
4) EPCOT big into new technology
5) Lots of space for all the teams.
6) Good weather in April.
7) Very safe
About rookies going to Championship. If they earn the right to go the same way as any other team then great. But they need to change the way seeding rounds are held. They would have to really randomize the seeding.
I believe the championship was held at Epcot the first 4 years of the program. Then it moved to Atlanta Georgia and then it moved to St.Louis.
scooty199
13-05-2014, 17:58
Did I just read someone wants a return to EPCOT?
Edit: ^ There was also a period where it was in Houston before moving to Atlanta.
Did I just read someone wants a return to EPCOT?
Edit: ^ There was also a period where it was in Houston before moving to Atlanta.
Houston deserves another shot. 2003 felt like a rush job.
Speaking long-term, growing championship much bigger than its current size? I think Orlando is the only city that *can* support it. Nowhere else has a high enough density of hotels, and enough convention space.
Speaking long-term, growing championship much bigger than its current size? I think Orlando is the only city that *can* support it. Nowhere else has a high enough density of hotels, and enough convention space.
If they don't have a domed stadium then I don't want to hear about how many hotel rooms they have. What happened in late 90's and the early millennium isn't going to fill the bill anymore. FIRST has outgrown Disney World.
If they don't have a domed stadium then I don't want to hear about how many hotel rooms they have. What happened in late 90's and the early millennium isn't going to fill the bill anymore. FIRST has outgrown Disney World.
The largest convention center in the world wouldnt work for you?(Orange County Convention Center)
Steven Donow
13-05-2014, 20:13
The largest convention center in the world wouldnt work for you?(Orange County Convention Center)
Having an event strictly in a convention center is VERY different than a convention center with an attached arena.
Having an event strictly in a convention center is VERY different than a convention center with an attached arena.
Were the fields in the pits a few years ago really that bad? Or were they only bad because of the minimal seating?
Were the fields in the pits a few years ago really that bad? Or were they only bad because of the minimal seating?
Einstein is impossible in a convention center.
scooty199
13-05-2014, 20:32
Technically... McCormick place in Chi-Town is larger but who cares?
A domed arena really has become a necessity for FIRST CMPS.
Einstein is impossible in a convention center.
Mind saying why?
Mind saying why?
Because you need far too many seats than you can effectively fit into a convention center before you run out of height, or you cannot see the field/stage.
popnbrown
13-05-2014, 20:51
Technically... McCormick place in Chi-Town is larger... The 10 minute walk to champs from my house would be fantasmic
Alas,
...but who cares?
A domed arena really has become a necessity for FIRST CMPS.
I agree.
So close to a McDome too, long live.
Also it'd be pretty friggin expensive and likely FIRST wouldn't like the price tag.
Tom Bottiglieri
13-05-2014, 20:57
Sadly, I don't know that we would. That's a >$2,000 decision for our team, and we're comparatively small (30 members).
I'm not following. Assuming you have already booked travel and lodging, how does abstaining from attending the event (in lieu of, say, a baseball game or more city exploring) save you money?
scooty199
13-05-2014, 21:11
The 10 minute walk to champs from my house would be fantasmic
Alas,
I agree.
So close to a McDome too, long live.
Also it'd be pretty friggin expensive and likely FIRST wouldn't like the price tag.
Well.. Chicago is a larger city than St. Louis. Larger travel hub too.
Costs would be ridiculous, including at the hotels.
ezygmont708
13-05-2014, 21:17
Einstein is impossible in a convention center.
Not necessarily... It may be possible in the Philadelphia convention center, but it would be extremely expensive to do it! So cost prohibitive, but not impossible.
popnbrown
13-05-2014, 21:25
Well.. Chicago is a larger city than St. Louis. Larger travel hub too.
Ahh...hopefully one day this will become important. (Edit: because it'll be super international)
As for the expensiveness, looks like we need to infiltrate the machine.
I'm kidding Chicago, don't be mad.
I'm not following. Assuming you have already booked travel and lodging, how does abstaining from attending the event (in lieu of, say, a baseball game or more city exploring) save you money?
I mean we'd go home. If we could save a night's worth of hotel rooms and a day's worth of charter bus (assuming the companies refund us), that's a lot of bank.
I mean we'd go home. If we could save a night's worth of hotel rooms and a day's worth of charter bus (assuming the companies refund us), that's a lot of bank.
But you wouldn't know until around 7 or 8pm that night. Would you be able to change your travel plans on the fly like that?
BrendanB
14-05-2014, 08:48
But you wouldn't know until around 7 or 8pm that night. Would you be able to change your travel plans on the fly like that?
It would work for teams who take buses however I'm not sure if you can get your money back for your hotel.
Citrus Dad
14-05-2014, 13:49
I wonder if teams would even show up to the venue on Saturday if they were not picked on Friday.
I agree this could be a problem. However, many teams will have to book hotel rooms through Friday or Saturday night anyway, and will have unchangeable plane flights, so I don't think this will be a problem. I expect that most teams come to the Champs hoping that they will advance to elims. And many of the other teams are shooting for other awards that would be made on Saturday. So I don't think the attrition rate would be very high.
To be honest, playing Qs on Saturday AM followed by alliance selection has not been an issue for us. We prep the night before and look at different scenarios. (I'm sure 254 does the same.) Last year we had about a half dozen scenarios. This year we had 3.
From an educational standpoint, I think having this uncertainty and learning to plan for it is very important. This reflects the real world--you have to think ahead and prepare appropriately for different outcomes.
Steven Donow
28-05-2014, 11:58
Here are some "official details" about the new layout. (http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/2015-first-championship)
Included is the video shown at Champs this year (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR8lqW1bb1A)
And this little blurb:
Here are a few new features to give you a sneak peak:
Multiple new venues
Olympic Village feel
Entertainment options
Dedicated transportation
New media formats for participants onsite and at home
And, best of all – more chances to see your friends and meet new ones from around the world
Bolded for hooray better streaming.
Rosiebotboss
28-05-2014, 12:29
For those of us not able to get YouTube from behind our work firewall, is there any mention of the number of teams from each program?
MARS_James
28-05-2014, 12:46
For those of us not able to get YouTube from behind our work firewall, is there any mention of the number of teams from each program?
No unfortunately, although one thing being overlooked is The Edward Jones Dome will apparently be hosting something called FIRST Family Celebration, take with that what you will.
Steven Donow
28-05-2014, 12:50
No unfortunately, although one thing being overlooked is The Edward Jones Dome will apparently be hosting something called FIRST Family Celebration, take with that what you will.
I would assume that that is just some big "opening ceremony" type thing for the entire event
is there any mention of the number of teams from each program?
Frank said at Championship that they're looking at about 600 FRC teams, but it will depend on how they handle the divisions.
No unfortunately, although one thing being overlooked is The Edward Jones Dome will apparently be hosting something called FIRST Family Celebration, take with that what you will.
I would assume that that is just some big "opening ceremony" type thing for the entire event
Yep. This whole 'Olympic Village' feel means we need dedicated, all-program opening and closing ceremonies where the whole FIRST Family is together and celebrating the season. From an FRC perspective it shouldn't change much, but I think it'll make a world of a difference in making FLL and FTC feel included.
James1902
30-05-2014, 09:46
"New media formats for participants onsite and at home" sounds interesting.
Yep. This whole 'Olympic Village' feel means we need dedicated, all-program opening and closing ceremonies where the whole FIRST Family is together and celebrating the season. From an FRC perspective it shouldn't change much, but I think it'll make a world of a difference in making FLL and FTC feel included.
Our FLL team (first time at champs) had a tremendous time sharing the pits with FRC/FTC/Jr.FLL (wandering around, meeting people, trading swag), so in that sense I think that the non-FRC teams are going to really miss out on the whole massive scale of the thing as well as seeing the incredible FRC teams that they can aspire to be like. The schedule is so busy that they would never have been able to visit the FRC pits were they not in the same building.
On the other hand, if they are able to double or triple the number of FLL and FTC teams invited, then it is an all-around win, so long as there are other ways to keep the programs connected.
SpaceBiz
18-06-2014, 21:44
This might seem crazy, but hang with me on this
A lot of people seem to be anticipating 8 divisions. I don't personally think there is enough space to host 8 separate events because of the fact the noise from the neighboring events would become a problem.
Someone mentioned earlier that we could run two fields side by side... but then you have seating problems, and if you assume 150 per division, getting to know all of those teams becomes hard and makes scouting too hard. (Although it would be more fun)
Ultimately this is the solution, but it would need to be done so there is more separation between the two fields.
Change last years divisions..... to leauges. (insted of curie division it gets referred to as curie leauge)
The two fields making up the curie leauge are now referred to as divisions of the curie leauge.
Right Curie Division, Left Curie Division
East Curie Division, West Curie Division
Upper Curie, Lower Curie
Red Curie, Blue Curie
(you see how there are many more possibilities)
The teams play a total of 10, 11, 12, or 16 matches before elimination.(depending on rank and new selection for worlds) 10 Against their own division and max of 6 "mid selection" against the other.
The first round of the selection process occurs before the "mid selection" matches. (The number one and two teams for the elim. alliances will play together for the six interleauge matches before elim.)
The next 8 ranked teams get to play two games of the 6 while the next 30 only get one. The selection process than resumes, as if the matches never occurred.(followed by an extra round of selection for an alternate team in the event of a malfunction) Although unlikley, a team that did not make mid selection matches can still be selected in the alternate seed.
The only significance of mid selection matches is that record for these matches determine the elim seeding, not the pre selection seed of the alliance captian.
The divisions than play a elimination bracket determining the team that makes Einstein (Two teams from each leauge)
In Einstein, the two divisions making up the leauges play each other first, leaving only one from each leauge for the semifinals.
I know I said team instead of alliance like 20 times, and I know there is probably a good reason why this won't work, but it is good to switch things up, to keep them interesting.
Jared Russell
18-06-2014, 22:37
This might seem crazy, but hang with me on this
I like the idea of alternating plays between adjacent fields. The audience gets (almost) non-stop action, teams get more plays, and to some extent you can re-use volunteers (ex. non-head refs and field reset). Still certainly more than 1x the number of volunteers you need to run 4 fields, but hopefully less than 2x. Keeping the number of teams per division down is also good for letting more teams make elims, albeit with a shallower pool of talent in each division. Observation: With ~64-75 team divisions at a World Championship, you run the risk of having very watered down eliminations unless you eliminate the serpentine draft (even if it is just for this event).
The idea of playing a bunch of extra inter-league matches between two separate alliance selection periods...not a fan. Teams would have some really mixed incentives during the intervening matches, and it adds complexity without addressing any real problem.
Kevin Leonard
18-06-2014, 23:08
Observation: With ~64-75 team divisions at a World Championship, you run the risk of having very watered down eliminations unless you eliminate the serpentine draft (even if it is just for this event).
I disagree. In Archimedes this year there were EASILY 10-15 more teams that had eliminations-caliber robots that weren't on any alliance for eliminations- and that's with every team picking their own backup robot. so that makes 32+15 or 47 teams in the division with eliminations-caliber robots.
47/100= 30/64-35.25/75
30-36 teams in the division with eliminations-worthy robots. That sounds just right to me.
Caleb Sykes
18-06-2014, 23:43
...if you assume 150 per division, getting to know all of those teams becomes hard and makes scouting too hard. (Although it would be more fun)
The difficulty of scouting and getting to know teams should not be a primary concern when deciding how the new setup will work. The 3v3 matchup already makes scouting "too hard" for many (most) of the teams out there, but I would be rather annoyed if 3v3 matches were changed to 2v2 just because of this. "Getting to know" all of the teams in your division at championships is near to impossible already, and if anyone has done this, they still have 300+ other FRC teams to get to know.
M. Lillis
19-06-2014, 00:11
Kind of off topic, but still in line with the discussion: why wouldn't they adopt an IRI style draft for elims at CMP? It would make it way more competitive if the draft order was 1-8, 1-8, 8-1. The 8th seeded alliance would still have a shot, seeing as so many good teams don't make elims.
Kind of off topic, but still in line with the discussion: why wouldn't they adopt an IRI style draft for elims at CMP? It would make it way more competitive if the draft order was 1-8, 1-8, 8-1, 1-8. The 8th seeded alliance would still have a shot, seeing as so many good teams don't make elims.
Because it already WAS 1-8, 1-8 (no picked 4th team), and blowouts were common in QFs. Trust me. If they liked it as that, they wouldn't have changed it. "Still have a shot" as in "you still have a shot at having a world high score set against you"...
The year after they made the change, you guys benefitted by being able to be part of a very good #8 alliance, and take it all the way to a World Championship. I don't think that would have been the case two years prior, even with the same game and same robots.
PayneTrain
19-06-2014, 14:21
I disagree. In Archimedes this year there were EASILY 10-15 more teams that had eliminations-caliber robots that weren't on any alliance for eliminations- and that's with every team picking their own backup robot. so that makes 32+15 or 47 teams in the division with eliminations-caliber robots.
47/100= 30/64-35.25/75
30-36 teams in the division with eliminations-worthy robots. That sounds just right to me.
You will inevitably lower the bar across the board, meaning with a division that is inherently weaker (if you are adding any more teams to CMP, I'm going to wager the new average ability of a robot at the 400+n level will be lower than the average ability of a machine at 400 teams). Just like with the new college football playoff where there will be a 5th place team that wants to get in instead of a third place team, you could argue that any number of robots "could have made eliminations" if you are lowering the overall average ability of teams in the division.
Chris is me
19-06-2014, 14:30
You will inevitably lower the bar across the board, meaning with a division that is inherently weaker (if you are adding any more teams to CMP, I'm going to wager the new average ability of a robot at the 400+n level will be lower than the average ability of a machine at 400 teams). Just like with the new college football playoff where there will be a 5th place team that wants to get in instead of a third place team, you could argue that any number of robots "could have made eliminations" if you are lowering the overall average ability of teams in the division.
I don't think a drastic lowering of event quality is inevitable in the slightest. The assumption your post rides on is that we're letting the 1st through 400th best teams in the world into Champs. We're not. It's really more like 1st through 150th, then a more random distribution with a concentration near the bottom for rookies and weaker second picks. If we allowed more teams into the Championship that were in the middle tier, it's possible that the average strength of a team in a division could go up.
Also, what Kevin was saying is that there were another 10-15 teams that were almost identical in performance to those picked - these are teams that, if picked, could have won. He is not arguing that any team "could have made eliminations" if the bar was lowered - he's saying for a bar at its current height, fewer teams are making it into elims than there are teams which can clear the bar, so to speak.
Hello,
Please see attached. . . . Just an idea. Gotta fit eight fields in there !!
Thanks
M. Lillis
19-06-2014, 16:01
Hello,
Please see attached. . . . Just an idea. Gotta fit eight fields in there !!
Thanks
I don't think that would work well for spectators. Fields will definitely have to be where the pits were this year (think: 2011). Also, they could just use Einstein for divisional matches and just give it a once over before actual Einstein matches are played. It would eliminate one extra field.
MrTechCenter
19-06-2014, 19:25
Hello,
Please see attached. . . . Just an idea. Gotta fit eight fields in there !!
Thanks
That would be bad for spectators. An end view isn't very good. Also, field 3 would be blocking the tunnel between the convention center and dome.
BBray_T1296
19-06-2014, 20:32
Wouldn't 8 fields (whether 8 divisions or dual fields) create roughly 2x more traffic in the tunnel, down the robot lanes, and everywhere else? Is there capacity for that? Einstein would be a nightmare as well, just because 500/600/800 teams are there instead of the typical 400 all fighting for seats, even if Einstein were in a more practical spot. Many, many more teams sounds like a logistical nightmare to me
Wouldn't 8 fields (whether 8 divisions or dual fields) create roughly 2x more traffic in the tunnel, down the robot lanes, and everywhere else? Is there capacity for that? Einstein would be a nightmare as well, just because 500/600/800 teams are there instead of the typical 400 all fighting for seats, even if Einstein were in a more practical spot. Many, many more teams sounds like a logistical nightmare to me
There's the possibility of adding some robot lanes through the other lower entrance to the dome, but that would mean moving more humans to the upper entrances. For Einstein, depending on layout, it might be best to have a couple of the field screens staying up and on to provide a better view for teams sitting near those fields. (Call it last two to finish have to delay getting their screens down, just to make it easy.)
caboosev11
19-06-2014, 20:37
I would thnik that they're just trying to make things a bit less "cramped." However, even so, this could mean a larger size playing field.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.