2016 Minnesota State Champs

[maxnz]

The 2016 MSHSL rankings are in (http://mnfirst.org/docs/2016/States_2016.pdf)and here are the 30 teams qualified to go to MSHSL Champs:

2052*
2220*
2526*
4607*
4009
2883
2502
2987
5172
5690
2512
6175
2501
5434
3277
2823
2538
5232
2530
4539
2503
3042
3276
3082
1816
4778
4656
4624
2855
3102

*Team automatically qualified with a Chairman's Award win.

[Caleb Sykes]

No team that attended Iowa for their first event qualified...

[youngace89]

Congrats to 2823 and 2855 for making it, and I wish you good luck representing St. Paul.

Despite the unfortunate absences of 2175 and defending state champion 3130, who won North Star together last weekend and certainly are two of the top teams in the state, I'll be making the short trip over to Minneapolis to watch, as this competition is still full of great robots and should be very competitive.

[youngace89]

No, you're right Caleb. 1816's first event was Lake Superior...

[Chief Hedgehog]

The list seems incomplete without 2175 and 3130. :(

[maxnz]

Congrats to 2823 and 2855 for making it, and I wish you good luck representing St. Paul.

Despite the unfortunate absences of 2175 and defending state champion 3130, who won North Star together last weekend and certainly are two of the top teams in the state, I'll be making the short trip over to Minneapolis to watch, as this competition is still full of great robots and should be very competitive.

Thank you. It means a great deal to us to be able to go to MN Champs this year.

Also, 3130 is ranked #32, so they probably will make it in replacing a team that is unable to attend.

[XaulZan11]

The list seems incomplete without 2175 and 3130. :(

How soon until someone from outside Minnesota chimes in that if Minnesota had districts they would have made it? ;) (I'm kidding. Let's please not make another thread about Minnesota going to districts).

[Thardro]

While it is great that we will be attending this for the first time, it is a shame that our alliance partners 2175 and 3130 from North Star will not be there as they both built some of the best robots in the state this year and clearly deserve to be there.

[youngace89]

Bogus and way too early predictions anyone? (Assuming all invited teams attend)
1. 5172-2052-2220
2. 5434-2502-4539
3. 2512-2883-4778
4. 4009-3102-2823

[Boe]

I feel like I may have jinxed my team when i posted this during build season...

I would much rather go to my first event sit dead on the field during every match and not go to states, if it meant having all issues worked out for our next event and doing well and going to worlds.

Good luck to all the teams going, it always ends up being a good event despite some of the best teams in the state not attending each year.

[hutchMN]

Good luck to all the teams going, it always ends up being a good event despite some of the best teams in the state not attending each year.

This really needs to be fixed, 2175 and 3130 both deserve to go. This happens every year, and it's time to fix it. We can't call it a state championship if it doesn't have the best teams in the state.

[BumblingBuilder]

2169 congratulates all the teams that qualified for the state championship! Minnesota had some great bots this year, some of which are sadly unrepresented (especially 3130 and 2175).

I actually found it quite comical seeing our placing.
"KING TeC close"

[Doug Frisk]

This really needs to be fixed, 2175 and 3130 both deserve to go. This happens every year, and it's time to fix it. We can't call it a state championship if it doesn't have the best teams in the state.

How do you propose fixing it?

The teams invited are invited using the same formula that districts use to select who's invited to district championships. The formula applies to the first event only. Giving teams the best of multiple events is prima facie unfair to teams that can only afford one event.

As it is, winning Chairman's at any event is an automatic in.

I'd love to see 2175 and 3130 at the state championships but that's not the way the rules are written.

You want heartbreaking, 2169 is the first team not selected and they lost on the 4th tiebreaker.

[hutchMN]

How do you propose fixing it?

The teams invited are invited using the same formula that districts use to select who's invited to district championships. The formula applies to the first event only. Giving teams the best of multiple events is prima facie unfair to teams that can only afford one event.

As it is, winning Chairman's at any event is an automatic in.

I'd love to see 2175 and 3130 at the state championships but that's not the way the rules are written.

You want heartbreaking, 2169 is the first team not selected and they lost on the 4th tiebreaker.
Take the average of both events. The goal of the state championship should be to find the best teams in the state... IRI doesn't only take into consideration your first event because the goal is to find the best teams. You can't call it a state championship if the goal isn't to find the best teams in the state.

[Ginger Power]

How do you propose fixing it?

Take an average of the first 2 events a team attends. Not every team goes to 2 events, but those that do should be rewarded for their hard work. In order to go to two events, you need money. To get this you work hard to raise funds. Every team in the state can work hard. Can every team raise enough money for 2 events? No, but a large majority can. The teams that go to 2 events generally have more time put into the program on average. Obviously there are exceptions with 4778 being one of them. I think this dedication to FIRST should be rewarded as well.

I would also say teams should be rewarded for the time they spend iterating and improving their robots between events. Diagnosing problems, fixing them and having a better performance and the field as a result is an amazing thing. These teams put in a lot of time and work and money into this improvement, not to mention blood, sweat, and tears.

If you're worried about not all teams being able to do 2 events, then take the teams single event and double the score while taking others teams' 2 events. Or simply take an average of 2 events that teams do, same thing.

This system rewards hard work without eliminating teams that can only do 1 regional from being able to compete. The top robots need to be there if we're going to call it a championship event, and this will correct for that without over-correcting.

[Caleb Sykes]

The teams invited are invited using the same formula that districts use to select who's invited to district championships. The formula applies to the first event only.

This is false. Among other things, the district formula does not have the potential to award 10 points to teams who spend 15 minutes writing an essay they don't care about.

[Jon Stratis]

This really needs to be fixed, 2175 and 3130 both deserve to go. This happens every year, and it's time to fix it. We can't call it a state championship if it doesn't have the best teams in the state.

I'm open for recommendations on how to fix it - any you send me will be presented to the rest of the RPC. We've looked at it from every angle we can think of, analyzing what the changes would be if we counted second events (as an average with the first event), analyzing the differences between teams that earn a spot at States versus those that earn a spot at Champs... We haven't found a better way that's fair to every team.

Counting a second event simply gives an unfair advantage to those teams that can afford more events. And for the record, that's 42 teams out of 208 this year - 20%. Allowing those 20% to count their second event gives them a benefit over the other 80% of teams in the state. This is the same decision that was made in districts - there, they count a team's first two events, because every team gets two events. If you sign up for a third? Well, that's some more practice and experience for you, but it doesn't count towards your ranking.

2175 and 3130 did really well at North Star, it was fun watching them play. But that was their second event. It's tough, but that's the only fair way we've found to make it work.

[Doug Frisk]

This is false. Among other things, the district formula does not have the potential to award 10 points to teams who spend 15 minutes writing an essay they don't care about.

I agree, if you spend 15 minutes on your Chairman's essay/presentation/video no one will care about it. Or at least no one will care for it.

[Ginger Power]

Another interesting question relating to the state qualification system is should Chairman's team qualify automatically? The fact that my team qualified via CA and wouldn't have otherwise doesn't change my opinion on this topic, because I haven't formed an opinion as of yet. I've heard good arguments from people on both sides. Those arguments always boil down to:

If you qualify CA winners, you have to have some kind of overall CA award or recognition, something. It wouldn't necessarily have to be MSHSL sponsored which would obviously be ideal.

If you have no such award/recognition, why qualify the teams?

Obviously the Chairman's Award is the most significant in FIRST, but should that mean they qualify to compete in a competition designed to determine the best robots? It does for champs, but they compete to become Hall of Fame teams there.

I'd love to see something done with CA at the state championship, even if it isn't MSHSL sponsored.

[BumblingBuilder]

I'm open for recommendations on how to fix it - any you send me will be presented to the rest of the RPC. We've looked at it from every angle we can think of, analyzing what the changes would be if we counted second events (as an average with the first event), analyzing the differences between teams that earn a spot at States versus those that earn a spot at Champs... We haven't found a better way that's fair to every team.

Counting a second event simply gives an unfair advantage to those teams that can afford more events. And for the record, that's 42 teams out of 208 this year - 20%. Allowing those 20% to count their second event gives them a benefit over the other 80% of teams in the state. This is the same decision that was made in districts - there, they count a team's first two events, because every team gets two events. If you sign up for a third? Well, that's some more practice and experience for you, but it doesn't count towards your ranking.

2175 and 3130 did really well at North Star, it was fun watching them play. But that was their second event. It's tough, but that's the only fair way we've found to make it work.

I'm very much on the fence about this issue. I really wouldn't mind whether or not a second event is factored in, but I really like defense Jon provides here.

One of the arguments for counting a second regional is that it rewards teams that took the time to improve their bot. But doesn't that still inherintely and indirectly hurt teams that can only afford one event? This improvement ideology still hinges on the fact that teams with more money are given an advantage. We'd be fooling ourselves if we thought teams that can't currently afford two regionals do not want to improve their robot. Factoring in a second regional rewards the opportunity to improve the bot, not the actual action of doing so. Every team would strive to improve their robot for their second regional if they could afford it. Sometimes the opposite happens (our first day at North Star this year for example, and us in 2008), but regardless, factoring in a second regional is more of a reward for the opportunity to improve the robot rather than a reward for the drive and motivation of doing so.

[Ginger Power]

I agree, if you spend 15 minutes on your Chairman's essay/presentation/video no one will care about it. Or at least no one will care for it.

But you'll still get your 10 state qualification points:) and you'll still take up judges time and energy :)

[Ginger Power]

Sorry for all the posts, I'm very opinionated on this topic... actually I'm very opinionated in general:D

Using only 1 event for state qualification rankings also provides incentive for teams to avoid early events. It is unfair to those teams located in the Duluth area that can't afford to travel. They only get 1 week after build season ends to make improvements (with no reference) while teams in the Twin Cities area that can't afford to travel, get over 6 weeks and the opportunity to see 254 and 1114 play, as well as many of their competitors who go to Duluth.

It's not fair no matter how you do it. I just think we should reward hard work rather than worry about being fair in a single aspect.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Using only 1 event for state qualification rankings also provides incentive for teams to avoid early events. It is unfair to those teams located in the Duluth area that can't afford to travel. They only get 1 week after build season ends to make improvements (with no reference) while teams in the Twin Cities area that can't afford to travel, get over 6 weeks and the opportunity to see 254 and 1114 play, as well as many of their competitors who go to Duluth.

Or do the Duluth teams have an advantage because they're not playing against anyone who has already played? Not clear cut either way. Making it "fair" is not straightforward.

We appreciate the sentiment and regret missing the event. It's always fun to compete up close and personal with MN friends again.

The qualification rules have been the same since the event was established in 2012. The 30 teams that performed best at their first events, according to district points, compete at state champs. We all know this, and try our best to make the cut. (Indeed, district teams still only count two events for points, any additional plays don't help ranking.) Both 2175 and 3130 have been lucky to attend in the past, and wish the best of luck to the very worthy competitors this year.

[Jon Stratis]

But you'll still get your 10 state qualification points:) and you'll still take up judges time and energy :)

The 10 points for a chairman's submission has done amazing things for our state over the past 5 years. Back in the good old days, not too many MN teams submitted Chairman's. I'm afraid I don't have exact numbers, but I know it was single digits at each event when we first started MSHSL. Where I do have exact numbers, though - in 2014, 40 MN teams submitted for Chairman's, out of 186. This year, we're almost DOUBLE that number, out of 208! Sure, some of them may have been thrown together at the last minute just for those 10 points, but for the most part team's are taking note of what Chairman's actually celebrates, and submitting for the award is making them evaluate and improve their programs.

That said, It's certainly open for debate at this point - has that benefit served its purpose enough that we can take it away? Have we created a sufficiently focused culture in the state around the Chairman's award that teams will continue to strive for it in the levels they did this past year, and not just make it "all about the robot"? Tough questions to answer.

[BumblingBuilder]

Sorry for all the posts, I'm very opinionated on this topic... actually I'm very opinionated in general:D

Using only 1 event for state qualification rankings also provides incentive for teams to avoid early events. It is unfair to those teams located in the Duluth area that can't afford to travel. They only get 1 week after build season ends to make improvements (with no reference) while teams in the Twin Cities area that can't afford to travel, get over 6 weeks and the opportunity to see 254 and 1114 play, as well as many of their competitors who go to Duluth.

It's not fair no matter how you do it. I just think we should reward hard work rather than worry about being fair in a single aspect.

I would argue against the claim that this is unequal, at least as much as other sources of unequality. Every team at a singular regional has had the same amount of time to improve, and State qualifications are based on how they perform against all those other robots that have had the same amount of time to make necessary improvements. So while the performance at the Minneapolis regionals may be more impressive, teams are not exactly getting more points from it.

And a large majority of those teams that qualified had their first regional in Duluth, so the results actually seem in favor of early competitions.

[Jon Stratis]

Or do the Duluth teams have an advantage because they're not playing against anyone who has already played? Not clear cut either way. Making it "fair" is not straightforward.

This is an interesting view, and one that actually seems to be born out by the numbers from this year's rankings. Ignoring the 4 Chairman's teams, 22 of the teams that earned a spot at states competed in Duluth. 1 from Wisconsin, and only 3 from Minneapolis. Now, many of those also competed a second time (most in some combination of Minneapolis, Iowa, and Duluth) - in fact, 16 of the teams attending states attended multiple regionals this year.

Honestly, it's a crap shoot when picking a regional to attend as your first event. Some years, you'll be in a regional where the winning alliance is made up of all team's from out of state - that's a LOT of potential points that aren't awarded to anyone. Other times, there's practically no one from out of state. Sometimes a team that wins Chairman's earns a boatload of points that don't really matter anymore, taking them out of the equation for other teams. And, of course, sometimes it's second-play teams that eat up the available points.

[hutchMN]

another way too early prediction
1. 5172, 2052, and 4009 (W)
2. 2502, 2512, and 1816 (F)
3. 5434, 2883, and 4539 (SF)
4. 4778, 2823, and 2220 (SF)

[Chief Hedgehog]

Yes, this current system is now flawed. However, if you look back to pre-2012 when the formula was put into place, MN FIRST and the MSHSL had to come up with something - and it worked for a while. I do think it needs to be revisited.

I have an interesting vantage point. My team has made many contacts the last 4 years throughout greater Minnesota and I have been hearing of the problems with the current system. 4607 has been fortunate enough to qualify for the State tournament 3 of our 4 years - but not without help.

As a rookie team in 2013 we won the North Star Regional outright as the 2nd pick on the alliance (thank you 2175 and 967). We ended up winning the State Tournament with 2175 and 2052.

In 2014, the 5 points awarded to us as being a 'Second year team' helped us to edge out other VERY deserving teams (again at NS we were allied with 967 and 2175 - I still cannot watch that Semifinal match). However, at State we did lead the alliance (with 2530 and 3018) that ended up as Finalists - so that kind of validated our being there. In a weird turn of events we had to face off against 2175 and 2052 (and 4778) - our alliance partners the previous year. As much as I would have liked to win the State Tournament - we took the fact we had to face off against 2175 and 2052 as a major bookmark in our team's history.

This year we qualified based on RCA (I am still trying to come to grips with this). We will see how it ends up.

Now to my thoughts...
As a coach of many sports for more than a decade, I can attest to the fact that the greatest improvement for ANY team happens between the first and second event/match/game. No matter the competitive sport, there is a significant advancement following a team's first event. I am all in favor of having each team's last regional event as the qualifier for the State Tournament. I do understand the situation of low-budget teams, because my team is one. Becker does not have a large industrial/commercial base and even though our school provides the space, they do not provide any funding. Contrary to popular belief, Xcel does not provide any unusual tax base to Becker - Xcel Sherco tax base is spread out among all school districts in MN (Thank you Jesse Ventura). This last year we lost funding from our founding sponsor and it has been a great struggle as we attended two regionals. We are now in a situation where we face a negative balance and we face a $25,000 bill for worlds. We will most likely go back to 1 regional for the foreseeable future.

And contrary to most stats, we actually finished lower at our second event than we did at our first.

I am also very opposed to the gratuity points allotted to Rookie and Second year teams (even though my team benefited in the past). If we run a state tournament without Judges Awards, there should be no reason that these bonus points are allowed. Even if there were judges, there should not be bonus points based on years.

As for Chairman's Awards submissions, MN FIRST had a reason for this and I believe Jon Stratis laid this out effectively in his post. Many of the teams that I have talked to have expressed great disdain for the 10 points that are attached to CA submission. Now that MN FIRST has seen a significant rise in CA submissions, I think that their goal has been realized. However, since CA is the top award in FRC, I do believe that a team that wins this at ANY regional should be granted a spot in the MSHSL Tournament. I know that many of my colleagues disagree - but this must still be a part of the qualifications for state.

Man this is a long post. I will wrap it up with this:

In my opinion, qualifications for the MN State Tournament should go as such:

1. RCA's automatically qualify (no matter the regional)
2. MN Regional (Duluth or MPLS) Winners automatically qualify
3. The rest of the field is based upon a system where the LAST regional is the qualifying regional.

[Chief Hedgehog]

This is an interesting view, and one that actually seems to be born out by the numbers from this year's rankings. Ignoring the 4 Chairman's teams, 22 of the teams that earned a spot at states competed in Duluth. 1 from Wisconsin, and only 3 from Minneapolis. Now, many of those also competed a second time (most in some combination of Minneapolis, Iowa, and Duluth) - in fact, 16 of the teams attending states attended multiple regionals this year.

Honestly, it's a crap shoot when picking a regional to attend as your first event. Some years, you'll be in a regional where the winning alliance is made up of all team's from out of state - that's a LOT of potential points that aren't awarded to anyone. Other times, there's practically no one from out of state. Sometimes a team that wins Chairman's earns a boatload of points that don't really matter anymore, taking them out of the equation for other teams. And, of course, sometimes it's second-play teams that eat up the available points.

Another great post from Jon. This was one of the reasons we (4607) went to Duluth - a venue filled with teams cutting their teeth for the first time. 4607 knew that going to Duluth was (in Jon's words) a crap shoot. A gamble that we lost in humiliating fashion.

[Ginger Power]

Or do the Duluth teams have an advantage because they're not playing against anyone who has already played? Not clear cut either way. Making it "fair" is not straightforward.

It seems to have played out in a way that Duluth teams had a significant advantage, with 22 of the 30 not counting CA from there. Not a single team from the Iowa regional... wow. I know there are more than a few who are deserving. My point still stands, things are never fair.

I really like Chief Hedgehog's suggestions, and I agree with CA winners qualifying automatically. Taking the last event or taking an average of 2 events, I don't think it matters, we can figure that part out. I do think something needs to be done.

[youngace89]

What if we counted extra events, but team's events after their first one didn't give teams as many points? So being a semifinalist at your second event would be the same number as points as being a quarterfinalist at your first event.

We couldn't take the average of the two events here, because going to a second event could hurt a team's chances, so the team's score for state would be the better of their two scores.

This way the only teams that would benefit from attending a second event are those who are successful enough to be winners or finalists at their second event. 2175 and 3130 would have made it this year, and 2502 would have made it last year.

[jajabinx124]

Congrats to the 30 teams that made it in! While many great teams unfortunately didn't qualify for this event, I'm sure it'll still be a great event. It'll be my last FRC competition as a student on 2052 and I'm excited for it already.

[topgun]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned expanding the size of the field and the length of the tournament.

A lot of the current MSHSL tournaments (football, basketball, etc) starts out with every team in them. They play elimination games eventually getting to the "state" tournament. Usually they are single elimination games, you win you move on. The sport's state tournament will be a three or four day event. Right now in robotics you play one event and only the top few from each event are going on to the next play.

What is the restriction on making the Robotics tournament a two day event or even a three day event? People and schools have no qualms about pulling their kids out of school for 3 days for a basketball tournament. Would it hurt to expand the tournament to two days? We could even play Saturday/Sunday if people are concerned about volunteers missing work.

Idea for the future: Right now the MSHSL tournament results do not determine who goes to champs, so we could afford to have an elongated tournament season after Championships (would actually be good practice to see what a district model would look like). You could do 4 geographically-oriented regional tournaments with 52 teams in each. Top 60 teams with the highest OPR go on to the State finals for two or three days of robot nirvana.

I think there are options on how we work to get truly the best robots in attendance at the state tournament, and ultimately get more playing time for all of the teams.

One of the problems the RPC has in expanding to districts and more playing time for teams is the lack of volunteers. We need more trained volunteers so the same people aren't doing every tournament every weekend.

Also, I don't think CA teams should qualify for a state tournament that emphasizes robot performance. They are targeting a different award. Some teams do both well (eg. 2052) but I feel the State tournament should be about robot performance.

[Doug Frisk]

3. The rest of the field is based upon a system where the LAST regional is the qualifying regional.

I have to disagree there. It needs to be the first regional, not the last. By using the first, it benefits teams that come prepared rather than teams that react and have the funds to react. This is something all teams can do regardless of finances they can design and build something unique.

Or to put it more simply, at the first regional the robot is the one the team built. At the second regional the robot has had bits grafted on based on what they saw worked for others.

[Knufire]

I have to disagree there. It needs to be the first regional, not the last. By using the first, it benefits teams that come prepared rather than teams that react and have the funds to react.

What about teams that specifically build for the tournaments they're attending? I've seen several teams show up to their first tournament with major subsystems that are intentionally left off. Early season tournaments are generally less competitive than tournaments later in the season, and planning to scale your robots ability to the tournaments you're attending is one method to build a robot that you don't have the resources to finish in six weeks. I don't see this as not coming prepared, but rather strategic planning.

[NoahB4536]

I'm open for recommendations on how to fix it - any you send me will be presented to the rest of the RPC. We've looked at it from every angle we can think of, analyzing what the changes would be if we counted second events (as an average with the first event), analyzing the differences between teams that earn a spot at States versus those that earn a spot at Champs... We haven't found a better way that's fair to every team.

Counting a second event simply gives an unfair advantage to those teams that can afford more events. And for the record, that's 42 teams out of 208 this year - 20%. Allowing those 20% to count their second event gives them a benefit over the other 80% of teams in the state. This is the same decision that was made in districts - there, they count a team's first two events, because every team gets two events. If you sign up for a third? Well, that's some more practice and experience for you, but it doesn't count towards your ranking.

2175 and 3130 did really well at North Star, it was fun watching them play. But that was their second event. It's tough, but that's the only fair way we've found to make it work.

My idea for a fix would be to count the first regional in the team's home state. So if a team went to their first regional in another state and went to their second regional in their own state the regional they had in their own state would count. Of course if a team only had a regional in another state, then that regional would count. This structure would mean that the teams you competed against to get to your state championship would be teams in your state. The teams that have been mentioned previously as deserving to go to state didn't go because the we're competing mostly against teams who were not from their state.

[BenHildy]

To be honest, I'm just extremely happy that 2169 has a chance to continue our season. While we didn't qualify, I'm still going to try to get to the world championships to see what goes down. The fact that there's still a chance that we can make it to state is a heartwarming thought. However, much like everyone else is saying, just wish that other teams far more deserving had a chance too. Can't wait for the Minne Mini and Gitchi Gummi though!

[Doug Frisk]

What about teams that specifically build for the tournaments they're attending? I've seen several teams show up to their first tournament with major subsystems that are intentionally left off. Early season tournaments are generally less competitive than tournaments later in the season, and planning to scale your robots ability to the tournaments you're attending is one method to build a robot that you don't have the resources to finish in six weeks. I don't see this as not coming prepared, but rather strategic planning.

You're arguing that teams that have the money to extend their build season through competition should be given an advantage over teams that actually build robots in six weeks.

Using the first regional puts everyone on a level playing field. If a team decides to not build a functional robot before bag and tag then that's their problem, they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

[Andrew Dahlby]

QUOTE=youngace89;1571741]What if we counted extra events, but team's events after their first one didn't give teams as many points? So being a semifinalist at your second event would be the same number as points as being a quarterfinalist at your first event.

We couldn't take the average of the two events here, because going to a second event could hurt a team's chances, so the team's score for state would be the better of their two scores.

This way the only teams that would benefit from attending a second event are those who are successful enough to be winners or finalists at their second event. 2175 and 3130 would have made it this year, and 2502 would have made it last year.[/QUOTE]

"A team winning a Chairman’s Award at any Regional competition automatically goes to the State Championship. " from the MSHSL



We currently allow teams 2nd regional to qualify them for the Mn State Tournament. If a team win CA at their second regional, they have earned an automatic bid to the state tournament. If we only count a teams first regional event, why in this case to we count the 2nd regional for team which can afford a second try?

[XaulZan11]

If a team decides to not build a functional robot before bag and tag then that's their problem, they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

Then I guess several teams should give back their world championships...

[Ginger Power]

I have to disagree there. It needs to be the first regional, not the last. By using the first, it benefits teams that come prepared rather than teams that react and have the funds to react. This is something all teams can do regardless of finances they can design and build something unique.

Or to put it more simply, at the first regional the robot is the one the team built. At the second regional the robot has had bits grafted on based on what they saw worked for others.

That reaction that you are talking about is called engineering. It takes a lot of hard work, and yes, money. Money takes a lot of hard work to get too. Why are we more concerned with creating a fair environment (which we've already determined isn't actually fair), rather than rewarding hard work. As a byproduct of rewarding that hard work, we get to see more competitive teams at the state championship.

This is an engineering competition. Engineering isn't necessarily building "unique", and "fancy". Engineering is systematically determining the best way to approach a problem, and then doing so in a scientific way. Engineering within FIRST certainly isn't contained within a 6 week week period. The most significant improvement in performance for most teams happens at competitions. The idea that this would looked upon in a negative way by some is mind-blowing.

My team may have competed in 2 events this year, but it'll be tough to do so every year. I'm not making these arguments out of self interest.

[Ginger Power]

You're arguing that teams that have the money to extend their build season through competition should be given an advantage over teams that actually build robots in six weeks.

Please explain how teams who go to multiple events don't "actually" build their robots in six weeks.

Iteration is a key part of engineering and it should be praised, not condemned.

[Knufire]

You're arguing that teams that have the money to extend their build season through competition should be given an advantage over teams that actually build robots in six weeks.


This wasn't the core of my argument, though I do agree with that assertion. Simply a difference of opinion there.

Right now, during the official tournament, teams that have the money to extend their build season ARE given an advantage. I was trying to suggest that there are scenarios where these teams could be put in a position where they have to make decisions that could make them less likely to qualify for the world championship but more likley to qualify for the MSHSL tournament, or vice versa.

[Doug Frisk]

Please explain how teams who go to multiple events don't "actually" build their robots in six weeks.

Iteration is a key part of engineering and it should be praised, not condemned.

I'm condemning nothing, nor am I saying teams shouldn't attempt to improve on their robots over the season. In the context of a competition all of the participants need to be judged on a level playing field. Just like in a foot race you don't give the rich kids a head start, for the context of determining the ranking you shouldn't give the rich teams an advantage.

If a team wants to rank highly to qualify for the Minnesota championships, then they should make deliver a quality robot to their first event.

[cadandcookies]

I'm condemning nothing, nor am I saying teams shouldn't attempt to improve on their robots over the season. In the context of a competition all of the participants need to be judged on a level playing field. Just like in a foot race you don't give the rich kids a head start, for the context of determining the ranking you shouldn't give the rich teams an advantage.

If a team wants to rank highly to qualify for the Minnesota championships, then they should make deliver a quality robot to their first event.

Alternatively, if we want to encourage teams to attend multiple events, we should count two events for our rankings.

[Peyton Yeung]

When Indiana first started to have a state championships they used the following metric for who got in.

Indiana team rankings have been determined based on the previously announced point system. (Best event, win-loss, draft performance, elimination performance, awards, Tie-Breakers).

If it were me I'd add the score of the 2 regional teams and double the score of the 1 regional teams. If you can qualify via chairman's at 2 events you should be able to get points at 2 events.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Alternatively, if we want to encourage teams to attend multiple events, we should count two events for our rankings.

100% agree.

As I stated earlier, Becker is not a well-funded team. We are by no means a poor team either. Yet within our budget we have to make really difficult decisions each and every year.

If any team would like, we have an open door policy. We will share any and every bit of knowledge to anyone who asks. As one of my own professors used to state: "Knowledge is free, you just have to bring your own bucket."

I think I am going bat crap crazy right now.

[cadandcookies]

When Indiana first started to have a state championships they used the following metric for who got in.



If it were me I'd add the score of the 2 regional teams and double the score of the 1 regional teams. If you can qualify via chairman's at 2 events you should be able to get points at 2 events.

Personally, I think the double or two system is the best balance between being "fair" (lets face it, any way we cut it, the rankings are going to be unfair to someone), and actually getting the best robots in the state.

[Ginger Power]

In the context of a competition all of the participants need to be judged on a level playing field.

It's not a level playing field now, nor will it ever be. Life isn't fair. The teams located next to a John Deere R&D facility will always have an advantage over teams that are in the inner-city with 4 other teams within 10 miles.

Similarly high school football teams that recruit players from all over the country play teams who can barely recruit from their own school. We don't change the way football games are scored, or the way the tournament is set up to balance everything out, and make things fair.

The good teams qualify for State, the bad teams don't. It's the way competition works. There isn't anything wrong with that.

[topgun]

Can't wait for the Minne Mini and Gitchi Gummi though!

The Minnesota Robotics Invitational is October 15th, 2016 and is a great way to start the robotics year for your new students and returning students. We also partner with MNFIRST to provide Key Volunteer training during the event (last year we trained 45 Key Volunteers). In addition we have provided $5000 in scholarships to graduating seniors over the last 5 years.

[BumblingBuilder]

The Minnesota Robotics Invitational is October 15th, 2016 and is a great way to start the robotics year for your new students and returning students. We also partner with MNFIRST to provide Key Volunteer training during the event (last year we trained 45 Key Volunteers). In addition we have provided $5000 in scholarships to graduating seniors over the last 5 years.

After hearing about this event last year at the Gitch I was pretty interested. Maybe I can convince our usually busy team to attend...

[FRCTeam3293]

FIRST Team 3293 is ranked 33rd, 'just a bit outside'...but in very good company (2169 and 3130...and 2977 - Hey Sir Lancer bots!). Just want to say thanks to all those in MN who volunteer and work to make the Regional a great experience. Best of luck to all Teams who will attend the MSHSL States!

And just a point of view from a Team who missed it by "that much". I think the qualification ranking is "fair enough". No reason to change. We'll work harder and take another shot next year, or we won't...that's life.

The only real fair in this world comes to town but once a year.

[jvriezen]

The only real fair in this world comes to town but once a year.

What you state is fairly true.

[Whatever]

I am curious if the fact that no one qualified based on their performance at the Iowa Regional is going to factor into anybody's scheduling plans for next year.

[youngace89]

I am curious if the fact that no one qualified based on their performance at the Iowa Regional is going to factor into anybody's scheduling plans for next year.

I don't know whether the team leadership feels the same way, but I would love to return to Iowa next year. It's always fun to compete with that many great teams all in one place, especially from the other states like Missouri that we don't come into much contact with otherwise.

Plus, we were one ramparts cross away from the semifinals, which would have given us a much higher chance of qualifying. It would be very rewarding to qualify there next year, and I think we're capable of it.

[jwhite]

That said, It's certainly open for debate at this point - has that benefit served its purpose enough that we can take it away? Have we created a sufficiently focused culture in the state around the Chairman's award that teams will continue to strive for it in the levels they did this past year, and not just make it "all about the robot"? Tough questions to answer.

I agree with Caleb, I think it's an odd incentive. It feels a bit like coercion to boot.

I do suspect that you'd see a drop in chairman's if you take the 10 points away. I know we were submitting before we knew about the 10 points, because our former coach was good that way. But I know I watch it much more carefully, and make sure of the deadline, because of those 10 points.

I'd vote to reduce it. Maybe 1 or 2 points. That could make it a nice tie breaker; if you had two teams that were otherwise pretty equal, give the nod to the one that submitted Chairman's. That feels more fair.

Or, and here's crazy talk: it'd be nice if you got a score on your chairman's submission. You could use that to gain points, and might be a nice way to encourage students to continue submitting. It's pretty hard to submit it year over year, knowing full well that some other amazing and well deserving team is going to win it. But if you had a score that was yours, that you could strive to improve year over year, I could see that being a valuable incentive.

Cheers,

Jeremy

[BumblingBuilder]

I agree with Caleb, I think it's an odd incentive. It feels a bit like coercion to boot.

I do suspect that you'd see a drop in chairman's if you take the 10 points away. I know we were submitting before we knew about the 10 points, because our former coach was good that way. But I know I watch it much more carefully, and make sure of the deadline, because of those 10 points.

I'd vote to reduce it. Maybe 1 or 2 points. That could make it a nice tie breaker; if you had two teams that were otherwise pretty equal, give the nod to the one that submitted Chairman's. That feels more fair.

Or, and here's crazy talk: it'd be nice if you got a score on your chairman's submission. You could use that to gain points, and might be a nice way to encourage students to continue submitting. It's pretty hard to submit it year over year, knowing full well that some other amazing and well deserving team is going to win it. But if you had a score that was yours, that you could strive to improve year over year, I could see that being a valuable incentive.

Cheers,

Jeremy
I like using a chairmans submission as a tie breaker much more than the current one: high score. High scores, in general, do favor later week competitions, and there isn't that advantage in chairmans submissions. So while chairmans submission frequency would still be high (simply to clinch a tie breaker rather than 10 points), I would rather have chairmans submissions be worth none or nominal points and instead be used as the first priority tie-breaker.

*The scoring of individual submissions is alright in theory, but I feel this could be subject to judge inconsistency. I don't feel bad enough about the idea to fig against it, but I see this as a possible point of complaint. Someone will find fault with it, whether it be them not wanted the fact their team scored a 1/10 on a chairmans submission public for everyone to see or for some other reason.

*am I misinterpreting your last paragraph?

Edit: high scores is not highest priority tie-breaker. But my support still stands that I do like RCA submissions as a tiebreaker more than points

[BenHildy]

I like using a chairmans submission as a tie breaker much more than the current one: high score.

I agree with you here Matt. While this may be affected by our unfortunate ranking based off of the said high score tiebreaker (ranked 31st), high score probably shouldn't be taken into account at all. While most teams haven't scored above 150 or 160, the high score usually doesn't have anything to do with the individual robot's performance, especially when they base everything off of the first regional a team attends. For example, this puts teams who attended Duluth in week 1 at an immediate disadvantage to those who attended Minneapolis at week 6.

While one could say that this provides an incentive to the best teams to have a dominant robot right off the bat, this still doesn't translate well to other teams that either cannot afford multiple regionals or must go to a later one. This brings me back to the high score tiebreaker. Long story short, it shouldn't exist. There are plenty of other team-specific factors such as penalties or even to a certain extent OPR. Overall, the high score tiebreaker is probably not the best decision, even if it is the fourth and last one.

[ehochstein]

I threw some (really quick) data together on how the rankings would change if we removed the 10 point Chairman's bonus. It doesn't change much (in my opinion). Red teams are no longer advancing, green teams are new advancing teams.

http://i.imgur.com/QT4YA9B.png

[Chief Hedgehog]

It doesn't change much (in my opinion).

It changes a lot for those 8 teams (you knew that was coming). It would be great to see 5913 make it in - but I would be disappointed to see 4624 and 3102 not make it.

[ehochstein]

It changes a lot for those 8 teams (you knew that was coming).

Yes, but overall it doesn't change that much. Most teams that submit for Chairman's at a competitive level also have a competitive robot. So most of the teams that will qualify based off of robot performance will also qualify even if we don't include points for Chairman's. There will always be a few teams around the cutoff point that would change the ranking order no matter if we included Chairman's points or not.

FIRST is more than robots, that much is clear in the Vision and Mission Statement (http://www.firstinspires.org/about/vision-and-mission) of FIRST. The extra points given to teams that submit for the award shows that we, as a State, support this Vision and Mission. If we want solely a robot competition, why don't we take away all points from non-technical awards and not auto-advance when a team wins Chairman's?

One other personal note about Chairman's being apart of the qualification for the MSHSL State Championship. The FTC State Championship was hosted in Bloomington this past year for a charge of $800 in custodial overtime fees. At the end of the year, the FRC team was contacted and told that they would need to pay $7000+ if they ever ran the FTC State Championship in the school again because the FRC team didn't participate. The FRC team was told that fundraising was not a valid way of participating, nor was volunteering. They were required to compete as a FRC team and host the event (which doesn't make any sense but I digress) I sent multiple emails on behalf of the team to support them in their outreach. I've quoted a portion of one of my emails below;


Typically with a sports team you participate in your events in order to advance to the next level/improve your record for a better position in playoffs. The end goal being qualifying for the MSHSL state tournament to represent your school and hopefully bring home a trophy, much like the Kennedy robotics team did back in 2012.

With robotics, there are a lot of similarities but also some differences. I'd like to bring to your attention the MSHSL ranking criteria (http://mnfirst.org/docs/2016/MSHSL_2016.pdf) for the 2016 FIRST robotics season, specifically the information regarding the Chairman's Award. Both the MN FIRST and MSHSL committees have elected to make the Chairman's award part of the qualification process for the MSHSL state championship (both (Coach A) and (Coach B) can attest to this) and an important part of the Chairman's award are the events we hosted this year and in years past. I'd like to explain a little more about the Chairman's award at this point, I've taken the paragraph below directly out of Section 6 of the 2016 FIRST Robotics Competition Admin Manual (https://firstfrc.blob.core.windows.net/frc2016manuals/AdminManual/FRC-2016-admin-manual-06.pdf).

"The Chairman’s Award is the most prestigious award at FIRST, it honors the team that best represents a model for other teams to emulate and best embodies the purpose and goals of FIRST. It was created to keep the central focus of FIRST Robotics Competition on the ultimate goal of transforming the culture in ways that will inspire greater levels of respect and honor for science and technology, as well as encouraging more of today’s youth to become scientists, engineers, and technologists."

That is just a general overview of the award, however the criteria for the award state that you need to expand your efforts to include FIRST Lego League Junior, FIRST Lego League and FIRST Tech Challenge teams in order to create a full K-12 program. The events we hosted in Bloomington this year included over 10 teams with Bloomington students participating from K-12. In fact, over the past 3 years we have increased the number of FIRST Lego League teams in Bloomington from 1 to 9 teams this year at the direction of (Superintendent). Without a Bloomington event, the teams from the district would need to travel to other districts in order to compete, creating transportation issues for families who's students cannot afford it. One of the objective's (Superintendent) gave us was to increase the diversity of students participating and well as get more females involved in STEM activities.

Back to the topic at hand, why do I bring up the MSHSL state championship and the Chairman's Award? The events hosted in Bloomington go a long way to winning the Chairman's award, which is in addition to the fundraising it provides. The students on each team have to write an essay about their outreach efforts in their area as well as give a presentation at the regional competitions on the topic. In turn, this shows that the students on each team participate in the events in order to advance to the MSHSL State Championship, just like any sports team. Just because the team doesn't compete with their robot, doesn't mean they don't participate, which is different from the standard sports model. However, I am more than happy to provide examples or further clarifications at request.


The response I received from the District on this wasn't what I had been hoping for, but this goes to show that providing points for the Chairman's Award can go beyond just getting a team into the MSHSL State Championship.

[Ginger Power]

Now that champs are over (and I'm on a 14 hour drive back to Fargo) let's start talking about states! We have some world champion quality teams in attendance in 2052, 5172, 2502, and 2512.

2052: Nearly unblockable outerworks shooter that has been playing at a very high level of late. Just watch their Einstein film... oh yeah they made Einstein.

5172: Been the best MN robot all year. Probably top 3 robot in the world. The drive team is dissipointed when they score just 8 boulders in the high goal if that tells you anything :yikes:

2502: Incredible batter shooter that averages 6-7 high goals per match. They also have an away from the wall climb which makes a triple climb feasible.

2512: Despite unfortunately not qualifying for champs, 2512 has a fantastic robot and drive team. Knowing them they've been working with their practice robot and will be just as prepared as any champs team for states.

There is also a really high quality 2nd tier of robots including: 2987, 2823, 2883, and 4009

Each of these robots was chosen to to play a key role (usually scoring) on a playoff alliance at world's. All of them are high goal efficient and will add value to a playoff alliance as a scorer.

We also have a couple of robots that were drafted at world's to play defense and do it really well: 4607 and 3042.

4607: 9th overall pick on the Einstein winning Carver field. Played defense throughout quals and racked up a total of 4 penalties through 12 matches. 54" arm that can reach 15" outside their frame perimeter with and 8-12 second climb.

3042: Cobalt was picked to play defense on the famous all Minnesota alliance. They added a large blocker and have a powerful drivetrain. They can also accurately hit high goals if called upon.

There are also a few wildcards out there that are either making some major changes or have the potential to make some changes that will make them valuable in the playoffs: 1816, 3102, 4539, and 6175

3102 and 6175 are both incredible low goal scorers with great driving. Low goals may or may not be a factor (more on that later) so these teams would do well to contribute in other ways such as feeding high goal shooters or playing defense. Both have high quality machines and drive teams.

1816 and 4539 are making major changes to their robots but that's all I'll say. They can reveal details if they want. The changes could help them find themselves in the playoffs.

Strategy Stuff: We still don't know what the tower strength will be for states (8 or 10) so that will play a large factor in teams' strategies. Although it really shouldn't affect elimination strategies. With all the high goal scorers in the field, the only way to win will be to score more high goals. There will be no preventing the capture in the finals, just slowing teams down. Low goal robots will only be able to contribute as defenders or breacher/feeders. Low goals are more or less worthless.

There is still a lot of debate between the 2 offense and 1 defense (2-1) and 3 offense 0 defense (3-0) strategies. Both were effectively used in the finals of Einstein and they literally resulted in the same score. It completely depends on the depth of the scorers in the field. In my opinion it'll work out like this: the 1st and 2nd alliance will have capture ability with no offensive help from a third partner, while the 3rd and 4th alliances will need offensive contribution from all 3 alliance members to capture. This leaves the door open for both 3-0 and 2-1 strategies in the playoffs.

Predictions:
To be added later.

I'll probably edit this post when I'm not coming off of the greatest championship in the history of FIRST.

[Whatever]

Dont forget 5434.
They earned the control award at 10k for having an incredibly consistent autonomous high goal shot and a very solid robot.

[hutchMN]

Looks like a great event, can't wait to watch it.

[abbymarie]

Team 5232 is extremely excited to get to compete in the Minnesota State Championships for a second year! We are looking forward to see many teams again from Northern Lights!

[mjc49]

Another great low goal shooter and all around excellent bot to add to the list is 4778. If not for a serious of unfortunate events for them, North Star may have had a different result.

[Ginger Power]

Predictions:To be added later.

Alliance 1: 2052, 5172, 3042
Alliance 2: 2502, 2512, 4607
Alliance 3: 4009, 2823, 4778
Alliance 4: 2883, 2987, 1816

1 vs. 4:
Match 1: 223-146
Match 2: 180-123

2 vs. 3:
Match 1: 167-117
Match 2: 122-131 (Alliance 2 fails to capture from fallen climber)
Match 3: 155-97

3rd Place 3 vs. 4
Match 1: 136-148

1st Place 1 vs. 2
Match 1: 156-154
Match 2: 161-185 (First triple climb of tournament)
Match 3: 155-146

The State Playoffs will become incredibly interesting if a robot other than: 2052, 5172, or 2502 seeds first.

[maxnz]

The State Playoffs will become incredibly interesting if a robot other than: 2052, 5172, or 2502 seeds first.

Let's consider that something for the other 27 teams to strive for!

[Chris is me]

I don't know too much about Minnesota this year, but if you're planning on playing heavy high goal offense at this event, watch out for 4607. They can absolutely shut down almost any high goal shooter with the right strategy. Watch QF1-3 on Carver when you get the chance; they prevent something like six high goals between blocking and pushing defense. They are a team good enough at defense that I would consider drafting them in round 1 at an event like this just to avoid playing against them.

[Ginger Power]

I don't know too much about Minnesota this year, but if you're planning on playing heavy high goal offense at this event, watch out for 4607. They can absolutely shut down almost any high goal shooter with the right strategy. Watch QF1-3 on Carver when you get the chance; they prevent something like six high goals between blocking and pushing defense. They are a team good enough at defense that I would consider drafting them in round 1 at an event like this just to avoid playing against them.

Thanks Chris! That means a lot coming from you. It was awesome being on your alliance on Carver. At least we can say we lost to the team that lost to the team that won it all! :D

[jajabinx124]

I don't know too much about Minnesota this year, but if you're planning on playing heavy high goal offense at this event, watch out for 4607. They can absolutely shut down almost any high goal shooter with the right strategy. Watch QF1-3 on Carver when you get the chance; they prevent something like six high goals between blocking and pushing defense. They are a team good enough at defense that I would consider drafting them in round 1 at an event like this just to avoid playing against them.

I was not surprised that the 8th seeded alliance picked 4607 as their third bot in Carver, they are one of the best defensive bots I've seen all season. They gave us quite a run for our money in quarters in Duluth.. definitely would not want to face off against 4607 again.. :D I'd much rather have them on our alliance this time around ;)

[Mr.Paulson]

Team #4539 is excited for next week's MSHSL State Championship! We have been brainstorming like crazy over the past few months and think we have made the proper improvements to be extremely competitive. The shooter is improved as well as the climber and we worked very hard on improving the ability to cross all defenses, as that was one of our major weaknesses in Duluth. If shooting doesn't pan out, we can always implement our blocker mechanism!

We have made it to the State Championship each of the past four years we have been a part of FIRST and have just missed the cut multiple times (2013 finished quals ranked 5th and did not get selected, 2015 finished quals ranked 6th and missed the cut as well). This year we have a major goal of becoming a captain or getting selected so we can show how beneficial our team can be to an alliance.

Good luck to all teams that will be attending and we will see you in 7 days!

[Ginger Power]

Team #4539 is excited for next week's MSHSL State Championship!

Considering the awesome capabilities of 4539 I'm really excited to see what you guys have. The 6 hours of unbag time is going to make States ridiculously competitive.

I'll be flying I'm from the Kennedy Space Center (college robotics competition) for load-in day at states. I don't know what I'm more excited for, going to Florida for free, or the State Championship! Both are going to be insane.

[SoMe_DuDe904]

I don't know too much about Minnesota this year, but if you're planning on playing heavy high goal offense at this event, watch out for 4607. They can absolutely shut down almost any high goal shooter with the right strategy. Watch QF1-3 on Carver when you get the chance; they prevent something like six high goals between blocking and pushing defense. They are a team good enough at defense that I would consider drafting them in round 1 at an event like this just to avoid playing against them.

This is why I refer to defense strategies in Minnesota as channeling your inner C.I.S. They have been solid for the last couple years.

[Chief Hedgehog]

This tournament will be a little bittersweet for me as it is the last tournament with our last team member from our rookie season - Kyle. He has seen quite a bit in the last four years on this squad and I couldn't think of a better place to end his career - at a tournament we know well in a venue we know even better.

As always, CIS will be ready for the State Tournament. We do have a few surprises to unleash.

I will say, it is humbling to read some of these posts. We know how hard we work to be a good team - but sometimes it feels as if we are in our own world out here in the potato fields of Central MN.

And yes, defense is our thing - it has been since 2013. We like to joke that we were the best defensive team of 2015.

For those that don't know - we were over 84" long and didn't move for most of our first 8 matches at North Star in 2015. We heard the groan from other teams that were allied with us. For 8 rounds our drive team would hear the FTA announce to his radio "bypass 4607". We returned 3 of the 4 members of that drive team and it is now a running joke for CIS.

Good luck to all - see you on Friday night!

[blueyoshi256]

Team 2823 is looking forward to our first trip to state. We're still a little bit tired from our crazy run at champs (we finally shimmed our shooter properly), but we're also looking for our first blue banner. Can't wait to see everybody on the field!

The 6 hours of unbag time is going to make States ridiculously competitive.
It was just enough time for us to program and test an outer works vision shot. If our driver can execute, things might go well for us.

[jdonadio]

This tournament will be a little bittersweet for me as it is the last tournament with our last team member from our rookie season - Kyle. He has seen quite a bit in the last four years on this squad and I couldn't think of a better place to end his career - at a tournament we know well in a venue we know even better.

As always, CIS will be ready for the State Tournament. We do have a few surprises to unleash.

I will say, it is humbling to read some of these posts. We know how hard we work to be a good team - but sometimes it feels as if we are in our own world out here in the potato fields of Central MN.

And yes, defense is our thing - it has been since 2013. We like to joke that we were the best defensive team of 2015.

For those that don't know - we were over 84" long and didn't move for most of our first 8 matches at North Star in 2015. We heard the groan from other teams that were allied with us. For 8 rounds our drive team would hear the FTA announce to his radio "bypass 4607". We returned 3 of the 4 members of that drive team and it is now a running joke for CIS.

Good luck to all - see you on Friday night!
I was queuing North Star, and your drive team approached each match with the same gracious professionalism and hopefulness. They were great to interact with then and again this year. See you Saturday.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[northstardon]

Also, 3130 is ranked #32, so they probably will make it in replacing a team that is unable to attend.

Looking forward to this weekend's competition...does anyone know if a team or two moved off the bubble? I didn't see a finalized list of teams on the MSHSL web page (http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/robotics.asp).

[Ginger Power]

Looking forward to this weekend's competition...does anyone know if a team or two moved off the bubble? I didn't see a finalized list of teams on the MSHSL web page (http://www.mshsl.org/mshsl/robotics.asp).

All 30 teams accepted and will be participating to my knowledge.

[Whatever]

Is there going to be a live stream? I have out of state relatives asking me for information.

[Mr.Paulson]

According to Mark Lawrence the webcast must be done by www.prep45.com as it is a Minnesota State Championship. I'm not sure if you will need to pay to watch it because of that or not...?

Mark provided this link in one of his recent emails:

http://mnfirst.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=192b07261fe67880d0ef2b2e0&id=5178b4b250&e=5d103023fc

[jajabinx124]

According to Mark Lawrence the webcast must be done by www.prep45.com as it is a Minnesota State Championship. I'm not sure if you will need to pay to watch it because of that or not...?

Mark provided this link in one of his recent emails:

http://mnfirst.us13.list-manage.com/track/click?u=192b07261fe67880d0ef2b2e0&id=5178b4b250&e=5d103023fc

I believe you have to pay around $5 to watch the stream.

[Whatever]

Thank you for the information, I will pass it along.

Does that imply that the tournament may get some coverage during "MN Prep Spotlight" on Sunday at 9:30?

[maxnz]

Any idea if the match videos will be archived in any way? Also, does anyone know if the FMS reports will be available (after or even during) for review and/or upload (e.g. to TBA)?

[Jon Stratis]

The MSHSL has a contract with prep45 to webcast events, and the State Tournament is a MSHSL event. I don't know if you'll have to pay to view or not, I do know it's a subject that has come up before.

When you think about it, having that deal in place for most of the MSHSL activities completely makes sense. FIRST is probably the only one to have the sort of in-house experience live streaming events that we do.

[jvriezen]

Prep45 has in the past (and I suspect will this year) also made available a DVD of at least the playoff rounds available, with their commentary. However it is not free.

[northstardon]

The MSHSL has a contract with prep45 to webcast events, and the State Tournament is a MSHSL event. I don't know if you'll have to pay to view or not, I do know it's a subject that has come up before.

When you think about it, having that deal in place for most of the MSHSL activities completely makes sense. FIRST is probably the only one to have the sort of in-house experience live streaming events that we do.

The "nominal" fee to watch a live state tournament stream is $6.97 per day. After Saturday, you can get 3-day access to view an "event" for $2.97; for the robotics tournament, the morning and afternoon sessions appear to be considered separate events. Prep45.com will also sell you a DVD of one of the sessions for $55.

You need a log-in account on the prep45 website to get access to the stream, and (unlike HBOGo) you can only have one device at a time streaming a paid feed. So grandparents in one city and aunt/uncles in another will have to pay separately.

The long-term deal between prep45 and the state high school league does bring in revenue to the organization, and it guarantees television/web streaming of certain state tournament events, regardless of whether there'd be enough paying customers to justify the production costs (the 2016 girls basketball Class A quarterfinal game between Sleepy Eye and Mountain Iron is available on-demand, in case anyone is interested).

But the deal has its fair share of detractors. Robotics is far from the first sport in Minnesota to have experience live-streaming games/events (our high school's hockey games have been streamed for several years now). And there's been more than a few conflicts (for example, when a hockey team is barred from streaming their section final game because the wrestling tournament is being streamed at the same time :mad: ). The prep45 deal is really comprehensive, and they are very aggressive in legally protecting the broadcast/streaming rights that they've paid for.::safety::

[rtfgnow]

Any idea if the match videos will be archived in any way? Also, does anyone know if the FMS reports will be available (after or even during) for review and/or upload (e.g. to TBA)?
What FMS reports are you specifically wanting? Are you wanting something besides the outcome of the matches and the rankings?

[jvriezen]

We demo'd robots at the Minneapolis Maker Faire last Saturday. I took the liberty of printing up 150 'free admission' coupons (good for two) to the state tournament which all the teams demo'ing handed out to those who we spoke to. Many people were very pleased to get free tickets. I think it will actually make people more likely to come than if we just suggested "Come to the tournament, its free admission for everyone!"

[Doug Frisk]

Any idea if the match videos will be archived in any way? Also, does anyone know if the FMS reports will be available (after or even during) for review and/or upload (e.g. to TBA)?

I can make all of the reports available.

[maxnz]

What FMS reports are you specifically wanting? Are you wanting something besides the outcome of the matches and the rankings?

Yeah, if possible, the full report (what you would input into TBA to get all of the details (Defenses crossed, score breakdown, etc.))

[jajabinx124]

Friday night is over and it was nice to get a peek at what teams worked on for their 6 hours for state. Tomorrow should be fun! Can't wait.

[LDiDomenico]

Here are some predictions for state.

Alliance 1: 5172 2052 2220 (W)
Alliance 2: 2502 2512 5232 (F)
Alliance 3: 2883 4009 4607 (SF) (3rd Place Tie Breaker Match Winner)
Alliance 4: 2987 5434 2823 (SF)

[plnyyanks]

I can make all of the reports available.
Yeah, if possible, the full report (what you would input into TBA to get all of the details (Defenses crossed, score breakdown, etc.))

TBA can import the results reports (Qual and Playoff). There's not much else we can get from Offseason FMS (the details score breakdowns and alliances selections are not in any reports that can be exported).

I probably should have posted in this thread earlier, but if the people behind the scoring table want to input live data to TBA, PM me and I'll get you set up with write keys.

[Ginger Power]

This is ridiculously fun!

[Caleb Sykes]

Congratulations to 5172, 2052, and 3276 for winning the state championships. I wish I could have been there, but unfortunately I had something else going on today. 4536 will be working hard to qualify next year.

[bkilen]

I just wanted to give a big thank you to 2052 and 3276. So happy we won this year after finishing 4th and 3rd before. Also congrats to 2883 for being a finalist and representing northwest Minnesota well.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Congrats to the Champs: 5172, 2052, and 3276 - I would consider all three to be strong teams in MN for the last number of years. When we faced them in the Semi's it was like running into a buzz-saw.

To all the teams that competed today - great job! The MSHSL State Tournament is not a marathon event - it is a dead on sprint to the finals. It takes a lot out of each team and the robots.

Thank you to 2502 and 2512 - it looked as we had a chance (a team built on 3 previous state champs) - but the day got away from us. However, it was an honor for 4607 to be allied with both of these strong teams. Good luck next season!

To the MSHSL and Amy Doherty - your hard work and dedication to MNFIRST and the students is impeccable. Amy works her arse off for this event and the partnership between MNFIRST and the MSHSL is very unique and very successful!

Finally - the volunteers, the VC, and the rest of MNFIRST - incredible job, thank you. The event was spectacular and is getting better every year!

[jajabinx124]

This was a fun competition for sure! Big thanks to our alliance partners Team 5172 The Gators and Team 3276 the Toolcats. It was an honor playing with 5172.. seriously these guys are beasts and are FRC veterans and their drive team was a blast to work with. Ever since I saw their bot at Northern lights and their performances throughout the season I've been waiting to get an opportunity to work with the gators and I am super glad we did. We'll see you guys at IRI then! As for Team 3276, great defense from you guys. You guys did everything we asked of you guys.

Big shout out to the Finalist alliance as well consisting of Teams 4009, 2883, and 3042. Especially to Team 2883 FRED (who we've enjoyed working with at the past at regional's and state competitions)- also we are sorry for tipping you guys over during Finals 1.. we are heavily sorry for any damage we caused to your robot. These are 3 teams that are heavily underrated in MN, can't wait to see what you guys build next year.

Congrats to the third place alliance consisting of Team 2987, Team 5434, and Team 3102 as well. All 3 teams had bots that played the game well this year, another pair of MN teams that are underrated in terms of what they build.

Also to the 4th seeded alliance consisting of Team 2502, 4607, and 2512.. just wanted to say that the alliance was well built & great job this season.. after alliance selection we definitely knew semis would be a challenge against 4607's defense and 2502 and 2512's boulder cycling.

Thanks to the volunteers, referees, etc. that helped put up this great event, I'll be back next year as a volunteer :)

[Doug Frisk]

It was a great event. Next year I'd love to do 60 teams and 10 qual matches per team over 2 days. I'm not sure how anyone with any actual authority feels about that, but I'm up for it.

I did my best to keep TBA updated with match results as each finished. Hopefully that was useful to someone and perhaps next year we can automate it more or convince FIRST to let offseason events into the official FIRST API.

Oh, I'm still not entirely convinced that the Cheval de Frise won out over the Killer Rabbit, but we have to accept the calls the refs give us.

Congratulations to the winners, that would be all 30 competing teams, as well as the new State Champions!

[Ginger Power]

It was a great event. Next year I'd love to do 60 teams and 10 qual matches per team over 2 days. I'm not sure how anyone with any actual authority feels about that, but I'm up for it.

This would solve a bunch of problems and create a bunch of news ones I'm sure. I really like the idea. One negative side effect I can think of would be that the average competitive level of the teams would probably go down. It would have the feeling of a regional in that some teams out there would have trouble playing the game effectively. It would also pretty much ensure that all the top teams make it to state aka the ceiling would be higher. Plus 2 days = more robotics = more fun.

Another random idea would be to accept the top 30 teams as we currently do, and then take applications from another 2-4 teams (same process as IRI) and establish a committee to admit those teams. It would keep things fair to teams while giving some great teams a chance at redemption after having a bad first regional. Every year it seems that an elite team misses state because they fall flat out of the gate. 3130 is a great example this year. Incredible team that barely misses the cut. If they had been at state they would've been in the playoffs.

[Whatever]

Some black ink numbers I thought someone might find interesting:

Most points in auto during quals: 5434 at 307 points.
Most points for scale/challenges during quals: 3277 at 180 points.
Most points for goals during quals: 5172 at 425 points.
Most points for defenses during quals: 3276 at 460 points.

[jajabinx124]

Did anybody record quals and elims?

[jvriezen]

Prep45 recorded them and will make DVD's available for purchase eventually, I believe.

[Caleb Sykes]

Did anybody record quals and elims?

Some qual matches and all elim matches are up on TBA.