View Full Version : Qualifying for CMP in the future
I am creating a new thread to discuss ideas for a new qualification system for the FRC Championship, because the thread discussing Bill's post focuses mostly on field / pit layout.
http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2011/05/yes-im-already-counting-down-to-kickoff.html
(http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2011/05/yes-im-already-counting-down-to-kickoff.html)
As Bill says in his blog, eventually there will not be enough spots in the Championship to qualify six teams from every regional and 18 more from Michigan.
From the blog:
"This summer we’re going to be taking a long hard look at the future of Championship (CMP). At the current rate of growth for FRC, we are going to face a space crunch at CMP in a few years. Consider this. At each regional, six teams earn a space at CMP (the winning alliance, the Engineering Inspiration winner, the Chairman’s Award winner and the Rookie All Star team). This year we had 48 regionals. Add eighteen teams from the Michigan State CMP (When the District pilot began, the State CMP replaced three Regional events.) and you get a total of 306 teams. 352 teams competed this year. Not every team who qualifies to come to CMP can make it, so there are always a few empty slots, but as we continue to add new regionals each year, we are eventually going to run out of room. In the short run, there will be fewer and fewer spaces for non-qualifying teams at CMP. In the long run, we’re going to have to figure out a new system for determining which teams come to CMP."
Ideas?
I know no one will like this but I say that competing teams should be those who win the Regionals and Rookie All-Star and then everyone else gets in the the MSC qualfying system. Chairman's and EI go but do not compete unless they qualify by points or win a regional, otherwise they would just compete just as Website and Visualization teams do if they weren't invited to CMP in the current format.
How about a second round of qualification for RCA, EI, and RAS? Sure, you won at your regional, but not every regional winner will be a real competitor at the Championship. I hate to leave people out, but it's not the worst short-term solution I can think of. Michigan is already underrepresented (much, much larger than 2009, but still only 18 qualifiers).
Eventually, this could very well lead to a full two-stage qualification system (Regional Competition -> Regional Championship -> CMP).
XaulZan11
05-05-2011, 22:42
I think they should increase the amount of teams that make it in Michigan. The number was based on the 3 regionals they had in 2008, but due to growth in Michigan they probably could have 4 regionals and thus more teams should get invited.
Nawaid Ladak
05-05-2011, 22:44
A points system based on performance along with awards (basically, the Michigan system) would be perfect.
a RCA doesn't entitle you to a championship entry. your robot has to perform remotly well to qualify.
winning a regional as a 3rd alliance partner on the #1 alliance at a small regional won't qualify you for championship
backing into a rookie all star because your the only rookie at the event won't get you a spot at championship
... but of course, FIRST won't fly with it. this program isn't about the robots.
Well if we go that route: Regional Competitions > do a West Championship, Midwest Championship, Northeast Championship, Southeast Championship > all winners + finalists get into Worlds then RCA(From regional championships, dont have a specific number), RAS(from each regional competition), and EI(From regional championships, dont have a specific number) get to compete then MSC qualifying system for the rest.
(Based on Basel's post)
*Or the extra slots could be given by best overall record
What about Hall of Fame teams? Shouldn't they get an automatic invite?
How about the previous year's champions?
Regarding the EI and RCA winners - wouldn't those teams represent the ideals of FIRST - building inspirational teams and machines through the use of science and technology?
This is a tough one. It's a good thing we've got a lot of smart people thinking about it.
Also, when we start splitting up into regions, we've got to remember - this isn't Nationals. This is The World.
It'd be a shame if it came down to it, but they could always just not qualify the 3rd robot on the winning alliance.
It'd be a shame if it came down to it, but they could always just not qualify the 3rd robot on the winning alliance.
If that ended up being the case, why do 3v3 then? Why not just go back to 2v2? Would you wanna be that 3rd team on the winning alliance?
If that ended up being the case, why do 3v3 then? Why not just go back to 2v2? Would you wanna be that 3rd team on the winning alliance?
Unfortunately, he's right. There's no way you could do that. Suddenly, it matters so much more which team the 8th alliance picks first! Going back to the 2v2 would be even more terrible. Each team would only get 2/3 of the matches they get now!
Billfred
05-05-2011, 22:50
Folks seem to be fixated on the "six or seven teams" part than the "per regional" part. Who says every event has to be a regional?
I know we compete at two events because we ALWAYS do better at our second event. It's happened every single season 2815's competed in FRC*.
*Okay, so it was hard to improve on regional champion this season...but even then, we ran better in qualification rounds at Palmetto.
If FIRST were to stage some more district-esque second-tier events, even without a formalized district system in an area, it might be able to reduce the number of regionals required to meet the needs of teams. It might be difficult to convert smaller/weaker existing regionals to these events, especially events in the Middle of Nowhere, but it would reduce the number of Championship slots needed.
I would be in favor of not qualifying the 3rd robot from the winning alliance.
1) It would not create awkward situations like they have in FTC where the top pick might decline so they can be a captain and have a better chance at qualifying.
2) I think the #10-16 picks would be happy enough to play in elims and have a chance at a banner.
3) There is some awkwardness with the #8 and #9 picks since they are essentially equally seeded. One could argue in favor of allowing all three teams to qualify in cases when the #8 seed wins the event.
4) This move would increase the competitive level of the average team at the Championship.
It would be nice to see a Championship that was more competitive on average during qualifiers than MSC. Accomplishing that while appropriately recognizing and inspiring the RCA / EI / RAS award winners is an interesting challenge.
I would be in favor of not qualifying the 3rd robot from the winning alliance.
1) It would not create awkward situations like they have in FTC where the top pick might decline so they can be a captain and have a better chance at qualifying.
2) I think the #10-16 picks would be happy enough to play in elims and have a chance at a banner.
3) There is some awkwardness with the #8 and #9 picks since they are essentially equally seeded. One could argue in favor of allowing all three teams to qualify in cases when the #8 seed wins the event.
4) This move would increase the competitive level of the average team at the Championship.
It would be nice to see a Championship that was more competitive on average during qualifiers than MSC. Accomplishing that while appropriately recognizing and inspiring the RCA / EI / RAS award winners is an interesting challenge.
If you guys want to not qualify the 3rd member of the winning alliance, how would you know if they didnt get a steal and majorly helped that alliance to win? In Florida our alliance picked 744 as our 3rd pick and we got a STEAL. Their minibot got us 30 points every match. Now if we had won because a good number of our matches had 30pts because of that minibot, how could you deny them a slot at CMP?
Hawiian Cadder
05-05-2011, 23:09
personally, i would prefer that nationals be about having the 350 most competitive robots in the world there. i realize this would exclude many teams (mine included) but i think that the level of competition there would be even more insane than it has been ever.
I personally always thought that it should be regional winners and then the top OPR teams going but since that would never in a million years get the OK, you have to come up with other ways to get the good teams in.
Ankit S.
05-05-2011, 23:21
*Or the extra slots could be given by best overall record
Not by record. Team A could be a high tier team, and get really unlucky with their schedule, giving them a 12-7-1 record across 2 regionals.
Team B could be a middle tier team with not as tough matches, and end up with a 14-4-2 record.
According to this, Team B should "move on" because they are the "better" team.
It may not happen when many teams have near perfect or perfect records, but when looking between 2 teams that are close to the cut, that schedule could make a difference.
If you guys want to not qualify the 3rd member of the winning alliance, how would you know if they didnt get a steal and majorly helped that alliance to win? In Florida our alliance picked 744 as our 3rd pick and we got a STEAL. Their minibot got us 30 points every match. Now if we had won because a good number of our matches had 30pts because of that minibot, how could you deny them a slot at CMP?
This is a fair argument. I'm not saying that 2 teams qualifying is ideal, but if you're limited on the number of teams you can send, this is where I'd probably start cutting spots. And most times you'll end up with a #1 or #2 alliance winning, and you're looking at a winning alliance that potentially consists of the 1st, 2nd, and 24th best robots in the competition. Makes a lot of sense to me to qualify the 1st and 2nd best and call it a day.
While I'm at it, I suppose I'll examine the other slots:
Rookie Allstar: I would suggest not qualifying RAS teams. But keep the award around.
Chairman's Award: I'd send all of these teams. I feel happy sending a Chairman's Award winning team to the CMP even if their robot is awful, and I think most of them have fairly competitive robots anyway.
Engineering Inspiration: Similar feelings to RCA award.
A points system based on performance along with awards (basically, the Michigan system) would be perfect.
a RCA doesn't entitle you to a championship entry. your robot has to perform remotly well to qualify.
winning a regional as a 3rd alliance partner on the #1 alliance at a small regional won't qualify you for championship
backing into a rookie all star because your the only rookie at the event won't get you a spot at championship
... but of course, FIRST won't fly with it. this program isn't about the robots.
If RCA winners were not given an automatic invitation to the Championship, and the award were to be judged like the website award:
A large part of the determination of the Chairman's Award is the presentation. If some teams didn't qualify based on points, they might be unable to send a small delegation of members to St. Louis to make the presentation, and thus would be out of the running for the award unless some major changes were made to the judging process. That's why I don't think that that change will happen.
Come to think of it, there is probably already some policy set in place for teams who win an RCA but cannot attend the Championship. I don't know what it would be - does anyone know if one exists, and if so, what it is?
----
In MI, winning a district no longer guarantees you a spot at States. However, each team is guaranteed two events. If the same exact point system was applied to the entire program, there would be problems. If the rankings were based off of one event, I think that there would be several ties for spots. Additionally, not all teams have the funding or ability to attend more than one event.
FIRST has a huge problem on their hands, and they know it. There are a lot of "what if"s and "on the other hand"s, and in the end there will be some tough decisions to make. I look forward to seeing what they make out of the situation.
pathew100
05-05-2011, 23:25
Assume that FIRST wants each team to at least have the opportunity to experience the Championship every 3-4 years. (So that students could go at least once while they are in high school.) This is basically the system they have now.
How do they do that with 2500 teams? 3000? 4000?
I know this is way way outside the box. Two events. One West coast, one East coast/Midwest.
Does it lessen any goals of the program? Not really. There are a ton of reasons why something like this might not be feasible. But it's an option.
Hawiian Cadder
05-05-2011, 23:29
what if they ran 2 championship events, one starting on friday, and going to tuesday, one going from wednessday, and going to saturday. in the same venue. then, the top alliances from every division over both matches face off on Einstein. which will have extensive tv coverage. they would need a smaller venue. so they would be more flexible, a smaller venue would also cost less. and if this were the case, i think that many more of the top rate robots would make it.
AdamHeard
05-05-2011, 23:32
Assume that FIRST wants each team to at least have the opportunity to experience the Championship every 3-4 years. (So that students could go at least once while they are in high school.) This is basically the system they have now.
How do they do that with 2500 teams? 3000? 4000?
I know this is way way outside the box. Two events. One West coast, one East coast/Midwest.
Does it lessen any goals of the program? Not really. There are a ton of reasons why something like this might not be feasible. But it's an option.
Over 2000 teams now. Champs had ~350 teams this year. FIRST is clearly way past the 3-4 year ideal.
Assume that FIRST wants each team to at least have the opportunity to experience the Championship every 3-4 years. (So that students could go at least once while they are in high school.) This is basically the system they have now.
How do they do that with 2500 teams? 3000? 4000?
I know this is way way outside the box. Two events. One West coast, one East coast/Midwest.
Does it lessen any goals of the program? Not really. There are a ton of reasons why something like this might not be feasible. But it's an option.
Here's another one outside the box. How about having a few super regionals (mentioned above). Make them two fields each, then make the championship two fields instead of four. That allows more teams to experience a big event, keeps the championship more exclusive which should drive up the level of play, and it fixes some space issues at the CMP.
It'd be a shame if it came down to it, but they could always just not qualify the 3rd robot on the winning alliance.
In FTC, only the alliance captain of the winning alliance qualifies for the Championship.
I don't like that system in the least. It's an insult to that team's partners and I'm shocked it exists at all, but it is what it is.
I'm not a big fan of not qualifying the third partner of the winning alliance.
Teams in general can be shockingly bad at picking and you end up with great robots that slip to the tail end of the second round. In general the 24th pick is probably weaker than the 16th, but unless the event is very small it's probably not a massive difference.
For example 254 was able to pick 111 and then 973 as the 23rd robot picked in the draft on Galileo this year. 973 was the MVP of our alliance and 5th on our pick list. We were utterly shocked that we were able to pick them. We would not have won Championships without them.
If that had been a regional and the third pick weren't qualified for champs, that would be a travesty. Obviously that's one extremely specific example and it isn't often that one of the top 8 robots by anyone's metrics falls so far, but we have been lucky enough to have a number of very competitive partners come from the tail end of the draft over the years.
catsylve
06-05-2011, 00:08
If so many people think that RCA, EI and RAS winners should be encouraged to come to championship and not compete, why not restructure championship to allow them a separate competition? I think you should stick to your guns and present FIRST with options that allow this to happen so that the competition is a quality competition. The RCA, EI and RAS winners could have a good time at competition themselves, instead of getting beaten up on the field or even feeling bad for being in a position where they feel they have caused a really strong team to lose the competition. They should come to compete at what they are strongest at. Instead of eliminating the 3rd alliance members, who legitimately helped those teams get there, set up a separate competition for the Chairmans teams.
Nawaid Ladak
06-05-2011, 00:46
I went back and i still support this idea (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=953576&postcount=63). stick the Rookie All-Star, EI and Chairmans award winners in the heats. and let them compete for spots at the big show.
The RCA winners who didn't get to play in the big show would be able to give their presentations on Tues/Wed/Thurs. so that the winner could be announced either at Opening Ceremonies on Friday (woah, considering the event would technically start Tuesday, that would be awkward). or some other time during the big show. This would make enough room for 564 teams to technically attend the Championship event and have a shot to compete for the World Championship.
At the 2009 SD Regional and the 2010 NYC Regional we would simply not have won without our 3rd partner. They were both relentless in playing defense.
It would have been a crime if they had not qualified.
I went back and i still support this idea (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=953576&postcount=63). stick the Rookie All-Star, EI and Chairmans award winners in the heats. and let them compete for spots at the big show.
The RCA winners who didn't get to play in the big show would be able to give their presentations on Tues/Wed/Thurs. so that the winner could be announced either at Opening Ceremonies on Friday (woah, considering the event would technically start Tuesday, that would be awkward). or some other time during the big show. This would make enough room for 564 teams to technically attend the Championship event and have a shot to compete for the World Championship.So... you're going to fly all of these teams out to St. Louis, have them compete in a couple matches on Tuesday/Wednesday/whatever, and then tell them they didn't qualify for the actual Championships? How do they book their flights, hotels, etc.?
Michael Corsetto
06-05-2011, 02:11
District Competition/State Championship Model
It has been discussed before, and I know its gonna happen, eventually. Maybe not this year, or next year, but soon. FIRST is getting too big to qualify 6 teams from every event.
At a first glance, this is a total bummer.
But when you think about it a little more, the Michigan State Championship this year was AWESOME! Check out the ABC full length feature if you don't believe me (skip the ads): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq1Lq_n3Tfc
Imagine an established district system where EVERY local championship was this intense! Just getting to that level would be so exciting! Obviously, the World Championship would be just that much better, but if FIRST wants to get as big as it is think it wants to, this is how it will need to be.
I think California is next for the district model, just saying :)
-Mike
I don't like any system that would reduce the importance of RCA. RCA winners should go and compete just like any other team that makes it to CMP. Remember that RCA is the culture changing part of FIRST, if you reduce it, then we are just a robotic competition, nothing more.
If an award needs to be removed from qualifying for CMP, I would suggest EI and then RAS in that order. But don't ever remove RCA from the mix.
Kara, in answer to your question earlier about RCA winners that don't go to CMP. They have to register for CMP just like any other team in order to compete for CCA. If they don't register, they do not compete for CCA.
I do like the idea of having events that do not qualify for CMP similar to what they do in FiM. So have qualifying competitions that lead to regionals that lead to CMP.
That should solve things until we get to the size where FLL is and you get to a lottery system and then some of the best teams risk not being able to go to CMP.
thefro526
06-05-2011, 08:05
Some of the EWCP guys and I were talking about this subject actually.
Personally, I think CMP should go to a Michigan State-like qualifying system - weighted in such a way that an event winner or RCA team would automatically qualify. This would also allow 'good' teams who don't win still qualify, especially if they received two finalist awards or something like that...
In theory, this could lead to an more competitive event overall (Most teams would get in based on performance on the field) and could result in a more competitive season all together. (teams that usually go to the CMP for 'fun' would now have to earn their way in by performing well.)
Just a thought.
Someone please remind me what the acronym FIRST stands for. I don't believe the R stands for Robots. (I know, I know, FRC does, but tbtp.)
If we are to Recognize and be Inspired by Science and Technology, then absolutely the RCA, EI, and RAS teams should be included; I'd go a step further and say the RCAs and EIs should get prominent pit locations. Let's celebrate what we intend to celebrate - display the RCAs and EIs as the center of attention.
RAS - absolutely should be included. Having worked with a RAS team in 2010, the CMP experience absolutely lit a fire underneath that team that will smolder for years.
Having said that,
I also agree with what Nawaid said. The idea of a play-in bracket is one worth pursuing - it worked well for VCU BB in March, didn't it? The EIs and RASs are there the same duration as the other teams; they have a play-in bracket on, say, the dormant Einstein field, on Thursday. (I know FLL is there, we can be creative with that) The four winning alliances are plugged in as 8-seeds on Newton, Archimedes, Curie, and Galileo. These teams can get the recognition they deserve; their pit location can be fluid, and it will take some of the pressure off the very crowded A/C/G/N pits and fields.
*This is for RAS, EI, and RCA recipients that did not win their events
Another vote for the District Event Model as discussed back in 2009:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78201&highlight=district+model
Michigan can do it in a state because of the the dense population of teams, but I can see New England doing it as a regional thing. There are plenty of teams in the area that could strongly benifit from lower costs and more field time. I hope this is in the works for the near future.
Nawaid Ladak
06-05-2011, 08:33
Having said that,
I also agree with what Nawaid said. The idea of a play-in bracket is one worth pursuing - it worked well for VCU BB in March, didn't it? The EIs and RASs are there the same duration as the other teams; they have a play-in bracket on, say, the dormant Einstein field, on Thursday. (I know FLL is there, we can be creative with that) The four winning alliances are plugged in as 8-seeds on Newton, Archimedes, Curie, and Galileo. These teams can get the recognition they deserve; their pit location can be fluid, and it will take some of the pressure off the very crowded A/C/G/N pits and fields.
*This is for RAS, EI, and RCA recipients that did not win their events
Interesting twist to my idea. somehow i don't think the level of competition in the play-in's will be as impressive as the division qualification rounds. those teams would be torched as 8 seeds. but it would be fun to watch. (on another note, i think we can feasibly do 12 alliances if we have 95+ teams per alliance.)
Peter Matteson
06-05-2011, 09:18
I'm for the Michigan style system because of what happened with my team this year.
For those that don't know know we seeded 2nd at both regionals we went to and ended up as finalists while picking up the GM Inductrial design award at both events and a WFFA at the WPI regional.
If we had not been pre-qualified as defending champions we would not have been able to get in off the waitlist/open registration. I'm sure other teams with similar seasons were unable to attend and that is a travesty.
I'm also surprised how no one has brought up the fact that there are around 20 "sustaining" teams with atomatic bids to the championship every year. This is another batch of teams that should have to earn their way in at this point.
I can see a few ways to handle it:
Going to a district system (at least, doing so the same way that FiM did) won't fix the problem that 80% of the seats at CMP are spoken for before the season even starts, but it might slow the problem down some. I have already said I'm a huge proponent for moving to a district system in Canada for sure. (Canadian teams all hail from within a few hours drive of Toronto (outliers being 1535 from Sault Ste Marie, 1305 from North Bay, and the handful for Quebec teams started in the last couple years + 296), with the exception of 1482 who come from Calgary, AB). Theres a high enough concentration of teams to hold 4 districts (Niagara, Toronto, Waterloo, and Quebec, with a Canadian Championship replacing GTR)
Ultimately though, I think the easiest solution is to give the championship event MORE fields. Go to an 8 division setup, with Einstein running a full bracket instead of only Semis and Finals.
I'm also surprised how no one has brought up the fact that there are around 20 "sustaining" teams with atomatic bids to the championship every year. This is another batch of teams that should have to earn their way in at this point.
There are now 15 teams that qualify as previous CCA winners. This should not change, as the Chairman's award is the highest honour in FIRST.
They are:
16
51
67
103
111
120
151
175
191
236
254
341
359
365
842
There are 7 "original and sustaining" teams that qualify this way, and in my experience, most of them typically qualify by other means anyway.
The 7 teams are:
20 - Finalist at BAE
45
126
148 - 2 event Champion in 2011
151 - Also a CCA winner
190
191 - Also a CCA winner
So in reality this year, there were only 4 original and sustaining teams that were admitted to championship for that reason alone.
Vikesrock
06-05-2011, 09:31
I'm also surprised how no one has brought up the fact that there are around 20 "sustaining" teams with atomatic bids to the championship every year. This is another batch of teams that should have to earn their way in at this point.
There are 7 original and sustaining teams: 20, 45, 126, 148, 151, 190, 191
There will be 15 HoF teams next year with auto bids: 16, 51, 67, 103, 111, 120, 151, 175, 191, 236, 254, 341, 365, 842, 359
Michael Corsetto
06-05-2011, 10:44
Going to a district system (at least, doing so the same way that FiM did) won't fix the problem that 80% of the seats at CMP are spoken for before the season even starts, but it might slow the problem down some.
How so?
According to the FiM website, 18 teams qualify for the world championships, out of the entire FiM district system. That is 18 teams out of a possible 171. Just over 10%. Now extrapolate that to the 2000 teams in FRC currently, you have just over 200 teams at the Championship. Plus the Oldies/HoF/Former Champion teams, you're looking at 230-240.
Seems pretty sustainable to me, until FIRST gets to be 3500+ teams. Thats a good problem to have.
Maybe we're talking about different problems. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by 80% of the seats being spoken for.
It seems to me the moving to a district system just makes sense.
-Mike
I agree, however, MI has grown significantly since the launch of the district model in 2009. In 2008, MI had 3 regionals, each with a population of around 60 teams, with a large overlap between them. (There were 118 MI teams in 2008.)
MI could easily sustain 4 regionals, if not 5 now. FiM is unfairly underrepresented in the current system (also, the district model drives new rookies, because its lower cost)
and why I said it won't fix the problems, is if implemented as FiM was, (delete 3 regionals, replace with districts, + MSC, qualify 3 regionals worth of teams from MSC), you havent changed the number of qualifying based seats at CMP, you've simply moved where they're issued from.
Jacob Paikoff
06-05-2011, 11:18
How about instead of 3v3 starting next year the games are 4v4. I know that that would mean an extra team from each regional would qualify, but having two extra teams on the field at a time would make up for the extra 50 or so teams that qualify.
In this system we could have upwards of 120 teams in each division and still play the same number of matches overall while including 160 extra teams.
Michael Corsetto
06-05-2011, 11:22
I agree, however, MI has grown significantly since the launch of the district model in 2009. In 2008, MI had 3 regionals, each with a population of around 60 teams, with a large overlap between them. (There were 118 MI teams in 2008.)
MI could easily sustain 4 regionals, if not 5 now. FiM is unfairly underrepresented in the current system (also, the district model drives new rookies, because its lower cost)
and why I said it won't fix the problems, is if implemented as FiM was, (delete 3 regionals, replace with districts, + MSC, qualify 3 regionals worth of teams from MSC), you havent changed the number of qualifying based seats at CMP, you've simply moved where they're issued from.
I get what you are saying. I am coming from the perspective that this "10% of teams in a region qualify for the championship" would carry over to each district model. For example, there are 175 teams in California, with 4 regional competitions. That means up to 24 teams qualify. Now take it to the district model, only 18 teams qualify. Not a huge jump, but still significant.
As more regions adopt the district model (which as I've stated before, seems to be the natural evolution of the program) we will see the strain on Championship spots decrease, as long as they follow the same qualification ratio that FiM does.
-Mike
Tetraman
06-05-2011, 11:23
How about instead of 3v3 starting next year the games are 4v4. I know that that would mean an extra team from each regional would qualify, but having two extra teams on the field at a time would make up for the extra 50 or so teams that qualify.
In this system we could have upwards of 120 teams in each division and still play the same number of matches overall while including 160 extra teams.
The problem with going to a 4v4 game is the number of minimum teams you need for a regional would go up. Teams would play very often in a regional setting, where robots do need to be fixed from time to time. Not only would you need 32 teams per regional (4 robots within 8 seeded alliances), but the quality of the finals matches will diminish as robots with 2-8 records for a regional could very well play in the finals.
Michael Corsetto
06-05-2011, 11:24
How about instead of 3v3 starting next year the games are 4v4. I know that that would mean an extra team from each regional would qualify, but having two extra teams on the field at a time would make up for the extra 50 or so teams that qualify.
In this system we could have upwards of 120 teams in each division and still play the same number of matches overall while including 160 extra teams.
And fit 500 teams plus two fields in the pits?
Like the idea, but I think FIRST will be rocking the 3v3 for a while.
-Mike
I dont think that reducing the teams that get to go to the big show is the correct approach. Increasing capacity at CMP is better. If that means moving it to Orlando to be in the worlds largest convention center then so be it.
I did the math a few weeks ago, 10 FRC fields (8 divisions + Einstein/FLL + FTC) CAN be placed in the floor area of the EJD, 4 down each side, plus one between the rows on each end.
Get more pit space (as far as I understood, we only occupied part of the convention center), and bam, you have doubled CMP capacity, and just have to adjust the schedule, and speeches and stuff on Einstein to make more time to hold 8-12 more matches on Einstein.
It would be tight, yes, but it could be done.
Might need a few extra curtains for modifying the directionality of the sound from each field.
akoscielski3
06-05-2011, 12:23
I dont think that reducing the teams that get to go to the big show is the correct approach. Increasing capacity at CMP is better. If that means moving it to Orlando to be in the worlds largest convention center then so be it.
I did the math a few weeks ago, 10 FRC fields (8 divisions + Einstein/FLL + FTC) CAN be placed in the floor area of the EJD, 4 down each side, plus one between the rows on each end.
Get more pit space (as far as I understood, we only occupied part of the convention center), and bam, you have doubled CMP capacity, and just have to adjust the schedule, and speeches and stuff on Einstein to make more time to hold 8-12 more matches on Einstein.
It would be tight, yes, but it could be done.
Might need a few extra curtains for modifying the directionality of the sound from each field.
lets do it ... or make our own multi billion dollar facility specially designed for FIRST and championships :D
artdutra04
06-05-2011, 12:28
Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.
Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.
So what do we do? A year or two ago I had a long discussion with my father about this, and basically what came up with as a solution was similar to the Michigan district model, but without the "walled off enclave" of not allowing teams to travel around. So here's our idea:
The new model of FRC competition structuring would have three tiers, Tier 1 events are "District" level events with maximum of 30-40 teams, Tier 2 events are "Regional" events with 50-70 teams, and the Tier 3 event is the Championship.
Your initial registration of $5000 can be used to apply to two Tier 1 events or one Tier 2 event. Tier 1 events are held in Weeks 0-4, and are all Bag-N-Tag. Tier 2 events are held in Weeks 3-6. Using a points-based system similar to Michigan, winning various awards at the Tier 1 events qualifies you for a spot at a Tier 2 event. Additional Tier 1 events cost $2500 to register, and additional Tier 2 events cost $4000 to register.
Eligibility to play at Championships is only available to those who win one of the six traditional spots at Tier 2 events (or have automatic entry, or won a lottery spot back in open registration in the fall).
What this allows is for:
The "one regional and out" teams can now attend two smaller events for the price of one.
Teams who like "traditional" regionals have the option to only register for Tier 2 events.
This reduces the number of events giving berths to the Championship.
This eliminates all the problems that would arise would a "let's draw an arbitrary invisible line on a map to decide what events you can and can't attend" if the Michigan district model was exactly cloned elsewhere. There are always going to be teams near the border who get screwed, and I've never liked the "no outsiders" rule.
Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.
Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.
So what do we do? A year or two ago I had a long discussion with my father about this, and basically what came up with as a solution was similar to the Michigan district model, but without the "walled off enclave" of not allowing teams to travel around. So here's our idea:
The new model of FRC competition structuring would have three tiers, Tier 1 events are "District" level events with maximum of 30-40 teams, Tier 2 events are "Regional" events with 50-70 teams, and the Tier 3 event is the Championship.
Your initial registration of $5000 can be used to apply to two Tier 1 events or one Tier 2 event. Tier 1 events are held in Weeks 0-4, and are all Bag-N-Tag. Tier 2 events are held in Weeks 3-6. Using a points-based system similar to Michigan, winning various awards at the Tier 1 events qualifies you for a spot at a Tier 2 event. Additional Tier 1 events cost $2500 to register, and additional Tier 2 events cost $4000 to register.
Eligibility to play at Championships is only available to those who win one of the six traditional spots at Tier 2 events (or have automatic entry, or won a lottery spot back in open registration in the fall).
What this allows is for:
The "one regional and out" teams can now attend two smaller events for the price of one.
Teams who like "traditional" regionals have the option to only register for Tier 2 events.
This reduces the number of events giving berths to the Championship.
This eliminates all the problems that would arise would a "let's draw an arbitrary invisible line on a map to decide what events you can and can't attend" if the Michigan district model was exactly cloned elsewhere. There are always going to be teams near the border who get screwed, and I've never liked the "no outsiders" rule.
Would you have to pay to attend the Tier 2 event after qualifying for it via Tier 1 events? If so, whats the benefit to attempting this way vs just paying your way into Tier 2 events?
Would you have to pay to attend the Tier 2 event after qualifying for it via Tier 1 events? If so, whats the benefit to attempting this way vs just paying your way into Tier 2 events?
You could do a reduced registration scheme--if you attend 2x Tier 1 events and qualify for your local Tier 2 event, you only have to pay half of the cost, or something like that. But if you don't attend 2 Tier 1 events, then you pay full cost for the Tier 2. Tier 3 would always be full cost.
I like the idea; I think it could work out at least as well as the MI district system.
artdutra04
06-05-2011, 12:46
Would you have to pay to attend the Tier 2 event after qualifying for it via Tier 1 events? If so, whats the benefit to attempting this way vs just paying your way into Tier 2 events?There would likely be a reduced registration cost if you win your way into a Tier 2 event; as for why a team would choose to compete in Tier 1 events to win their way into a Tier 2 event, they a) would have more driving experience, and b) based on the regional, there would perhaps only be about 30 available slots for any team to apply to a Tier 2 event without winning, the rest would have to be kept aside for point winners of Tier 1 events.
I think it's interesting the way the numbers come out when you look at the odds of getting to CMP.
FRC had 2075 active teams this year and 352 get to go. That's about 6:1
FTC had 1500 active teams and 128 get to go. That's about 12:1
FLL had 17100 active teams and 81 get to go. That's about 211:1
So, it's odd that the further you go up the chain, the more likely it is you earn a spot to CMP. One in six FRC teams get to go....
Maybe it's getting too easy... or maybe we're all feeling just a little bit too "entitled".
I agree that it's a great learning experience etc. to go to CMP, but if that's the reason we go, let's call it a FIRST Convention and let everyone go. If it really is a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP... let's make it a bit harder to qualify.
JMHO. Not looking to change anyone's mind.
Facts from http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=160
AlecMataloni
06-05-2011, 13:00
How about EI winners get financial grants for their team by whoever's sponsoring the award instead of championship spots?
Just a suggestion, not my personal opinion at all. I just want to see what people think.
waialua359
06-05-2011, 13:26
No problem with it this year right?
For every new regional they add, reduce at large bids by 6.
St. Louis is only for two more years. After that, find another larger venue. The bigger the world tournament and with FIRST growing, it just has to get bigger!
Give FTC and FLL their own events.
Problem solved. :)
Chris is me
06-05-2011, 13:37
No problem with it this year right?
For the first time, open registration ran out before teams that had attended the Championship the previous year won.
I think the Championship qualification system needs some work. If 177 won WPI, 40 would not have attended Championships. If some other team won Smoky Mountain, we wouldn't have seen 71. If 973 won a regional in 2010, they wouldn't have been at the Championship this year. If you can look at Einstein and find that lots of major players wouldn't have gotten there, you have to take issue with the qualification system.
Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.
I don't have any suggestions for HOW to make it better because a lot of ideas have been covered already. I can only imagine how difficult these decisions must be for FIRST. However, I just want to echo this sentiment.
Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.
Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.
Especially the awards. The Chairman's Award is the reason we're here. If you take away the award about changing the culture, you lose what makes FIRST unique. FIRST wasn't started because we needed to whack a bunch of robots around. FIRST was created because America (at the time, we were USFIRST) was falling behind in STEM education and it needed a way to celebrate engineers as the rockstars of our generation.
Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
Dean Kamen, Founder
Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.
This stuff seems to be beaten into us at every turn by FIRST and its media, but from this thread, it looks like nobody's listening.
If you remove qualification for the teams that are doing what we're really here for? You've lost the point. Those teams that are getting it right need to be celebrated on a Championship stage just as much as the ones who produce a winning robot.
MrForbes
06-05-2011, 13:46
Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.
That would let us go back to a 3 day event, instead of a 3.5 day event.
edit: Oh yeah....great idea Art!
How about EI winners get financial grants for their team by whoever's sponsoring the award instead of championship spots?
Just a suggestion, not my personal opinion at all. I just want to see what people think.
I think NASA is going to do just that for US Regionals; that will be in addition for EI teams going to Champs.
I think Art's idea has a lot of merit. The best part of it will be the greater driving experience teams will have, leading to improved performance.
I mean, I remember seeing someone in this thread or another saying that we didnt even use all of the space that the pit area was in. We could put 7 fields in the Dome(6 FRC + Einstein/FLL) and 2 fields in the pits(2 FRC + all FTC). Of course I also did like the idea of having the FLL and FTC events on their own. You could do those events on Monday-Wednesday and have theirs ending right when FRC comes to begin. Of course if they do separate FTC/FLL from FRC, then you could do entirely 7 in the Dome and 2 in the Pits or 6 in the Dome + concert stage, then after Friday, build Einstein where the stage was.
waialua359
06-05-2011, 14:03
For the first time, open registration ran out before teams that had attended the Championship the previous year won.
I think the Championship qualification system needs some work. If 177 won WPI, 40 would not have attended Championships. If some other team won Smoky Mountain, we wouldn't have seen 71. If 973 won a regional in 2010, they wouldn't have been at the Championship this year. If you can look at Einstein and find that lots of major players wouldn't have gotten there, you have to take issue with the qualification system.
Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.
As great as those teams are, and the results we got this year, everyone is in the same boat. Every team regardless of their history, should be given the same opportunity to attend. If at large bids decrease or go away entirely, as a result to FIRST growing, then you just need to be 1 of those 6 ways to qualify (non-MSC).
Art has a great idea, but I have just one concern. What about teams that cant drive to an event or isn't financially feasible to be a part of a district type event?
If FRC is a world championships, and it expects teams to grow outside the US, then what?
How many of you will be able to participate in the Australia tournament if it indeed happens as planned in 2014? :rolleyes:
Arefin Bari
06-05-2011, 14:05
I do agree with some that have mentioned that we should have more divisions. After attending the championship this year, the possibilities are endless. It's a huge venue. I feel that with correct planning we can have 8 divisions. Einstein can have a whole elimination round to decide the champions. Some of the mentors and I were talking about this same situation and I believe all of us came to the conclusion that someday (maybe soon), 8 alliances will play on einstein and the championship event will be more than 3.5 days event.
I just had an interesting idea. What if we did something like what the Olympics or FIFA does and hold the CMP every 2 years? Hold all the regular regionals and Michigan districts like we do every year and the 6 teams still gain their spots and qualify for the CMP the following year and teams still qualify the year of the CMP plus Michigan would get 36 slots. Just like now there would also be multi-slots used by teams, so the remaining open slots would be filled by the best remaining teams who didnt qualify(i.e. OPR or record for the combined 2 years) so we would be going away with the waitlist. This would allow for between 500-600 teams attend.
Michael Corsetto
06-05-2011, 14:37
As great as those teams are, and the results we got this year, everyone is in the same boat. Every team regardless of their history, should be given the same opportunity to attend. If at large bids decrease or go away entirely, as a result to FIRST growing, then you just need to be 1 of those 6 ways to qualify (non-MSC).
Art has a great idea, but I have just one concern. What about teams that cant drive to an event or isn't financially feasible to be a part of a district type event?
If FRC is a world championships, and it expects teams to grow outside the US, then what?
How many of you will be able to participate in the Australia tournament if it indeed happens as planned in 2014? :rolleyes:
Agreed on teams needing to earn their way, despite their history.
So, I think the district model works for a lot of regions. One exception: Hawaii. Another: Israel. So, these still run on a regional system, six qualify, etc.
By putting a majority of the FRC teams on a district model, you alleviate a majority of the strain on the Championship.
Look at any other competitive sport format, and you see this makes sense. Teams don't whine that they don't get to go to compete versus teams across the country. BUT, they can be proud of making it to a STATE or REGIONAL Championship. And then if they make it farther, good for them, they EARNED it. Otherwise, try again next year.
PhilBot, the numbers you posted are very thought provoking, thank you.
-Mike
Art's plan runs 2 major risks:
1.) 2 T1 + 1 T2 requires more time from mentors, students, and the like. Mentors have families, students have school work they already are behind on.
2.) The Tier 2 events, if mostly qualified for (thus paid for with reduced registration fees), will not have the same amount of revenue available to pay for the venue + whatever other costs FIRST imposes.
Anyone willing to run the money numbers to figure out a break even cost? (i.e. how many teams have to choose T1 vs T2 for FIRST to maintain its current standard of Regional Events)
GaryVoshol
06-05-2011, 14:50
Give FTC and FLL their own events.
Problem solved. :)
How? That doesn't decrease the number of qualifying spots from FRC regionals. All it does is give more floor space in the pits for FRC.
Besides, don't the FLL (plus JrFLL) and FTC students deserve a chance to be inspired by being part of the World Championships alongside FRC?
Art's plan runs 2 major risks:
1.) 2 T1 + 1 T2 requires more time from mentors, students, and the like. Mentors have families, students have school work they already are behind on.
2.) The Tier 2 events, if mostly qualified for (thus paid for with reduced registration fees), will not have the same amount of revenue available to pay for the venue + whatever other costs FIRST imposes.
Anyone willing to run the money numbers to figure out a break even cost? (i.e. how many teams have to choose T1 vs T2 for FIRST to maintain its current standard of Regional Events)
As far as I understood it, most current FRC events don't see any of the money from event registration. They have to pay for themselves via sponsorship.
I think its high time that FIRST started disclosing to us where the money goes. As I did the math earlier today, HQ pulled in nearly $15,000,000 from FRC alone for the 2011 season, never mind FTC and FLL. The only event FIRST HQ puts together for FLL is the World Festival (concurrent with FIRST Championship). FIRST HQ takes $225 to register each FLL team (there exists some 17,000 of them) and doesn't really have to do much for any but the ~100 teams that go to World Festival.
AFAIK, FIRST is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and therefore has to be able to show the IRS that in a given tax year, they make less than some amount of money (I think, I know this is how NPOs work in Canada).
wlaroche
06-05-2011, 15:00
Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.
8 divisions would be nice, but from a volunteer perspective it get difficult to have that many fields. We could of used more people this year. That being said, everything worked out and it was a great CMP. I had a lot of fun helping out. But if you spread that many people out even thinner, I think it will start to negatively impact CMP.
Maybe it becomes mandatory that each team has one volunteer for CMP. I am sure each team would be excited to help out.
For those interested: FIRST HQ's FY2010 Financials: http://usfirst.org/uploadedFiles/Who/Annual_Report-Financials/FIRST_FY10%20AFS_Website_Copy.pdf
Future CMP idea –
As the # of teams continue to grow, it will soon be impossible to accommodate the growth at the Championship event.
Here is an idea to consider.
Create 4 smaller regional championship events that would be held on the final week of the regular season, that would establish the teams that would meet at the Championship event, 2 weeks later.
The criteria for attending the regional events would be similar to what is used now as criteria for the Championship, only that could be expanded a little as well. The 4 Regional Championship events could be like a super regional event (180 teams, if the game is a 6 team game). That is 720 total teams attending all of the Regional Championship events.
I am using the word regional very loosely, and do not imply that regional is geographic dependent. In fact, as teams qualify during the earlier weeks events, they would get a chance to select which Regional Championship event they would like to attend from a choice of the 2 nearest locations to their home state. Details obviously would need to be worked out, but you get the idea.
Teams that auto qualify as before, do so, to a Regional Championship event. The Regional Championships would be similar to the format used today at the current Championship event, with slight changes.
2 divisions of 90 teams, with the top 2 alliances from each division meeting to determine the Regional Champion. (Kinda like what happens on Einstein except with 2 divisions instaed of 4) Runner Up of Division 1 plays Winner of Division 2, and Winner of Division 1 plays Runner up of Division 2. Winners meet to determine Regional Champion.
The Championship event criteria would be based on certain # of qualifying alliances from each of the 4 Regional Championships. Each Regional sends the 4 teams that played at the end for the Championship. That means 16 alliances (total of 4 alliances from each Regional Event) would go, that is 96 teams.
Yes, those alliances at a Regional Championship would stay together and compete at the Championship Event. This eliminates the need for seeding and selection, and the Championship Event could be completed in fewer days and would fit within the larger FTC/FRC/FLL balanced format. It could more easily be televised and or filmed, edited, and produced for a TV special event.
Yes, logistics and planning would be needed - but it isn't something that isn't done every year during March madness, or during the Bowl season for college football. And, I'm certain there are alot of things that would need contingency plans for (such as what if a team in one of the 4 winning alliances chooses to or cannot attend the Championship). I haven't gotten all of those bugs figured out.
Just thought this might be something to consider one day.
As the growth continues, it would be easier to make this model scalable enough to sustain the basic format - for a while.
As far as I understood it, most current FRC events don't see any of the money from event registration. They have to pay for themselves via sponsorship.
I think its high time that FIRST started disclosing to us where the money goes. As I did the math earlier today, HQ pulled in nearly $15,000,000 from FRC alone for the 2011 season, never mind FTC and FLL. The only event FIRST HQ puts together for FLL is the World Festival (concurrent with FIRST Championship). FIRST HQ takes $225 to register each FLL team (there exists some 17,000 of them) and doesn't really have to do much for any but the ~100 teams that go to World Festival.
AFAIK, FIRST is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, and therefore has to be able to show the IRS that in a given tax year, they make less than some amount of money (I think, I know this is how NPOs work in Canada).
Also keep in mind that the T1 events will likely be cheaper than T2 events
$75K - 100K for T1
$150K - 250K for T2
How? That doesn't decrease the number of qualifying spots from FRC regionals. All it does is give more floor space in the pits for FRC.
Besides, don't the FLL (plus JrFLL) and FTC students deserve a chance to be inspired by being part of the World Championships alongside FRC?
It allows FIRST to use the entire space that's available for accommodating FRC teams. It means the event can continue to grow and more teams can attend. If FTC and FLL each host their own Championship event, the same is true for those programs and they can celebrate their accomplishments without being in the shadow of FRC.
Little League players all know about Major League Baseball and they don't have their World Series in the same place at the same time as MLB. I think it's perfectly plausible to imagine a future where FLL and FTC participants view FRC teams as the Major Leagues and work toward success in their own programs so that they might, someday, get to be part of an FRC team.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate a bit here; there's a long way to go before the above would become reality. If FIRST is going to continue to encourage growth, though, I think they should be equally committed to accommodating that growth at the Championship while continuing to recognize teams as they do currently. If it comes down to spinning FTC and FLL off into their own events, that's how it should be. I think FRC teams being inspired by other FRC teams will go a long way toward making the teams and program stronger than FLL or FTC students doing the same.
artdutra04
06-05-2011, 16:07
The three tiered model wasn't entirely my idea, it was an Art^2 idea that we hashed out while driving to/from the Bash at the Beach offseason a few years ago. :)
The idea was that T1 events would be relatively inexpensive (like District or offseason events), and would primarily target colleges and universities to host them. T1 events would also have priority for local teams over far away teams, and T1 events could potentially start the weekend immediately after ship date.
T2 events would basically be the status quo FRC Regional, although on average they would probably be closer to Championship Division size in number of teams.
Teams would have the option at their own discretion whether to compete in T1 events, T2 events, or some combination of both. This is the most fair option going forward because if "walled off" district events are further expanded, it will further restrict the options of other teams. Giving teams the option of how they want to run themselves and how they want to compete is the best option going forward. Mentor/volunteer/student burnout is not an issue, as the decision of where (and how often) to compete at various T1/T2 events is left entirely up to each individual team.
For example, we're good friends with a number of other FRC teams in both New England and around the country. If the "walled off" Michigan district model was expanded elsewhere to a New England or Florida model, we'd almost never have the chance to compete with our friends Exploding Bacon unless we were both at the Championships. But under a T1/T2/T3 system, both of our teams could choose one year to both apply for an open spot at the same T2 event.
The only major aspect of the T1/T2/T3 idea that would need work is to figure out a system to decide which T2 events a team would compete at if they won enough points from T1 events. Perhaps they would have to preliminarily indicate which T2 event they would want to compete at if they won enough T1 points, and that would adjust the number of "open berth" spots at said T2 event.
As for points, getting Chairman's, EI, RAS, or Champion at a T1 event should automatically be enough to get into a T2 event. Getting Finalist and another award should be enough points at getting into a T2 event. Winning Chairman's, EI, or Woodie Flower's at a T1 event would then add you into the running for winning at your corresponding T2 event.
EDIT: There was also a proposal a number of years ago as part of N.E.R.D. (New England Robotics Division) to use the extremely high number of offseason events in New England as "feeder events" for a "offseason Championship", where teams who won at smaller offseason events could get points toward being elegible to compete at a "New England Cup" event in the late fall.
Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.
Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.
So what do we do? A year or two ago I had a long discussion with my father about this, and basically what came up with as a solution was similar to the Michigan district model, but without the "walled off enclave" of not allowing teams to travel around. So here's our idea:
The new model of FRC competition structuring would have three tiers, Tier 1 events are "District" level events with maximum of 30-40 teams, Tier 2 events are "Regional" events with 50-70 teams, and the Tier 3 event is the Championship.
Your initial registration of $5000 can be used to apply to two Tier 1 events or one Tier 2 event. Tier 1 events are held in Weeks 0-4, and are all Bag-N-Tag. Tier 2 events are held in Weeks 3-6. Using a points-based system similar to Michigan, winning various awards at the Tier 1 events qualifies you for a spot at a Tier 2 event. Additional Tier 1 events cost $2500 to register, and additional Tier 2 events cost $4000 to register.
Eligibility to play at Championships is only available to those who win one of the six traditional spots at Tier 2 events (or have automatic entry, or won a lottery spot back in open registration in the fall).
What this allows is for:
The "one regional and out" teams can now attend two smaller events for the price of one.
Teams who like "traditional" regionals have the option to only register for Tier 2 events.
This reduces the number of events giving berths to the Championship.
This eliminates all the problems that would arise would a "let's draw an arbitrary invisible line on a map to decide what events you can and can't attend" if the Michigan district model was exactly cloned elsewhere. There are always going to be teams near the border who get screwed, and I've never liked the "no outsiders" rule.
I am a fan of this type of model if revamping the geography and organization of the tournament system is on the table.
If it turns out that we have to stay within the confines of the existing regional qualification system for now, then it isn't very productive to simply say that it's an awful idea to take away any of the existing qualification slots.
Mark Sheridan
06-05-2011, 16:19
Future CMP idea –
Here is an idea to consider.
Create 4 smaller regional championship events that would be held on the final week of the regular season, that would establish the teams that would meet at the Championship event, 2 weeks later.
I feel FIRST will eventually have to go down that road, maybe not in the next four years.
I feel this this championship event problem has already been solved in sports. If you look at all large sports in high schools, they are all tier based systems with a State championship. Its the best way to filter down teams to a championship.
The district model will be adopted in California, the question is when. Another regional is probably going to be added next year. Though the biggest concern is the "closed-borders." That problem has also been solved by sports. There are all-comer track meets, where pretty much anyone can sign up until they reach capacity. High school track and field in California is still tiered with league, sectionals (regional) and state.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to switch some states (provinces) to district set up. Those like California, who have a lot of out of state teams, can run all-comer regionals. By no means would the district system force a California team to compete in California. A few high schools in California are in fact part of the Nevada interscholastic federation due to being closer to Nevada schools.
Also not every state needs to adopt district style events. Not every California sport goes to a state championship, some are only done at the regional level.
Determining how teams should qualify from each state is something I going to have to think about longer.
GaryVoshol
06-05-2011, 16:56
Expanding the District model wouldn't necessarily have to be done along state borders. That happened to be a convenient size unit to use for Michigan in terms of number of teams and number of regionals replaced. Future championship events that lead up to the World Championship - they could be called Conference Championships to distinguish them both from the CMP and from regionals - might be multi-state and might divide some states. For example, a Pacific Northwest Conference might consist of WA, OR and BC. New England might be a Conference. MN and WI could be another.
If there are more Conference Championships set up, there could be a method set up so that teams could choose events outside their immediate area on a space-available basis. Perhaps they could even choose what Conference they belonged to.
The biggest problem with a District/Conference/Championship model is what to do about areas that don't have a high enough density of teams to support multiple district events within reasonable travel distance. There would have to be some accomdation for outlying areas like HI and Isreal which can support just 1 event now. That doesn't even consider other countries outside US and Canada that may have only 1 or 2 teams.
In addition to team density, there has to be a big enough volunteer base to support the districts. Michigan has enough FIRST-crazed people that volunteer in key positions (like FTA, referee, lead queue) in multiple weeks. In places like OK and MN that have a huge number of 2 and 3 year old teams, are there enough people with some history and experience to volunteer in key roles?
It's a big task, but if FRC expands to "every" high school as has been envisioned, there eventually needs to be a plan to accomodate 5 to 10 times as many teams as we currently have.
State borders, like Eric said, would most likely only work for Michigan. Conferences would most likely be: New England(ME, VT, NH, Mass, CT, PA, NY, RI, NJ,), Southeast(Florida, Georgia, SC, AL, MS,), East(NC, Virginia, WV, TN, KY, DE, MD, DC) Midwest(OH, IN, IL, MO), Frozen North(MN, WI, IA, ND/SD, NE)Southwest(NM, Mexico, Texas, Kansas, OK, CO, AR, LA) Pacific Northwest(WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, AK), West(CA, NV, HI, Utah, AZ), Canadian Conference(need input from Canadian CD members to help out)
Lil' Lavery
06-05-2011, 17:59
Ultimately, I think the solution(s) to our current problems have been touched upon in this thread. Enlarging the amount of FRC teams that are able to attend the Championship event (and that is not the same as making the event itself bigger) and restructuring the regional format as a whole.
But that's not going to stop me from talking. ;)
I don't have any suggestions for HOW to make it better because a lot of ideas have been covered already. I can only imagine how difficult these decisions must be for FIRST. However, I just want to echo this sentiment.
Especially the awards. The Chairman's Award is the reason we're here. If you take away the award about changing the culture, you lose what makes FIRST unique. FIRST wasn't started because we needed to whack a bunch of robots around. FIRST was created because America (at the time, we were USFIRST) was falling behind in STEM education and it needed a way to celebrate engineers as the rockstars of our generation.
This stuff seems to be beaten into us at every turn by FIRST and its media, but from this thread, it looks like nobody's listening.
If you remove qualification for the teams that are doing what we're really here for? You've lost the point. Those teams that are getting it right need to be celebrated on a Championship stage just as much as the ones who produce a winning robot.
Not that I really disagree here, but I'm going to play devil's advocate.
You're right, it's not just about the robots. The Chairman's, EI, and RAS teams need to be celebrated. But why are we celebrating them on the field if their accomplishments didn't happen on the field?
To demonstrate this point, I'm going to turn to a bit of hyperbole.
What if, instead of looking at Championship qualification, we looked at Einstein qualification? What if you had to win an RCA to be able to compete there? Why aren't we celebrating them on the biggest stage that Championship has to offer?
Because, at a certain point, the competition is about the robots. When we talk about the "rockstar" teams in FRC, it's generally teams that field great robots. We have a website dedicated to ranking the top 25 competition teams in FRC. An anymous poster who writes a column about teams' chances of winning events. Multi-hour podcasts and video blogs about how teams are performing and whether or not they're going to win. The engineering rock stars of FRC usually come from these celebrated teams.
The best part, to me, is that these rock star teams also generally get it off the field as well. There's little surprise to me that our current championship alliance consisted of two hall of fame teams. Only very rarely are the teams that we're celebrating for winning an event teams that "don't get it."
Not saying that we shouldn't include RCA, EI, and RAS winners as qualifiers for Championship. Just exploring the other side of the coin for a little while.
State borders, like Eric said, would most likely only work for Michigan. Conferences would most likely be: New England(ME, VT, NH, Mass, CT, PA, NY, RI, NJ,), Southeast(Florida, Georgia, SC, AL, MS,), East(NC, Virginia, WV, TN, KY, DE, MD, DC) Midwest(OH, IN, IL, MO), Frozen North(MN, WI, IA, ND/SD, NE)Southwest(NM, Mexico, Texas, Kansas, OK, CO, AR, LA) Pacific Northwest(WA, OR, ID, MT, WY, AK), West(CA, NV, HI, Utah, AZ), Canadian Conference(need input from Canadian CD members to help out)
See, this is where ideas like this fall apart.
Why is Delaware in a different "conference" than Pennsylvania? There are only two teams in Delaware, and they both attended the Philadelphia regional. Heck, one of those teams has won Philly four years in a row.
What happens to Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania in this system? Only 17 of the 39 teams that attended the Pittsburgh regional this year would be allowed to attend whatever event takes it places. More than half of the teams for that event came from places that aren't part of the "New England" conference.
I could continue listing cases like this for hours. Dividing up the map into chunks like this simply isn't going to work until there's a much higher team density.
I was just dividing up the states as states, not as teams in those states. I have no clue where the diversity of teams amongst the individual states are at. I do like the idea of multi-state MSC conferences to qualify for CMP but finding the way to divide the teams up is the hard part.
PayneTrain
06-05-2011, 19:05
If a three-tier system were to hit the contiguous states and Canada, you would register for FRC through a regional cooperative of your choosing. (For instance, I would join the hyothetical FIRST Capital Reigon Co-op, consisting of VA, MD, DC, and NEARBY TEAMS) So, you do not have to be locked into any specific co-op, but whichever one you choose to go into, you work to qualify for that regional championship.
If this system is mandated across all of the contiguous states and Canada, teams are allowed to attend any district event, but they will take their top two district scores to qualify for the regional championship held by the co-op they registered with.
This method eliminates teams from being locked out by any border constructed by FIRST. The teams make their own choice for where they want to qualify.
While making 15 state and super regional championships, and two traditional regionals, FRC is cutting down on the bids that are spoken for in both RCA/EI/RAS and general champion bids.
This has been mentioned in a few different iterations, but I want to mesh the idea above with another: the "Kamen" division. The Kamen division is where all 50 or so teams with RCA/EI/RAS bids will be grouped into. They will have their own pits, and play in the dome on a third field, for the whole competition. Every match they play will feature an RCA, EI, and RAS team in an alliance on both sides. At the end, the top four alliances move into the 8 slot of another division. Another option would be to have Kamen compete like the other four divisions, then make Einstein a "Round Robin" where each team plays the other twice, and the two best records go to a best-of-three finals.
There are ways they can make this work for everyone.
I am not a big fan of separating the RCA/EI/RAS from the teams that make it to CMP based on performance.
These awards represent a key aspect of FIRST that differentiates the program from being just a robot competition. These teams need to be as much a part of the competition as any other team and the spirit of these teams needs to be an integrated part of the whole. If you start to separate them, you will start to lose an important foundational component of FIRST.
Because, at a certain point, the competition is about the robots. When we talk about the "rockstar" teams in FRC, it's generally teams that field great robots. We have a website dedicated to ranking the top 25 competition teams in FRC. An anymous poster who writes a column about teams' chances of winning events. Multi-hour podcasts and video blogs about how teams are performing and whether or not they're going to win. The engineering rock stars of FRC usually come from these celebrated teams.
The best part, to me, is that these rock star teams also generally get it off the field as well. There's little surprise to me that our current championship alliance consisted of two hall of fame teams. Only very rarely are the teams that we're celebrating for winning an event teams that "don't get it."
Not saying that we shouldn't include RCA, EI, and RAS winners as qualifiers for Championship. Just exploring the other side of the coin for a little while.
I definitely agree with you - I didn't mean to say in any way that the competition wasn't about the robots as well...You're 100% right, I love seeing that teams that 'get it' are also the ones producing great robots. I simply wouldn't want to see people overlook the value of the RCA/EI/RAS awards as a reason to be at the Championship event.
Give FTC and FLL their own events.
Problem solved. :)
Several searches of this thread have failed to tell me if anyone has noted that the FLL World Festival is not a championship. There are apparently too many regionals to allow all those winners to compete at CMP. This does not reduce the excitement and enthusiasm of the invited teams as they reach the "big" stage.
I cannot predict how this information will or will not affect the topic of discussion here. I could give you some ideas about how it feels for those kids to be able to show their work in such a large venue. If it were up to me, I'd say that any FRC Team would have to have supported at least one FLL or FTC team as part of their qualification for CMP.
Separate event for FLL? Thumbs waaaaaaay down for that.
Several searches of this thread have failed to tell me if anyone has noted that the FLL World Festival is not a championship. There are apparently too many regionals to allow all those winners to compete at CMP. This does not reduce the excitement and enthusiasm of the invited teams as they reach the "big" stage.
I cannot predict how this information will or will not affect the topic of discussion here. I could give you some ideas about how it feels for those kids to be able to show their work in such a large venue. If it were up to me, I'd say that any FRC Team would have to have supported at least one FLL or FTC team as part of their qualification for CMP.
Separate event for FLL? Thumbs waaaaaaay down for that.
If teams had to support an FLL or FTC team to go to CMP, how would you tell the kids on an FRC team that built that robot over the 6 weeks and poured thousands of hours into the team and made it to the semis at maybe 2 regionals that they cant get into the CMP because they dont have enough team resources to try to support an entirely different entity for their competition year? That would hurtful to those FLL/FTC kids who wouldnt get the full effect of FIRST because their FRC mentors are striving for their results for their team as it was.
Going back to the 2v2 would be even more terrible. Each team would only get 2/3 of the matches they get now!
How about going back to a hexagonal field and playing 2v2v2? I don't know if the logistics work out for regionals (54 teams would get into elims), but you would get the same amount of matches and one less robot qualifying from each regional.
How about going back to a hexagonal field and playing 2v2v2? I don't know if the logistics work out for regionals (54 teams would get into elims), but you would get the same amount of matches and one less robot qualifying from each regional.
You would likely also have two alliances conspiring against the third.
You would likely also have two alliances conspiring against the third.
I believe this was the original reason for leaving the 1v1v1 system. Also, triangular (or hexagonal) fields don't fit as well as rectangles..
I would like to note that an FRC team in every high school doesn't mean an FRC team for every high school. One team can potentially reach a few schools, especially in urban, even suburban, areas. We may only need 10,000 FRC teams to reach every high school.
As for expanding the district model, Israel seems like a very good place to try it, once they reach 100-ish teams. Not many foreigners are coming in anyway, and every team could reach every event. At 60 teams, they currently only need about 3 district events, but the National Championship wouldn't be much more competitive outside of more events per team. Still, as Israel grows, that may be another possible district system success.
Tetraman
07-05-2011, 09:27
Does anyone have an image or graphic that depicts the number of teams in each state? I know there is one somewhere but I can't find it.
I'm working on taking everyone's ideas and making a structured proposal.
1986titans
07-05-2011, 12:19
Does anyone have an image or graphic that depicts the number of teams in each state? I know there is one somewhere but I can't find it.
I'm working on taking everyone's ideas and making a structured proposal.
Even something like a number from each state wouldn't be good enough for breaking down how teams should be distributed. It's more important to know where they are in each state. An example of this would be Kansas - 17 of the 21 teams in the state are within an hour's (for a lot far less) drive of the KC Regional in Missouri that is only a block away from Kansas. Assigning these teams to anywhere else would require hundreds of miles of unnecessary travel. I would use a Google map that had all of the team locations as pinpoints or something so a distribution could be seen more easily.
Ian Curtis
07-05-2011, 12:31
Several searches of this thread have failed to tell me if anyone has noted that the FLL World Festival is not a championship. There are apparently too many regionals to allow all those winners to compete at CMP. This does not reduce the excitement and enthusiasm of the invited teams as they reach the "big" stage.
I cannot predict how this information will or will not affect the topic of discussion here. I could give you some ideas about how it feels for those kids to be able to show their work in such a large venue. If it were up to me, I'd say that any FRC Team would have to have supported at least one FLL or FTC team as part of their qualification for CMP.
Separate event for FLL? Thumbs waaaaaaay down for that.
I competed in the FLL World Festival in 2003 in Houston (when it was in the pits) and in 2005 when it was on Einstein in Atlanta. I had more fun competing in 2003 when it wasn't in the dome. It was kind of cool to see the FRC robots on the fields nearby, but it just seemed like way too much effort, and it definitely cut down on the interactions between the teams (and there is a far more diverse field their than there is for FRC). It was also *impossible* to watch from the stands. Every FRC team should definitely make an effort to get FLL teams into their pits though, I got a tour of MOE's robot that year and I still remember it. My Dad also spent lots of time talking to FRC mentors, as he was interested in starting an FRC team.
They should definitely be in the same place, but I had a better experience when I *wasn't* competing on the dome floor, and I'm not just saying this because I'm an FRC or bust guy. FLL has a much larger impact than FRC does, and it will probably remain this way for quite some time.
Tetraman
07-05-2011, 13:01
Disclaimer: This is mainly to be used as a theoretical possibility to be discussed. It's not the answer nor do I claim it to be. It's a well thought out concept model that incorporates what has been discussed so far. Constructive comments please. Also PLEASE don't just quote this entire post, cause it is long.
We know that the best way to reconstruct the World Championship is to reformat the Regional Competitions. One way that has been discussed is a Regional Championship, and here is my take on how to implement it.
FRC Open Events
The traditional Regional Competitions will maintain the same process that they always have in past years, but are titled differently. Rather than being a Regional, they are FRC Open Events. So The Midwest Regional would be the "Midwest Open", and the Finger Lakes Regional would be the "Finger Lakes Open". The Events are open to all possible teams as the Open Event can take in, allowing for teams that enjoy traveling to other regionals as they do today to take part in events across the country or over the world. FRC Open Events take place within the first five (5) weeks of the FIRST competition season at the end of the build period. Regional events take on any number of FIRST teams as they can handle (anywhere from 40-60), and give out the same awards. However, the awards will not be worth the same as they have in the past.
How do you get into an FRC Open Event?
1 - You must pay the fee required to participate
2 - You must sign up early, before the Open Event is filled.
3 - Everything that is asked of you for any regional today.
FRC Regional Competitions
Each FRC robotics team is slotted to a Region based on their location. Location can be state based or by specific distances. Each Regional Competition will hold anywhere from 100-120 teams randomly split into two divisions. The divisions will play their own Qualifying and Elimination rounds with the winners of each division competing to be Regional Championship Winners. Similarly to Open Events and Regionals of the past, trophies are handed out - however trophies are not division specific; You will be competition for each trophy over the entire competition field, not just within each division. Based on records and trophies and such, teams will earn invitations to the World Championship. The Regional Competitions are played after the 5 weeks of Open Events and a week off.
[/i]How do you get into an FRC Regional Competition?[/i]
1 - You must be from the specific Region the Regional Competition is for.
2 - You must have won any Open Chairman's Award, Open Engineering Inspiration Award, Open Rookie All Star Award, and/or are Champions of a FRC Open Event - each from the current year.
3 - You must have won last year's Regional Competition Chairman's Award, Engineering Inspiration Award, Rookie All Star Award and/or Regional champions - each from the last year only.
4 - If you haven't either of those awards, similar to what is done for the Championship these days, teams will have specific years which they may apply for their region's Regional Competition. This will allow for teams to attend the Regional Competitions without stellar performances throughout the year. And since Regional Competitions have fewer robotics teams to worry about, teams will be able to apply every other year, rather than every three or four years.
5 - Pay the fee required and everything that is asked of you for any other regional today.
FRC World Championship
Played how it is now, the World Championship doesn't change much. However with this proposal there will be much fewer teams in the World Championship. The World Championship is only available for those who won awards or reached certain achievements in any events in the current year. It is played after the Regional Competitions with a week break in between.
So how do you get to the FRC World Championship?
1 - Be one of the original FIRST robotics teams.
2 - Be a Hall of Fame robotics team.
3 - From an Open Event - win the Open Chairman's Award, the Open Engineering Inspiration Award or the Open Rookie All Star Award.
4 - From an FRC Regional Competition - win the Regional Chairman's Award, the Regional Engineering Inspiration Award or the Regional Rookie All Star Award.
5 - Additionally from an FRC Regional Competition - the original top 8 seeded teams from each regional division earn an invitation. In the event of actual ties, the tied teams are also allowed in. Also, the winners of each regional division earn an invitation as well. (In this way, a possible 22 unique teams earn an invitation based on their performance, 25 teams from each Regional Competition when you include the award winners.)
6 - Be last year's World Championship Engineering Inspiration Award winners, Rookie All Star Award winners and World Champions.
7 - Pay the fee required and everything that is asked of you for any Championship today.
Notes on the FRC World Championship in this proposal
If there were 50 FRC Open Events, (two more regionals than there were last year) and lets say 6 Regional Competitions, that means a total of 333 maximum unique teams will compete in the World Championship. (if my math is right). That is fewer than the number of teams that played this year, but still quite the large pool of robotics teams. Plus, the teams that will be attending the World Championship will always be the best of the best - the top contenders in Regional Competition play, as well as all the great award winners from the current years smaller events.
This may be the most controversial paragraph. I'd suggest that while Open Event winners of Chairman's, EI and RAS are accepted to Worlds, it is only the winners of the Regional Chairman's, EI and RAS awards that compete for the World Championship version of the award.
Yes. It is unfair that the World Championship is so restrictive and teams must be actually good at what they do in order to get any entry. But isn't that what it's for anyway? Think about most High School Sports. You don't make it to Nationals just by winning in your Regional. You have to compete Regionally before you can make it to States, and you can't make it to the Nationals until you make it past States. It's very "win or go home", and the larger FIRST gets, the more of this reality we have to recognize. Pretty soon, we won't be given a golden ticket to the World Championship. We all will have to earn the right to go. Plus who knows, as FIRST grows maybe there can be a smaller event for average teams to play in as well during the World Championship. While some teams play in the 4-division "NCAA" tournament, somewhere else in the area there can be another 2-division "NIT" tournament.
So there you go. Rage and Discuss.
So the only teams that get invitations are: Winners from Regionals, top 8 seeds from Regionals, RAS/EI/Chairmans from Regionals and Opens?
Tetraman
07-05-2011, 13:24
So the only teams that get invitations are: Winners from Regionals, top 8 seeds from Regionals, RAS/EI/Chairmans from Regionals and Opens. The winners from the Opens get nothing?
In this example, they get entry into their Regional Championships. But you are correct in that they don't get entry into the World Championship.
EDIT: Think of it the same way I set up the Chairman's award. In order to win the championship Chairman's Award, you need to first win an Open Event Chairman's Award and then the Regional Chairman's Award. So in the same way, in order to get into the World Championship via winning events, you need to win and Open Event, and then win a Regional Championship. Going straight from an Open Event to the World Championship is the actual problem that this proposal is trying to solve.
Ok, then so you said the Regionals would have something like 120 teams, but only RCA/REI/RRAS/Regional Champs, Open CA/EI/RAS would get in automatically, how would the others get in?
waialua359
07-05-2011, 13:33
Perhaps we need to hear about how much bigger, FIRST plans to grow in terms of no. of regionals. As the no. of teams grow, if it only means that current regionals will get larger, it shouldnt affect CMP at all.
For the really large tournaments, make them a 3.5 day event if need be.
If these problems wont occur for another 10 years or so, why announce them now?
Should the MSC model be done in CA already? I havent heard too many teams complain about not having one.
Tetraman
07-05-2011, 13:35
Ok, then so you said the Regionals would have something like 120 teams, but only RCA/REI/RRAS/Regional Champs, Open CA/EI/RAS would get in automatically, how would the others get in?
I explained that here:
4 - If you haven't either of those awards, similar to what was done for the Championship, teams will have specific years which they may apply for their region's Regional Competition. This will allow for teams to attend the Regional Competitions without stellar performances throughout the year. And since Regional Competitions have fewer robotics teams to worry about, teams will be able to apply every other year, rather than every three or four years.
To better explain, imagine a list of robotics teams that are in a Region. Each year, half of those robotics teams are given automatic entry to their Regional Championship just because it is "their time". The following year, the other half of the robotics teams would get their automatic entry.
The other half of the robots in the list that don't get their auto-in will have to compete for it.
I explained that here:
To better explain, imagine a list of robotics teams that are in a Region. Each year, half of those robotics teams are given automatic entry to their Regional Championship just because it is "their time". The following year, the other half of the robotics teams would get their automatic entry.
The other half of the robots in the list that don't get their auto-in will have to compete for it.
Oh ok, that makes sense. I just didnt understand what you were meaning by, "their time."
Another consideration is what could be called a "critical participation number" that is, the number of teams required at the championship event in order to make it economically and otherwise viable. This has been a tacitly been seen up to now in the signup and standby queues currently in use.
How would it be if winning regional events automatically paid the registration for CMP? If a team could not go to CMP, then their registration for the same regional next year would be paid. Some other team could (would) go to CMP in their place by paying the entire CMP registration. Yes, I predict the registration for regionals would have to go up slightly to cover it.
Lil' Lavery
07-05-2011, 14:22
This has been mentioned in a few different iterations, but I want to mesh the idea above with another: the "Kamen" division. The Kamen division is where all 50 or so teams with RCA/EI/RAS bids will be grouped into. They will have their own pits, and play in the dome on a third field, for the whole competition. Every match they play will feature an RCA, EI, and RAS team in an alliance on both sides. At the end, the top four alliances move into the 8 slot of another division. Another option would be to have Kamen compete like the other four divisions, then make Einstein a "Round Robin" where each team plays the other twice, and the two best records go to a best-of-three finals.
This idea isn't very well thought through.
"All 50 or so teams" is a far underestimate of the number of teams that win those awards. There will be some "doubles" in terms of teams who win two of those awards and there will be many teams that don't make it to Championship. But with 48 regionals and 3 of those awards per event, we're talking well over 100 teams that make it to the Championship event based on those criteria.
Secondly, why are we lumping them in as #8 seeds? Basing it off of these Top 25 rankings (http://www.frctop25.com/CurrentRankings.html), we see four hall of fame teams (16, 67, 111, 254), two regional Chairman's winners (1114, 2016), one Michigan district Chairman's Award winner (33), and four Engineering Inspiration winners (27, 118, 234, 2415). Based on whether or not you accept HoF and DCA winners into the Kamen division, you range from having six to fifteen of the Top 25 teams in one division (of five). You don't have to worry about not having enough talent here to compete against the other divisions, you have to worry about placing all your good teams into one division. Even ignoring the rest of the gripes about separating these teams from the field, you're throwing off the competitive balance by doing this.
We know that the best way to reconstruct the World Championship is to reformat the Regional Competitions.
We do?
While I've seen a lot of suggestions along those lines, there have been some suggestions to follow different paths as well. Nobody has definitely concluded that this concept is better than all the other possibilities. Heck, we've barely even scratched the surface of what all the other possibilities are.
One of the things that's different about FRC is that teams can attend as many regionals as they want constrained only by budget. I can't think of any other sport that works like that, not even FLL. Of course FIRST is all about inspiration and going to events is inspiring. Is going to three regionals more inspiring than two? Perhaps but there is a point of diminishing returns. I suspect most teams going to three or four regionals are doing it to better their chances of doing well on the playing field at CMP.
I bring all this up because one way to make more space in the FRC program would be to limit teams to two regionals. Besides making CMP more equitable it would reduce the number of teams going to CMP. I don't know by how much.
I also like the point system being discussed in this thread as well as the idea of eliminating the hall of fame and sustaining team automatic qualification.
Setting up a series of super Regionals is the way most other sports would grow. It's asking a lot of teams to raise the money to travel to that event and CMP, though. The district model works well when there are a lot of densely packed teams. It gets a lot more expensive out west.
Lil' Lavery
07-05-2011, 16:34
One of the things that's different about FRC is that teams can attend as many regionals as they want constrained only by budget. I can't think of any other sport that works like that, not even FLL. Of course FIRST is all about inspiration and going to events is inspiring. Is going to three regionals more inspiring than two? Perhaps but there is a point of diminishing returns. I suspect most teams going to three or four regionals are doing it to better their chances of doing well on the playing field at CMP.
I bring all this up because one way to make more space in the FRC program would be to limit teams to two regionals. Besides making CMP more equitable it would reduce the number of teams going to CMP. I don't know by how much.
I don't see how it reduces the number of teams going to CMP. If anything, teams going to 3+ regionals makes fewer teams qualify for Championship. For instance, 1114 earned four Championship invites this year by winning 3 regionals and a RCA. If they only attended two regionals, they would have opened the door for another team to qualify for CMP.
I don't see how it reduces the number of teams going to CMP. If anything, teams going to 3+ regionals makes fewer teams qualify for Championship. For instance, 1114 earned four Championship invites this year by winning 3 regionals and a RCA. If they only attended two regionals, they would have opened the door for another team to qualify for CMP.
Actually if they had won those regionals and RCA or not, those spots would be given to another team(s). Its only difference between the teams winning/earning their spot or giving the spot to a team off the waitlist.
rwood359
07-05-2011, 16:50
For those that want to eliminate the #3 alliance member take a look at 2010.
We (359) were 3rd or 4th seed in San Diego and chose 294 with our 2nd choice. Although 294 improved their robot and were a finalist in Los Angeles, this 3rd team position on our winning alliance was their entry to 2010 CMP.
They won Newton as the 1st seed captain and won CMP in a major upset.
I don't see how it reduces the number of teams going to CMP. If anything, teams going to 3+ regionals makes fewer teams qualify for Championship. For instance, 1114 earned four Championship invites this year by winning 3 regionals and a RCA. If they only attended two regionals, they would have opened the door for another team to qualify for CMP.
I think he means that the same number of teams go to less events each, it decreases the team-events, which theoretically reduces the number of regionals, though not by much. I think we should be trying to get more teams to more events, because that makes the CMP more competitive (more event experience). There just needs to be a way to limit the teams going to the CMP then.
Tetraman
07-05-2011, 17:13
Heck, we've barely even scratched the surface of what all the other possibilities are.
Are we even looking for a complete change in the system? Because I'm sure what we want is a Championship more than a Festival.
If innovation to the system is what we want, then at the beginning of the year, lets split all the robotics teams into Divisions right off the bat. You play as either Archimedes/Curie/Newton/Galileo for the entire season, earning Qualifying points based on the results of each regional you go to. At the end of the year the highest 50 robotics teams in each division are invited to the championship to play on their division turf at the Championship, plus all the award specific winners.
The goal is to restrict the number of teams allowed into the Championship while letting the program grow without restriction - maintaining a Championship feel that imitates other High School sports while being its own.
PayneTrain
07-05-2011, 18:08
This idea isn't very well thought through.
"All 50 or so teams" is a far underestimate of the number of teams that win those awards. There will be some "doubles" in terms of teams who win two of those awards and there will be many teams that don't make it to Championship. But with 48 regionals and 3 of those awards per event, we're talking well over 100 teams that make it to the Championship event based on those criteria.
Secondly, why are we lumping them in as #8 seeds? Basing it off of these Top 25 rankings (http://www.frctop25.com/CurrentRankings.html), we see four hall of fame teams (16, 67, 111, 254), two regional Chairman's winners (1114, 2016), one Michigan district Chairman's Award winner (33), and four Engineering Inspiration winners (27, 118, 234, 2415). Based on whether or not you accept HoF and DCA winners into the Kamen division, you range from having six to fifteen of the Top 25 teams in one division (of five). You don't have to worry about not having enough talent here to compete against the other divisions, you have to worry about placing all your good teams into one division. Even ignoring the rest of the gripes about separating these teams from the field, you're throwing off the competitive balance by doing this.
I merely forgot to place the 1 in front of the 50.
Also, HOF teams would be dispersed among the other four divisions, and DCA winners don't even qualify for CMP.(33 won MSC, not MSCCA)
If you have five divisions, there would ideally be 5 teams of the unofficial top 25 in each of the 5 divisions. Having 6 in one isn't ideal, but it's obvious that FIRST doesn't split up the divisions in a finite way.
There is also an option for FRC to do a Round Robin on Einstein. Sure, it would take longer, but you also have a guarantee of getting the two best alliances in the final.
I don't see how it reduces the number of teams going to CMP. If anything, teams going to 3+ regionals makes fewer teams qualify for Championship. For instance, 1114 earned four Championship invites this year by winning 3 regionals and a RCA. If they only attended two regionals, they would have opened the door for another team to qualify for CMP.
Thanks for helping to clarify my thinking. Limiting teams to two regionals makes more room at the regionals (and hence allows for program growth) but doesn't help at the CMP as far as team numbers. It does mean more qualified teams attend rather than those who just wait list in. The limitation does help level the playing field but that's not what we're talking about here.
I'm not sure letting Rookie All-Stars attend automatically is doing them any huge favor. Sure they'll get to go to the event and see how the big boys play but getting beat up at CMP can be pretty demoralizing. That's one nice thing about a point system, you can give RAS teams a goodly number of points but it could be set up in such a way that they would also need to get to a certain level of competence on the field to qualify for CMP.
A point system could also help with the #2 pick problem being discussed in this thread. Maybe the team captain gets a bunch of points (enough to qualify), the first pick gets enough to normally qualify, and the second pick gets fewer. You'd rig it such that a well qualified 2nd pick would qualify but a box on wheels would normally not. I don't know what all would go into the qualification formula but something like OPR would be an interesting addition.
GaryVoshol
07-05-2011, 21:38
I'm not sure letting Rookie All-Stars attend automatically is doing them any huge favor. Sure they'll get to go to the event and see how the big boys play but getting beat up at CMP can be pretty demoralizing. That's one nice thing about a point system, you can give RAS teams a goodly number of points but it could be set up in such a way that they would also need to get to a certain level of competence on the field to qualify for CMP."Getting beat up at CMP" isn't an automatic result for rookies. Look at the rankings - yes, there are some rookies at the very bottom of the standings. But there are some others at the very top, and others scattered all in between.
Now I have no idea which of these teams got to CMP because of the RAS award and which got there by being part of a winning alliance. Your system of points to require a certain level of competence might illustrate the dividing line between those who ended up ranking high vs. low.
Lil' Lavery
07-05-2011, 22:39
I merely forgot to place the 1 in front of the 50.
Also, HOF teams would be dispersed among the other four divisions, and DCA winners don't even qualify for CMP.(33 won MSC, not MSCCA)
If you have five divisions, there would ideally be 5 teams of the unofficial top 25 in each of the 5 divisions. Having 6 in one isn't ideal, but it's obvious that FIRST doesn't split up the divisions in a finite way.
There is also an option for FRC to do a Round Robin on Einstein. Sure, it would take longer, but you also have a guarantee of getting the two best alliances in the final.
I'm aware of what award(s) 33 won, thus why I labelled them as a District CA winner. I'm also aware that winning a DCA doesn't auto qualify you for CMP, but it's obvious that you can win one and still attend Championship. If you're setting up a division specifically to honor the "big picture" awards, why are we not including teams that won these awards and are at the event? Just because they already had to be vetted again?
Same for HoF teams. Why aren't they being included?
And that 6 number is actually the lower end of the spectrum if you look at previous years. Looking at LF's 2010 Top 25 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85189) we see eight teams that won a RCA/MSCCA/EI, one that won a DCA, and four members of the HoF (341 wasn't yet a member). There wasn't any Top 25 list that I know of in 2009, but LF's 2008 list (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=737166#post737166) yields seven teams that won RCA/EI and five HoF members.
nikeairmancurry
08-05-2011, 00:07
"Getting beat up at CMP" isn't an automatic result for rookies. Look at the rankings - yes, there are some rookies at the very bottom of the standings. But there are some others at the very top, and others scattered all in between.
Now I have no idea which of these teams got to CMP because of the RAS award and which got there by being part of a winning alliance. Your system of points to require a certain level of competence might illustrate the dividing line between those who ended up ranking high vs. low.
3539 was the 2nd seed captain this year on arch... I believe they won a rookie all star award at waterford, along with the district
Richard Wallace
08-05-2011, 08:22
3539 was the 2nd seed captain this year on arch... I believe they won a rookie all star award at waterford, along with the district3539 also won RA at Troy, where they were a finalist and #2 AC. They were the only rookie team to make the MSC eliminations, and ended up with the eighth highest qualifying point total in Michigan. "Getting beat up at CMP" was definitely not in the plan for 3539.
Frenchie461
08-05-2011, 09:43
What if the system was score based:
Winning an event is 10 points
Finalist at an event is 6
Making Elims is 2
Regional Chairmans is 15
Engineering Inspiration is 8
Rookie All-Star is 10
Woodie Flowers Finalist is 4 for the team
Judges is 4
All other design related awards are 2
All other non design awards are 1
top 300 highest scores go to world
Richard Wallace
08-05-2011, 10:05
...
top 300 highest scores go to worldCompare the point system you described above to the one used by FiM in 2011 (http://www.firstinmichigan.org/FRC_2011/2011_Rules_Supplement.pdf) (see page 6 at that link). Differences in the number of qualifying points that teams receive for their various achievements can be important. As an example, there were three district RA winners and one district EI winner that did not earn enough points to qualify for the Michigan State Championship this year.
Reaching agreement on how many CMP qualifying points to award for each achievement will be a challenge for FIRST.
Here is my proposal for Championship Qualification as well as some thoughts on regional play.
1) Championship Qualification needs to be a points based system. This is the only way any further manipulation of "how to qualify" to be discussed. Instead of discussing "Should this qualify a team?" the question becomes "How many points is this worth?". Every award in FRC is improtant, which is why they should all help qualify teams, some may just be worth more points.
2) Past years performance should be taken into account. Zondag's spreadsheet is the answer to how to calculate this, but once again, I think what to set % to is the question. My take, 30% would be the correct number.
3) I have always like the fact that teams can sign up for Championship if the they didn't go the year before. However, this is obviously not sustainable. Here comes the beaty of having a points system. What if every year you didn't go the championship you earned some points. Over X number of years you could add these points to those earned at compeitions and earn the ability to go. These points would see the same reduction value as mentioned above. Again I am sure there are vast opionions on how much not going to championship should be worth, but it's only an option if there is a point system.
4) I think that automatic entry should only be to the origional teams. I think HOF teams should get points on the order of 10 million when they win chairman's, which should enable them to go for quite a few years, but eventually that will run out per the past performance calculation mentioned in bullet 2.
I have further ideas for nation wide district play which I will post later.
-Eric
Lots of interesting discussion here. After doing more reading and seeing some good ideas, here are my latest thoughts.
I read through the Michigan points system again (thanks to Richard for the link). There is a lot to like about a points system if it is well designed. It takes more information into account, so it can more accurately sort out the most deserving teams. Our existing qualification system places all of the value on four specific achievements (Winner / RCA / EI / RAS) and no value on any of the other achievements (qualifier wins, advancing through elimnation rounds, all the other awards).
Cases when a deserving team might qualify in a points system, but would NOT qualify as a Winner/RCA/EI/RAS:
1) Team has one of the best robots around. Catches a couple of tough breaks and loses in the finals at two separate regionals.
2) Team wins several awards (non-RCA/EI/RAS), compiles a respectable record in qualifiers, and finishes as semifinalists in two regionals.
Cases when a potentially less deserving team would qualify over a more deserving team under the current system, but probably not under a points system:
1) Rookie team with a minimally functional robot and no award submission materials wins Rookie All-Star award by being the only rookie team at a regional.
2) Team wins a regional with a weak robot after being picked by a strong #1 seeded alliance with the last pick of the draft.
If I were designing a points system, I would want to do the following:
i) Use the Michigan points system for qualifier wins, alliance selections, and elimination rounds. A team that goes 10-0 in qualifiers, is 1st seed or 1st pick, wins the regional would earn 56 points.
ii) Give the Chairman's Award winners slightly more points than a top seeded regional winner. Perhaps 60 points. That way the top award winner gets more points than the top seeded regional winner.
iii) Give Engineering Inspiration a lot of points, but not as much as Chairman's (CA is the top award, after all). Perhaps 40-50 points.
iv) Make Rookie All-Star worth some number of points such that rookies could get in by winning that award AND achieving a modest level of competitive success. Perhaps 20-30 points.
v) Increase the value of other awards compared to the Michigan system. 2 or 5 points seems pretty small compared to 50+ for winning a regional. Perhaps 5 and 10 points would be appropriate. Or 10 and 15.
vi) Award points for Woodie Flower or Dean's List awards. I know they are individual awards, but I don't see any harm in awarding a few points for them.
vii) Give teams points if they didn't attend in the previous year or years. Great idea, Eric.
One advantage of a points system is that once it's in place, you don't have to modify the system further when the number of teams and events gets even bigger. You simply set the number of teams you want at the championship, and you invite the top n teams. Teams can join a wait list, and their wait list priority is determined by their point rankings. As the total number of teams goes up, the bar for points goes up.
One Event vs Two Events
A major weakness of a points system is that many teams only play in one regional each year. Things would be a lot more fair if all teams accumulated points in exactly two events, like they do in Michigan.
Art outlines a proposal for a three tiered system (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1059693&postcount=47) that would help this situation. The system would require reorganizing some regional events into a larger number of smaller, less expensive events. I am in favor of that. He also suggests not forcing teams into districts based on geography - also a good idea. He proposes using points to qualify for Tier 2 and using the existing system to qualify Tier 2 winners for champs (tier 3). That's the bit that I disagree with; our existing system for qualifying 6 teams per event is a really blunt instrument that doesn't necessarily qualify the best teams for the Championship.
There is no tidy district / regional model that will work perfectly for everybody. But I would really like to see us and FIRST sort that out, even if we have to settle for just getting a district system to work in more of the higher density regions. And I think part of that has to involve embracing a lower cost event model, which has been discussed elsewhere.
Other Invitations
I think it's fine to invite the previous year's Einstein winners.
On a philosophical level, I see no reason why original and sustaining teams should be auto-invited. This is a minor point since, as was stated above, this only results in a small handful of invitations.
I think Championship Chairman's Award teams should get invited for the next 5 or so years after they win the big award. Then invite them once every several years after that. This way Hall of Fame Row can stay a reasonable size and would be populated by the most recent 5 HOF teams plus a rotating group of teams that won more than 5 years ago.
If I were designing a points system, I would want to do the following:
i) Use the Michigan points system for qualifier wins, alliance selections, and elimination rounds. A team that goes 10-0 in qualifiers, is 1st seed or 1st pick, wins the regional would earn 56 points.
ii) Give the Chairman's Award winners slightly more points than a top seeded regional winner. Perhaps 60 points. That way the top award winner gets more points than the top seeded regional winner.
iii) Give Engineering Inspiration a lot of points, but not as much as Chairman's (CA is the top award, after all). Perhaps 40-50 points.
iv) Make Rookie All-Star worth some number of points such that rookies could get in by winning that award AND achieving a modest level of competitive success. Perhaps 20-30 points.
v) Increase the value of other awards compared to the Michigan system. 2 or 5 points seems pretty small compared to 50+ for winning a regional. Perhaps 5 and 10 points would be appropriate. Or 10 and 15.
vi) Award points for Woodie Flower or Dean's List awards. I know they are individual awards, but I don't see any harm in awarding a few points for them.
vii) Give teams points if they didn't attend in the previous year or years. Great idea, Eric.
One advantage of a points system is that once it's in place, you don't have to modify the system further when the number of teams and events gets even bigger. You simply set the number of teams you want at the championship, and you invite the top n teams. Teams can join a wait list, and their wait list priority is determined by their point rankings. As the total number of teams goes up, the bar for points goes up.
Take a look at the Fantasy FIRST points system.
RCA: 42 points
EI: 36
Winner: 30
RAS: 25
Finalist, first seed, RI: 20
15 points for the technical awards
5 points for high score, highest rookie seed, judges award
2 points for win, non-robot award that isn't listed
WFFA 8 points, Dean's List 4 points
1 point for a tie
Loss does nothing to the score
Seeding from 2-16 has varying levels:
2-3, 12 points
4-8, 6 points
9-12, 3 points
13-16, 2 points
Then for the non-qual years, the team gets some fraction of the points they earned (say, 1/2 of the points) or a fixed number, whichever is higher, to be added to the next year's point total.
XaulZan11
08-05-2011, 15:11
If you go with a point system, you need to find a way to account for event size and strength of regional. If not, I'd consider going to the 31 team Utah regional or one of the Minnesota ones instead of Midwest. Also, since teams get points for where they are selected, you'd see teams pick their friends in order to get them to the Championship.
If you go with a point system, you need to find a way to account for event size and strength of regional. If not, I'd consider going to the 31 team Utah regional or one of the Minnesota ones instead of Midwest. Also, since teams get points for where they are selected, you'd see teams pick their friends in order to get them to the Championship.
So if you were the 1st seed and you had a choice between 254/148/1114/217/111 or whoever or a friend of yours, you would pick your friend? I highly doubt that. My friend's would understand why I didnt choose them if I had those other options because they would make the same choice.
If you go with a point system, you need to find a way to account for event size and strength of regional. If not, I'd consider going to the 31 team Utah regional or one of the Minnesota ones instead of Midwest. Also, since teams get points for where they are selected, you'd see teams pick their friends in order to get them to the Championship.
Sounds like the strength of regional issue would sort itself out over time. Teams would move to events that they felt gave them the best chance of success - thus leveling the regionals.
If teams had to support an FLL or FTC team to go to CMP, how would you tell the kids on an FRC team that built that robot over the 6 weeks and poured thousands of hours into the team and made it to the semis at maybe 2 regionals that they cant get into the CMP because they dont have enough team resources to try to support an entirely different entity for their competition year? That would hurtful to those FLL/FTC kids who wouldnt get the full effect of FIRST because their FRC mentors are striving for their results for their team as it was.
What team resources do you think would be necessary to support an FLL team? This year we closely mentored 3 FLL teams that started as a direct result of work our FRC team had done by volunteering & helping run the FLL regional tournament. We also did a bunch of other stuff:
* Volunteer & help run summer camps that teach Mindstorms to kids.
* Volunteer at rumbles (think "practice tournament"). Both rumbles in our area are before FRC build season starts.
* Provide mentors during FLL meetings for those 3 teams, week after week. This interferes the most with FRC build season (which was a small percentage of actual FLL time; most of which was before FRC season), but we had enough FRC students helping that we had enough for each meeting. And it only took about 2 hours out of build time, two days a week, for each FRC student who mentored.
* Volunteer & help run the regional tournament. This happens after FRC ship date.
* Provide other, occasional, mentoring support for a bunch of other FLL teams that we weren't as directly involved with starting.
Does this cover most, or even a large percentage, of situations? Of course not. One big factor is that our regional FLL tournament is very late when compared to most. Every circumstance is different, but my point is that there's a lot you can do that directly impact FLL teams (we did other things for younger kids as well; this isn't an all-inclusive list) that don't really take a lot of money, if any. And not really that much time, either. But for any particular situation, there are ways to influence younger kids.
Having said all that, I don't think that supporting FLL or FTC teams should be a requirement for attending CMP, or for winning EI or RCA. But supporting those teams is a Good Thing To Do, and FRC teams that do support FLL & FTC (and VRC, and other STEM programs for younger kids, and....) are better off for it.
XaulZan11
08-05-2011, 15:32
So if you were the 1st seed and you had a choice between 254/148/1114/217/111 or whoever or a friend of yours, you would pick your friend? I highly doubt that. My friend's would understand why I didnt choose them if I had those other options because they would make the same choice.
I wouldn't do it, but it happens (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1035954&postcount=15). I've heard from several different people that it occurs in Michigan after they went with the district format.
Take a look at the Fantasy FIRST points system.
RCA: 42 points
EI: 36
Winner: 30
RAS: 25
Finalist, first seed, RI: 20
15 points for the technical awards
5 points for high score, highest rookie seed, judges award
2 points for win, non-robot award that isn't listed
WFFA 8 points, Dean's List 4 points
1 point for a tie
Loss does nothing to the score
Seeding from 2-16 has varying levels:
2-3, 12 points
4-8, 6 points
9-12, 3 points
13-16, 2 points
Then for the non-qual years, the team gets some fraction of the points they earned (say, 1/2 of the points) or a fixed number, whichever is higher, to be added to the next year's point total.
That's surprisingly similar to what I had in mind. Cool stuff. I am now reading about Fantasy FIRST. That's pretty interesting too - I had told my students earlier this year that we should do that, so I'm glad to see that it exists.
iv) Make Rookie All-Star worth some number of points such that rookies could get in by winning that award AND achieving a modest level of competitive success. Perhaps 20-30 points.
For both RAS and RCA, you should remove robot performance from any consideration in the ranking. Robot performance is no part of either of these awards.
Maybe a better way to solve the issues of winning RAS because the team is the only rookie at the competition is to weight the points earned for RAS by the number of rookies at the regional. I would make it an exponential rating so the point value rapidly increases as the number of teams go up.
The problem with a weighting system is you may have a truly deserving RAS winner as the only rookie at a regional. But there is not enough information captured to determine the relative value of the RAS award across various regionals.
For both RAS and RCA, you should remove robot performance from any consideration in the ranking. Robot performance is no part of either of these awards.
Maybe a better way to solve the issues of winning RAS because the team is the only rookie at the competition is to weight the points earned for RAS by the number of rookies at the regional. I would make it an exponential rating so the point value rapidly increases as the number of teams go up.
The problem with a weighting system is you may have a truly deserving RAS winner as the only rookie at a regional. But there is not enough information captured to determine the relative value of the RAS award across various regionals.
I suppose you could make it worth a pile of points and then make it an optional award that the judges only give out if there is a rookie team present that has earned it.
More generally speaking, I am a fan of the rookie awards. They recognize rookie teams and the difficulty of being a rookie. I have issues, however, with the idea that we should send lots of rookies to the Championship to inspire them. I think they're better off finding a way to get to a second regional every year instead of going to the championship once as rookies. A second regional is going to do more to build up their confidence in their own abilities. It is also important to note that most regionals have at least a couple of really strong teams present, so it is not usually necessary to go to the Championship to gain exposure to those high caliber teams.
On the matter of the inequality created in a points-based system when some teams attend multiple events while others attend only a single event, wouldn't it be possible to divide the number of points a team earns by the number of events they attend? This would level the playing field in that respect, and also reward teams for consistently high performance at multiple events.
nikeairmancurry
08-05-2011, 22:19
On the matter of the inequality created in a points-based system when some teams attend multiple events while others attend only a single event, wouldn't it be possible to divide the number of points a team earns by the number of events they attend? This would level the playing field in that respect, and also reward teams for consistently high performance at multiple events.
But this also kills continous improvement... Lets say a teams first events ends horrible and don't make elims, and in there second event are finalist, when you add up and divide the points, they have an average point total of maybe a quarter-finalist.. I don't see that as a solution
1986titans
08-05-2011, 22:34
How about this:
Any team may go to however many events they feel like going to. However, only one event - most likely the one that produced the most points as any other wouldn't make sense - goes towards qualifying for Championships.
Aren't you still skewing against teams that can only attend 1 event? Virtually all teams do better at their later regional(s), so comparing a 1-regional Semifinalist someone who doesn't get anything at their first 2 events but wins their last one isn't really valid it seems.
Ok, Im sorry but people are just gonna have to realize that life ain't fair. If a team can attend more than 1 regional a year, would you want to penalize them against a team that cant?
I would want a points system to push everyone in the direction of attending two events, so I would not be in favor of taking average score or highest score. I really like the Michigan system of adding points from the first two events of the year.
It seems to me that attending only one event is an inefficient use of all of the resources that go into an FRC season. That second event costs marginally less than the first (because robot is already built and the hundreds of hours of time are already spent), and I think the second regional of the year is in some ways more valuable than the first. I really like it when students get a chance to take a working project and then tweak and refine it to take it to the next level. Too often they run out of time on projects (in school and in FRC and elsewhere) and have to settle for something that barely works, and that doesn't give them the same valuable experience or the same confidence boost as working on something until it's actually good.
Lil' Lavery
09-05-2011, 00:20
I'm not convinced a point system is the answer. In fact, unless there's some pretty serious schedule changes, I'm convinced it would be a bad idea.
The points system works in Michigan because a vast majority of the teams who qualify are going to be within a few hours of the location. It's a lot easier to set up travel arrangements on short notice when they're within your state. Additionally the registration for MSC is $1000 cheaper than CMP registration.
On the Championship scale, too many teams are going to have to book airplanes, come up with large registration fees, and generally prepare for this event on too short of notice. Yes, many of the teams that qualify in the last couple weeks of regional competitions or come off the wait list already face this problem. But this expands it to all teams going to Championship. Because of the nature of the point system, everyone but the top few teams is going to be in jeopardy of falling out of qualified position until the last week of competition.
Forcing 300 teams to scramble to submit field trip forms, registration fees, transportation, hotel reservations, robot shipping, tool logistics, and everything else associated with coordinating going to an event in a couple week period is pretty ridiculous. And this is generally in the same time of year as standardized testing begins.
On a related matter, in order how to determine how to allocate points, you have to decide the goal of your championship.
Is it to reward the teams who were the most successful? Or is it to put the teams that will compete at the highest level (on the field and/or for awards) into a competition against eachother?
Those are two related, but fundamentally different goals. And there are plenty of other possibilities to consider as well.
Because depending on what your goal is, it will change the weighting of how you compare both awards, matches, and events.
If team A was consistently good across multiple regionals, but never spectacular, should they make it over team B who struggled at their first event but performed spectacularly at their second?
Should you be looking at average performance, peak performance, total performance, earliest performance, or most recent performance?
My personal take, should a point system come around, would be a hybrid of those. Simply put, I'd calculate points at each event, rather than per team. I'd then pick from three different rankings lists in an rotating fashion.
Team's average score from all events attended
Team's net score from all events attended
Team's peak score from all events attended
The first team off the the average list gets invited first. The highest remaining team on the net score list gets invited next. Then the highest remaining team on the peak score list. And it continues rotating.
The concern, naturally, will be that teams "buy" their way into Championship buy attending several events and getting high on the net score list, even if they perform at a mediocre level. My counter is, if a team can afford (both in terms of money and manpower) to attend 4+ events in a year and then the Championship, I think they're clearly doing something right that deserves recognition.
That being said, I still don't like a point system being the main qualifier with this scheduling set-up. Give a bigger space between regionals and championship and I'll change my mind.
JohnBoucher
09-05-2011, 06:44
How are we running out of room at champs?
Is it pit space? I was not at St Louis, but was there no room for any additional pits? We can look toward larger venues or be more creative with pit locations.
Is it match count? Match count can vary from regional to regional. Lower the match count.
What are the actual limitations we are being warned about?
thefro526
09-05-2011, 08:31
How are we running out of room at champs?
Is it pit space? I was not at St Louis, but was there no room for any additional pits? We can look toward larger venues or be more creative with pit locations.
Is it match count? Match count can vary from regional to regional. Lower the match count.
What are the actual limitations we are being warned about?
From what I could tell, if Two fields are left in the pits, then there isn't all that much room for additional pits. You might be able to squeeze enough pits in to get the number of teams up to an even 400, but anymore than that and you're really pushing it.
If the two pit fields were moved back into the dome, then you could probably put at least another 70+ pits without too much difficulty, but at that point the divisions might be too big. (IMO, any bigger than they are now and they're too big.)
Interestingly enough, it seems that FRC will reach the breaking point as far as the Championship is concerned sometime after next season - which means that it'll be time for FIRST to start looking for a new home for the Championship. I wonder if they'll look for a larger venue to house more teams and run more divisions, or if they'll restructure the Championship (Registration aspect of it) so that the event can remain the same size.
It seems to me that attending only one event is an inefficient use of all of the resources that go into an FRC season. That second event costs marginally less than the first (because robot is already built and the hundreds of hours of time are already spent), and I think the second regional of the year is in some ways more valuable than the first. I really like it when students get a chance to take a working project and then tweak and refine it to take it to the next level. Too often they run out of time on projects (in school and in FRC and elsewhere) and have to settle for something that barely works, and that doesn't give them the same valuable experience or the same confidence boost as working on something until it's actually good.
Speaking from the perspective of a small, money-tight team:
Attending a second event essentialy doubles our budget. To run one season costs us about $10-15k, adding a second regional bumps us to $25k+. Travel, room, and board costs a LOT, especially when the only option for travel is out-of-state and we have to charter our own bus. Couple this with living in a state where the Powers that Be have ... interesting ideas as to what the benefits and priorities of secondary education are, it can be a tough sell to remove some of the best students from school for a cumulative week.
When compared to international teams whose only option for multiple regionals lie in going outside the country, we've got it easy.
I agree that multiple regionals is a great experience, and twice in our seven years we have been able to do that, but it's not always viable. Expanding the sports analogy our Leaders have designed FRC around, I'd be willing to bet there are a bunch of Butlers or TCUs or Boise States out there that could make a bunch of noise at the highest levels, if only given the chance.
I think the idea of recognizing the points earned at a team's single-best, or two-best regionals, or an average of the season, would be a good solution - at least until a district-style model becomes widely available.
JohnBoucher
09-05-2011, 09:22
Moving to a points based system will mean that some teams will never go to champs. Having the open slots available, allows those mid-level teams a chance to play against and be inspired by the top level teams that are always at champs. It will raise their game for many teams. Open slots may need to be on a three or four year allocation.
Couple this with living in a state where the Powers that Be have ... interesting ideas as to what the benefits and priorities of secondary education are, it can be a tough sell to remove some of the best students from school for a cumulative week.
I don't get the connection between "state ... Powers that Be" and "tough sell to remove some of the best students from school for a cumulative week". Could you please elaborate on that? Has your school failed to meet state standards and been put under state control?
I don't get the connection between "state ... Powers that Be" and "tough sell to remove some of the best students from school for a cumulative week". Could you please elaborate on that? Has your school failed to meet state standards and been put under state control?
- While taking care to avoid any deeply political statements -
Indiana has put a priority on Math and English/Language Arts, potentially at the expense of other subjects. It has slashed school funding, practically erasing many transportation budgets. It has placed a premium on 180 full days in school.
The combination of these three things, along with others, potentially make it difficult for teachers and students to get school board approval to miss more than one event's worth of school, even if the experience likely outweighs what that student/teacher may get from the classroom environment.
We are fortunate to have a fantastic administration that is supportive of STEM in general and FIRST & PLTW in particular. I've heard anectdotal stories from other schools that are not so fortunate - one that springs to mind is a team that essentially split itself in half - 1/2 the team attended one regional, 1/2 the team attended another; it's even more difficult for teams whose students don't belong to a single school/system (regional teams, 4-H teams, Scout teams, etc.).
Moving to a points based system will mean that some teams will never go to champs. Having the open slots available, allows those mid-level teams a chance to play against and be inspired by the top level teams that are always at champs. It will raise their game for many teams. Open slots may need to be on a three or four year allocation.
John,
With 2100 teams, it would require 500 open slots/year for every team to have the opportunity to attend the Championship 1 time within every 4 years. If this was the model FIRST wanted, I would recommend changing the name to the FIRST World Invitational as it clearly would no longer be a championship.
The championship has been just barely functioning on an old model that essentially outdated itself 3-4 years ago, but statistically is just now coming to a head. 2012 will unfortunately be a very rough year for many areas of FRC and FIRST HQ. I think there will finally be an additional 1-2 "areas" that adopt the district model, and FIRST HQ will have to adopt some other method of qualifying teams for the Championship. This will upset a lot of people that aren't prepared for the change. And there will be an inordinate amount of people threatening to quit. Ironically their threats will be to join other competitive leagues that already have qualifying systems in place (gotta love that).
All in all, FRC is going to go through a drastic change that will likely take about 3 years to settle out. Personally, I think it will be for the better. 5-10 years from now, the young teams of tomorrow will get to hear stories of back in the day when anyone could buy into a championship, and you would have entire alliances that couldn't even execute the scoring objective.
By 2015, we will have around 3000 teams with 150 district comeptitions and 30 Regional Championships. The big question I have is whether or not the Regions will have theoretical borders or practicle borders.
Or what if FIRST says that they will stop creating new regionals for a few years and just build up the regionals that they have now? Turn the regionals that we have now into multi-field super-regionals.
Some musings...
WHY HAVE THE CHAMPIONSHIP AT ALL?*
I believe that for a while, FRC has done the right thing in awarding "robot performance" and "team performance" nearly equally in guaranteeing championship slots. More importantly, there have always been spaces available for teams to register who had not attended championship in recent years. It has allowed FIRST to keep the focus where it says the focus should be. If FIRST has outgrown the ability to do this, perhaps it should separate the FLL, FTC and FRC events as Madison has suggested, or it should look at creating other opportunities to "change the culture".
What if FIRST took some of the resources spent on the championship and made each regional event have an elevated level of "show"? Invite vendors, bring back the team social, have a series of workshops/conferences, etc?
Over half of the FRC teams do not attend more than one regional. Only one in six go to the championships. Many times, however, the folks in New Hampshire seem to forget about these teams and place all of their focus on the big show. I suggest that instead of focusing on "how do we cut down the number of teams at the championship?" we should focus on "how can we make each regional feel like the championship?"
The alliance competition system of FRC almost guarantees that the winning alliance is NOT made of the three best performing robots. This alone casts doubt on the idea that winning a regional means you are "championship worthy" - as is evidenced by suggestions that 3rd picks not be eligible to attend. The fact that teams compete with alliances throughout qualification rounds and the not-quite randomness of the schedule makes the entire process suspect.
Besides... from what I understand, the real hard-core competition is IRI...
-Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox
* I do know the answer to this - national sponsorship - I know... but still...
Ankit S.
10-05-2011, 18:43
Please correct me if needed.
I believe that the number of teams attending Championships should be increased. This can be done by adding a new division. Einstein would need to change to compensate for this. Instead of having elims immediately, have a round robin on Einstein that eliminates the "weakest" alliance, and also allows for a less random 1v4 and 2v3 rather than AvC and NvG.
I have never attended Championships before, so I am not sure about the space issue, but adding an extra field is a plausible solution, although the expanding pit area will be something that will need to be dealt with.
Thanks for hearing me through.
Jeanne Boyarsky
10-05-2011, 23:22
If FIRST has outgrown the ability to do this, perhaps it should separate the FLL, FTC and FRC events as Madison has suggested, or it should look at creating other opportunities to "change the culture".
This reminded me of something I noted at CMP. In New York City, we are lucky to have a "super regional" with FLL, FTC and FRC all competing. It's great because the FLL kids can see the "big bots." At CMP, a couple lego kids came by and were amazed at the "big bots." They don't have FRC at all in their city so it was the first time they saw it. I think it's really cool having all three together to inspire the younger kids.
I'd also like to mention that Einstein wasn't idle - it was used for FLL earlier in the competition.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.