[FRC Blog] Team Advancement, 2017 Progress, and History Patches

[Hallry]

Posted on the FRC Blog (http://www.firstinspires.org/robotics/frc/blog/), 1/13/16: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotics/frc/blog/Team-Advancement-2017-Progress-and-History-Patches

Team Advancement, 2017 Progress, and History Patches

Written by Frank Merrick, 2016 Jan 13

Team Advancement

Section 7 of the 2016 FIRST Robotics Competition Administrative Manual (http://www.firstinspires.org/resource-library/frc/competition-manual-qa-system) was published last night. This section covers how Regional and District teams advance through the system. Nothing has changed from last year for Regional teams, but District teams will want to look closely at the sections related to their situation. While the rules themselves haven’t changed, we did include the number of FIRST Championship slots each District is getting, along with information on the number of awards the District management teams have chosen to present at their District Championships, for those awards of which they had options.

2017 Progress

The committee working and the geographical assignment of Teams to the two 2017 FIRST Championships, and potential Team swap options, which we blogged about here (http://www.firstinspires.org/node/7526), has mostly completed its work, after weekly meetings for the last ten weeks or so. We still need to summarize our recommendations to Senior FIRST Management for their review and approval. Depending on how things progress, I expect we’ll be able to announce the final results to the community within the next three or four weeks.

I want to extend a huge thanks to the committee (http://www.firstinspires.org/node/7571)! As you could imagine, this was not an easy task, but they were able to pull together their sometimes disparate opinions and get it done. Thanks, everyone!

History Patches

You’ll remember we talked about Team Standards and History Patches in this blog (http://www.firstinspires.org/robotics/frc/blog/something-new%E2%80%93team-standards). Now that the game is out of the bag, we can tell you a little more about the History Patches each team will be receiving at each event. Take a look:

http://www.firstinspires.org/sites/default/files/uploads/resource_library/frc/game-and-season-info/competition-manual/2016/week-1-patch.jpg

This is an example of the ‘Week 1’ patch. Each team attending a Week 1 event (or, the Week 0.5 event, as we rounded up) will be receiving this patch. The basic design for the patches from week to week will be the same, but the color of the tower will change, as will the competition week number, indicated by the Roman numeral near the top of the tower. District Championships will be indicated by ‘DC’ near the top of the tower, and the FIRST Championship will be indicated by a simple (and simply magnificent) ‘C’. Patches are 3.4 inches wide and 2.6 inches high at their largest points. As noted before, patches are self-adhesive, to allow you to easily put them on your Team Standard.

So, why didn’t we show this before Kickoff? As you can see, the patches have the official post-Kickoff FIRST STRONGHOLD logo, with what we thought were rather obvious goal openings in the tower. As I said before, we wanted to try to keep a few secrets at least.

Frank

[rsisk]

I'm liking the patches!

[Sperkowsky]

I'm liking the patches!
Same! They look great. Although we will probably put it on our robot after the event if we don't make cmp.

[Basel A]

Nothing really new in Section 7, although I did find it interesting that Michigan is the only district that chose to have fewer than the maximum number of Chairman's Awardees. The 4 this year will be more than it has ever been (has been 3 since the Detroit Regional began in '04).

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYngUQxWYAAIN8p.png

[MechEng83]

Welp... I guess it's a little harder this year for Indiana. 9 slots down from 10 last year.

[Taylor]

Welp... I guess it's a little harder this year for Indiana. 9 slots down from 10 last year.

Waitlist, waitlist, waitlist.

[Peyton Yeung]

Welp... I guess it's a little harder this year for Indiana. 9 slots down from 10 last year.
It would have been nicer if IN would have selected 2 EI winners at state.

[Knufire]

It would have been nicer if IN would have selected 2 EI winners at state.

Would one more EI winner be one less team qualifying by points?

[dag0620]

Nothing really new in Section 7, although I did find it interesting that Michigan is the only district that chose to have fewer than the maximum number of Chairman's Awardees.

I found that interesting as well. I'd be curious to learn FiM's reasoning behind it.

[Karthik]

Would one more EI winner be one less team qualifying by points?

Yes, each region is given a number of qualifying spots for Championship proportional to their representation within the overall team count. From there each region gets to choose how to allocate spots based on the guidelines set forth by FIRST. As such if a team decides to give out the maximum number of spots within a given criteria, it would then reduce the number of spots available via qualification by points.

[Peyton Yeung]

Would one more EI winner be one less team qualifying by points?
No but IN use to have to have 2 with regionals in similarly sized events. Albeit out of state teams could win them as well.

[Ian Curtis]

I found that interesting as well. I'd be curious to learn FiM's reasoning behind it.

The FiM choice seems in line with the FiM philosophy that teams should advance on points. This is outlined in Jim Zondag's White Paper here. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2804) With 4 teams, it would seem pretty unlikely that you've deprived a would-be World Chairman's Award Winner from being eligible at CMP.

[MARS_James]

I am going to use Indiana as an example of hypothetical real quick so humor me:
Indiana has 9 slots for championships.
4 slots can be used by the winners of the district championship (3 alliance members and a potential back up)
1 Chairman's Award
1 Rookie All Star
1 Engineering Inspiration Award.

Leaving us 2 slots left. However 868 and 5484 are going to Queen City and if they win the competition or Chairmans/EI then those two slots go to them. What if there would have been a 3rd team who traveled out of state and won their way to championship? I am sure FIRST would let them all go but the rules right now don't say what happens if the number of qualifying teams exceeds the number of slots.

Also I think the above answers why Indiana can't have 2 EI winners

[Jacob Bendicksen]

Looks like PNW is staying the same except for taking the number of Dean's List Finalists from 6 to 5 -- not sure why.

[dag0620]

The FiM choice seems in line with the FiM philosophy that teams should advance on points. This is outlined in Jim Zondag's White Paper here. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/papers/2804) With 4 teams, it would seem pretty unlikely that you've deprived a would-be World Chairman's Award Winner from being eligible at CMP.

Thanks for pointing this out. I read Jim's paper back in 2013, but the refresh read (especially Q19 and Q20) makes FiM's choice a lot more understandable when knowing their values and philosophies.

[robotic junkie]

if there is a history patch for each event, should team standards be reserving room for World Championships? Will the patch be the same dimensions as events?

[ratdude747]

I am going to use Indiana as an example of hypothetical real quick so humor me:
Indiana has 9 slots for championships.
4 slots can be used by the winners of the district championship (3 alliance members and a potential back up)
1 Chairman's Award
1 Rookie All Star
1 Engineering Inspiration Award.

Leaving us 2 slots left. However 868 and 5484 are going to Queen City and if they win the competition or Chairmans/EI then those two slots go to them. What if there would have been a 3rd team who traveled out of state and won their way to championship? I am sure FIRST would let them all go but the rules right now don't say what happens if the number of qualifying teams exceeds the number of slots.

Also I think the above answers why Indiana can't have 2 EI winners

That would be an interesting case... that's why I personally disagree with FIRST's decision to make regional advancements count towards the district allocation. IMHO since regional advances are already "allocated" to the regional, it seems kinda stupid to double count it. Oh well, the 2016 rules are the rules...