The Society for More Qualifying Rounds

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST



Okay, here is the deal:
This is a long message, but I hope you will stick with me on this one.

Motorola had 10 qualifying rounds: great
California had 12 (I think) qualifying rounds: even better
Florida had 12 qualifying round: even better two
Philly had 6 qualifying rounds: not even close to enough

I don't know how many will be at the New England and Mid-Atlantic, but I guess that it will be 10 or 12.

Great Lakes will likely have 6 : Again, not even close to enough

Now, on to the Nationals:

Usually reliable sources claim that the current plan is to have only 4.

I ask you, 4?

They may as well just throw darts to pick the top 8.

I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

This doesn't sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

I urge you to "write your congressperson."

Joe J.

P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years -- 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year's format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc..

Posted on 3/14/99 8:07 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



Well, if you figure 8 hours of competition on Friday(480 minutes), with an average of 7-8 minutes per round(with scoring time), and the 3 stages like they had last year...that gives you a total of about 180 rounds...

If you figure in 4 teams per round and roughly 200 teams, that figures out to right around 3 per team on friday alone

Then there's saturday...with only 8 alliances competing in elims, that gives most of the day for more qualification rounds...without a definite Florida agenda posted, let's say that qual rounds run from 9 to about 2, with an hour in there for lunch...that's another 4 hours(240 min)...which comes out to about another 90 rounds

So, on saturday, that gives each team, on average, about another 2 rounds...for about 5 overall

So, if i did the math right(it's late and i'm tired), that's only 5 qual rounds, which does seem awfully low...does anyone else see possibly another stage making an appearance in '99?

one more stage does this to the math...

total rounds: 360
total rounds * teams per round: 1440
average rounds per team(assuming 200 teams): 7.2

just one of the many ways to solve this problem...

Nate

[archiver]

Posted by Jason, Coach on team #252/254, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:26 PM MST


In Reply to: Only 4 qual rounds in florida? posted by Nate Smith on 3/14/99 8:07 PM MST:



The First problem is this:
Nate, you are right - 4 fields would make a difference over the three from last year. However, I have been told that they are actually reducing the fields this year. The main reason we are only being allowed 4 qualifying matches is that THERE WILL ONLY BE 2 FIELDS AT THE NATIONALS. It seems this is a done deal, so we can count on only 4 qualifying matches - maybe 5 at the most.

I agree with Joe, in that with such a format, it is basically pot luck as to which 8 teams finish at the top. I would expect that the level of luck needed will be even more than what Joe expressed, because I think with 200 teams having only four matches each, the 8 top teams will all HAVE to win ALL 4 qualifying matches. There will be too many teams winning 3 and 4 matches. One bad pairing will knock out a top 8 team.

I am sure that FIRST has some pretty good reasons why they can not fit in more than 4-5 qualifying matches, as unfortunate as this is. However, if this is the case, I have a proposal that I know others have made and that FIRST has discussed. The present format almost guarantees that finishing in the top 8 will now be more a result of luck than ability - maybe not at a regional with 30-50 teams, but definitely at a National with 200 teams. Because there are 200 teams instead of 30-50, the playoffs should be expanded to include the top 16 teams (or maybe 12 with the top 4 seeds getting byes). Once allies have been chosen, that will mean that the top 32 (or 24) teams (about the top 12-15%)still get a chance to prove themselves and compete against each other.

After all, the main purpose is for the kids to have a great experience and feel like winners regardless of if they make the final 8. One of the things that impressed me when I observed last years competition (this is our first year), was that the kids would at least have a lot of matches before they were done. This year many kids will work months and travel across the country and maybe only have 4 matches (not to mention the amount of teams that will go 0-4, with more mathces at least every team is likely to get a win or two)

If the number of qualifying matches can be increased to 6-8, great. If not, I feel the number of teams making the playoffs should be expanded.

Anyway, I think Joe & Nate bring up a very good question. Just thought I'd throw my two cents in. See ya in Florida everyone.

Jason

[archiver]

Posted by Jeff Burch, Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Delco Electronics Systems.

Posted on 3/15/99 9:33 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Only 4 qual rounds in florida? posted by Jason on 3/14/99 9:26 PM MST:



>> Jason Wrote:
: I have been told that they are actually reducing the fields this year. The main reason we are only being allowed 4 qualifying matches is that THERE WILL ONLY BE 2 FIELDS AT THE NATIONALS. It seems this is a done deal, so we can count on only 4 qualifying matches - maybe 5 at the most.

----------

A third or even a fourth pair of playing fields doesn't have to be expensive! Obviously the elimination rounds should be played on big stages with glitz and grandstands, but some of the qualifying rounds could just as easily be played on fields inside a tent (for weather) sitting on the parking lot. I'd gladly give up the big-screen TV and the lights and grandstands for twice as many qualifying rounds.

All they need is a basic setup like at the regionals with the ability to turn on and off power and a basic sound system to announce the teams and the results. I've got to believe a tent would be MUCH less expensive than the whole stage setup. I'd even be willing to accept a reduction in the maximum height requirement if necessary.

I agree it's more fun to play on the big stages, but with two additional basic "non-stages" it's a 50/50 shot for each qualifying round, and with the additional rounds you're almost guaranteed a round or two in front of the crowds. It would be more difficult to scout the matches that take place inside the tent, but I think the additional matches would be worth it.

Am I missing something?


Jeff Burch

[archiver]

Posted by Jason, Coach on team #252/254, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:54 PM MST


In Reply to: Only 2 Fields? Who needs a grandstand? posted by Jeff Burch on 3/15/99 9:33 AM MST:



I agree with you. It seems like it could be done.

[archiver]

Posted by Sean Perkins, Student on team #131, CHAOS- Central High and Osram Sylvania, from Manchester High School Central and Osram Sylvaina and Fleet Bank.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:28 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I wish to join the society, I hate seeing people getting screwed over,
everyone should have a FAIR chance at representing its team to its
fullest potential. oh yeah, i go with batman, all those cool tools rule.
I also want to see the house packed at Ct. Ill be showing all those die-
hard FIRST fans what a human player really is (once again Im trying to
get some fierce competition going)
Good Luck To All,
Hope we dont get snowed in,
PERK



: Okay, here is the deal:
: This is a long message, but I hope you will stick with me on this one.

: Motorola had 10 qualifying rounds: great
: California had 12 (I think) qualifying rounds: even better
: Florida had 12 qualifying round: even better two
: Philly had 6 qualifying rounds: not even close to enough

: I don't know how many will be at the New England and Mid-Atlantic, but I guess that it will be 10 or 12.

: Great Lakes will likely have 6 : Again, not even close to enough

: Now, on to the Nationals:

: Usually reliable sources claim that the current plan is to have only 4.

: I ask you, 4?

: They may as well just throw darts to pick the top 8.

: I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

: Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

: This doesn't sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

: Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

: The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

: The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

: With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

: The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

: Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

: The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

: I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

: I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

: I urge you to "write your congressperson."

: Joe J.

: P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years -- 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year's format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

[archiver]

Posted by Wayne Wnuck, Engineer on team #177, Bobcats, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:29 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I hope FIRST heeds your advice. More than four matches are needed in a day and a half to sustain the thrill (frenzy?) of competition. This issue is only going to get worse as FIRST continues to grow. There has to be a sense that the best teams rise to the top.

[archiver]

Posted by The Carter, Student on team #131, CHAOS, from Manchester Central High School and Osram Sylvania.

Posted on 3/14/99 9:55 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



Okie dokie, lookie here:

I agree with Joe Johnson, Perkman and co.
I'm down with this society... Qualifying rounds are a lot like a scientific
experiment.. The more times you do something, the better data you'll have assembled
to see who's the best.. Consistency is a key, and the more times you do something
the more consistent (or not consistent) you become at something...

Let us seperate the best from the best.....
Like Darwin's theory states "Survival of the fittest"
lets give us as many oppurtunities as we can to see just who the fittest are...

I'm waiting on some snow..... where is it????

As always
--Keep it easy in netland

Dave "The" Carter :P

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/14/99 11:48 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



At the NASA Ames regional my team's 'bot didn't work until match five. It then racked up enough points to boost it into 9th and finaly end the qualifying matches at 11th seed. We were then picked by the #1 seed and eventually were taken out of the runnings in the semifinals. If that had been Florida, we'd be out. My team would be devistated. Our robot wasn't just a fancy looking paperweight, but that's how it would have seemed after the fourth match. We've got almost six weeks before florida, and if that's enough time to build a robot it seems as if it should be enough time to fix this problem!

I always lose at blackjack...
-Daniel

[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 3/15/99 6:44 AM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



Here's another question to add to the discussion of whether Qualifying rounds at the Nationals will enable the best performing teams to have a shot. What percentage of Qualifying matches at the Regionals to date have wound up 2 on 1 because one of the four teams in a match was unable to field a running robot? It's to be expected that some machines, some times, just will not be able to show up running in a particular time slot, and this pretty well stacks the deck against their hapless ally, no matter how good they are.

With perhaps 4 Qualifying matches in Orlando, one no-show by an ally pretty well dooms their partner team. If no-shows are a big problem, I'd like to see four lines leading up to each field with the teams sequenced according to a prepublished list. If any team is not in its place in the line when it's time to stage up to the "on deck" position, that team forfeits their match, and the team behind advances to fill their place. This approach has a problem with cascading no-shows unless teams anticipate the need to step up and get in line earlier, but the teams who are ready to play are always guaranteed a functioning ally. Other ideas? Is this even a problem?

Dodd

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/15/99 7:15 AM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I agree with the top 16 teams being chosen instead of just 8. After all we are talking about a field of 200 at the "Nationals". It should be bigger!
How about if they just have one or two practice matches and start the competition on Thursday afternoon. How do we go about making suggestions to FIRST?

The magic numbers for the regionals has been 81, 82 or 83. That is the number of total matches played. Apparently, that is what FIRST feels they can fit for the time given on 2 fields.
So, if there are 2 stages, they can fit 164 matches (using the magic number 82). This will allow 200 teams to each play 3.28 matches.
If three stages, then the number of matches is 246. This will allow 200 teams to each play 4.92 matches.

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 7:44 AM MST


In Reply to: Suggestions & More Math posted by Raul on 3/15/99 7:15 AM MST:



I agree for the most part, but the thought of taking only 2 practice matches seems a bit iffy. I'm not sure what the exact number is, but a good amount of teams don't go to regionals. The practice day is a VERY critical part of the competition for these teams. My team has always improved drastically during the practice rounds and I'd hate to see a team held back because they've never had a chance to run their 'bot in that kind of environment. You've got to have noticed that the nationals are always quite different than driving your 'bot around some sterile shop. I know what it's like; before this year my team has never had a regional and we go to the nationals and are railroaded (at the beginning) by teams that seem to have had TONS of practice. Because they had! It makes a difference...

I think the only good option is to up the number of arenas. Too bad that costs money -- but hey, doesn't everything nowadays?

-Daniel
GRT Student Co-Captain

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:18 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Suggestions & More Math posted by Daniel on 3/15/99 7:44 AM MST:



I understand your point.

I just thought that more matches would be more valuable than more practice.
Some other options:
1) shorten the practice matches from 10 minutes to 5 minutes or less. After all I've observed many teams that have a problem wind up spending a large amount of the time waiting for the match to end so they can fix what they just saw went wrong.
2) those who are known to have gone to regionals get less practice matches. No regional = 3 matches; 1 regional = 2 matches; 2 regionals = 1 match; 3 or more regional = 0 matches (if you go to the many regionals you probably prefer to just get on with the qualification rounds)
3) have a separate extra field/s that can be used for practice that is not officiated or maintained by FIRST staff. It could be off to the side and teams could get on a waiting list if the want extra practice time to debug problems.

Raul

: I agree for the most part, but the thought of taking only 2 practice matches seems a bit iffy. I'm not sure what the exact number is, but a good amount of teams don't go to regionals. The practice day is a VERY critical part of the competition for these teams. My team has always improved drastically during the practice rounds and I'd hate to see a team held back because they've never had a chance to run their 'bot in that kind of environment. You've got to have noticed that the nationals are always quite different than driving your 'bot around some sterile shop. I know what it's like; before this year my team has never had a regional and we go to the nationals and are railroaded (at the beginning) by teams that seem to have had TONS of practice. Because they had! It makes a difference...

: I think the only good option is to up the number of arenas. Too bad that costs money -- but hey, doesn't everything nowadays?

: -Daniel
: GRT Student Co-Captain

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/15/99 7:40 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Suggestions & More Math posted by Raul on 3/15/99 4:18 PM MST:




Those are great ideas. I'd be happy with a 5 min practice time, an off-to-the-side-but-fully-functional practice field, perhaps one preset practice time and the rest are first-come-first-served, and some qualifying matches on Thursday.

Maybe next year FIRST could add one day to the time between kickoff and shipping. We could all promise to use that only for practice day! :))

Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Kate Leach, Student on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Unitrode / RS Machines.

Posted on 3/15/99 9:20 PM MST


In Reply to: Great suggestions posted by Ken Patton on 3/15/99 7:40 PM MST:



: Maybe next year FIRST could add one day to the time between kickoff and shipping. We could all promise to use that only for practice day! :))

Do you really think that if we were given another day for practice only teams would use it for practice? I know that a lot of teams are always staying up rather late come close to shipping finishing building the robot. I know that some teams get done early enough to get their practice time in, but most teams don't. I think that extra day would go more towards finishing the robot as opposed to practicing driving it.

-KATe-

[archiver]

Posted by Ken Patton, Engineer on team #65, The Huskie Brigade, from Pontiac Northern High School and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/17/99 5:41 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Great suggestions posted by Kate Leach on 3/15/99 9:20 PM MST:



Kate, that was my attempt at sarcasm! Sorry it wasn't obvious enough! :))

Ken

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 11:28 AM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago). Due to space and time constraints, we're not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination. Let's say there will be 200 teams at nationals. This is roughly 4 times the number of teams at each regional. Therefore, I think they should have 4 times the number of teams in the eliminations. If they have enough stages, this really shouldn't add much time onto playing the matches. Just picking the alliances will take a while.

: Okay, here is the deal:
: This is a long message, but I hope you will stick with me on this one.

: Motorola had 10 qualifying rounds: great
: California had 12 (I think) qualifying rounds: even better
: Florida had 12 qualifying round: even better two
: Philly had 6 qualifying rounds: not even close to enough

: I don't know how many will be at the New England and Mid-Atlantic, but I guess that it will be 10 or 12.

: Great Lakes will likely have 6 : Again, not even close to enough

: Now, on to the Nationals:

: Usually reliable sources claim that the current plan is to have only 4.

: I ask you, 4?

: They may as well just throw darts to pick the top 8.

: I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

: Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

: This doesn't sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

: Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

: The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

: The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

: With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

: The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

: Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

: The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

: I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

: I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

: I urge you to "write your congressperson."

: Joe J.

: P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years -- 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year's format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 3/15/99 12:48 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Chris on 3/15/99 11:28 AM MST:



: I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago).
: Due to space and time constraints, we're not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination.

The only way to increase the number of teams in the elimination rounds without increasing the allocated time is to add additional playing fields.
If the additional space is available, why not use it to increase the number of qualifying matches?

- Jerry

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 3:42 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Jerry Eckert on 3/15/99 12:48 PM MST:



: : I think the solution here is to have more teams in the eliminations (I posted a message on this a couple of months ago).
: : Due to space and time constraints, we're not going to get more qualification matches. Therefore, I think we should get more teams in the elimination.

: The only way to increase the number of teams in the elimination rounds without increasing the allocated time is to add additional playing fields.
: If the additional space is available, why not use it to increase the number of qualifying matches?

: - Jerry

Why not increase the number of qualifying matches? First, the most playing fields they would likely have is four. If you believe in Joe's math (which I do) even with 4 playing fields each team would only get about 5 to 6 qualification rounds. However, with four fields you could increase the number of teams in the elimination to 64 (as opposed to 16) and add virtually no time on to the competition.

Another point that Joe brought up is that with the dilution of matches, the "top eight" may not really be the top 8. Therefore, the best team may not win because this team may not get into the eliminations. There are two solutions to this problem:

1) Increase the number of qualificaiton matches. This would be my preference since I believe that the best team is more likely to come out of a 'round-robin' than a tournament. However, in order to give everyone at least 10 qualification matches, we would need around 8 fields, which is not going to happen.

2) Increase the number of teams in the elimination matches. Granted, increasing the number of qualification matches would be preferred, but it is MUCH more likely that the good teams will make the eliminations with this system. In other words if you can't guarantee a top 8 with 4 matches, you should get the top 8 teams within the top 32 from the 4 matches, which would make the competition somewhat more fair.

As I stated in a past post, this is how I would like to see it (providing there are 4 fields, which may or may not happen):

1. Each field has it's own tournament braket and 'champion', like the four regions in the NCAA tournament.

2. Each field has a top 8 that gets to pick its alliance partner.

3. Each field then plays it out to determine the field champion.

4. Each field champion makes up the "Final Four" of the overall tournament.

5. The final four then battle it out on the main stage for the Championship.


I think this format would be very exciting. Not to mention it would give teams something else to shoot for. In college basketball, teams hang banners from the ceiling just for making the final four. It could be another honor, just behind winning the championship. Teams then have not only the championship to shoot for, but being in the "Final Four" is also a very big honor.


Anyway, that's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em.

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:26 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Chris on 3/15/99 3:42 PM MST:



I believe you would need 4 stages (2 fields each) not just 4 fields to have 64 teams in it. But you could do 32 teams with 2 stages.

Raul

: Why not increase the number of qualifying matches? First, the most playing fields they would likely have is four. If you believe in Joe's math (which I do) even with 4 playing fields each team would only get about 5 to 6 qualification rounds. However, with four fields you could increase the number of teams in the elimination to 64 (as opposed to 16) and add virtually no time on to the competition.

: Another point that Joe brought up is that with the dilution of matches, the "top eight" may not really be the top 8. Therefore, the best team may not win because this team may not get into the eliminations. There are two solutions to this problem:

: 1) Increase the number of qualificaiton matches. This would be my preference since I believe that the best team is more likely to come out of a 'round-robin' than a tournament. However, in order to give everyone at least 10 qualification matches, we would need around 8 fields, which is not going to happen.

: 2) Increase the number of teams in the elimination matches. Granted, increasing the number of qualification matches would be preferred, but it is MUCH more likely that the good teams will make the eliminations with this system. In other words if you can't guarantee a top 8 with 4 matches, you should get the top 8 teams within the top 32 from the 4 matches, which would make the competition somewhat more fair.

: As I stated in a past post, this is how I would like to see it (providing there are 4 fields, which may or may not happen):

: 1. Each field has it's own tournament braket and 'champion', like the four regions in the NCAA tournament.

: 2. Each field has a top 8 that gets to pick its alliance partner.

: 3. Each field then plays it out to determine the field champion.

: 4. Each field champion makes up the "Final Four" of the overall tournament.

: 5. The final four then battle it out on the main stage for the Championship.

:
: I think this format would be very exciting. Not to mention it would give teams something else to shoot for. In college basketball, teams hang banners from the ceiling just for making the final four. It could be another honor, just behind winning the championship. Teams then have not only the championship to shoot for, but being in the "Final Four" is also a very big honor.

:
: Anyway, that's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Raul on 3/15/99 4:26 PM MST:



I guess I meant 4 STAGES. Sorry. I was counting on the upward trend: 2 stages two years ago, 3 stages last year, why not 4 this year? If not four stages, I would settle for 32 teams.

: I believe you would need 4 stages (2 fields each) not just 4 fields to have 64 teams in it. But you could do 32 teams with 2 stages.

: Raul

: : Why not increase the number of qualifying matches? First, the most playing fields they would likely have is four. If you believe in Joe's math (which I do) even with 4 playing fields each team would only get about 5 to 6 qualification rounds. However, with four fields you could increase the number of teams in the elimination to 64 (as opposed to 16) and add virtually no time on to the competition.

: : Another point that Joe brought up is that with the dilution of matches, the "top eight" may not really be the top 8. Therefore, the best team may not win because this team may not get into the eliminations. There are two solutions to this problem:

: : 1) Increase the number of qualificaiton matches. This would be my preference since I believe that the best team is more likely to come out of a 'round-robin' than a tournament. However, in order to give everyone at least 10 qualification matches, we would need around 8 fields, which is not going to happen.

: : 2) Increase the number of teams in the elimination matches. Granted, increasing the number of qualification matches would be preferred, but it is MUCH more likely that the good teams will make the eliminations with this system. In other words if you can't guarantee a top 8 with 4 matches, you should get the top 8 teams within the top 32 from the 4 matches, which would make the competition somewhat more fair.

: : As I stated in a past post, this is how I would like to see it (providing there are 4 fields, which may or may not happen):

: : 1. Each field has it's own tournament braket and 'champion', like the four regions in the NCAA tournament.

: : 2. Each field has a top 8 that gets to pick its alliance partner.

: : 3. Each field then plays it out to determine the field champion.

: : 4. Each field champion makes up the "Final Four" of the overall tournament.

: : 5. The final four then battle it out on the main stage for the Championship.

: :
: : I think this format would be very exciting. Not to mention it would give teams something else to shoot for. In college basketball, teams hang banners from the ceiling just for making the final four. It could be another honor, just behind winning the championship. Teams then have not only the championship to shoot for, but being in the "Final Four" is also a very big honor.

: :
: : Anyway, that's my thoughts and I'm stickin' to 'em.

[archiver]

Posted by Steve Plunkett, Engineer on team #121, Rhode Warriors, from Middletown, RI and Naval Undersea Warfare Center.

Posted on 3/15/99 5:19 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Chris on 3/15/99 4:33 PM MST:



I just came back from Philly and from what I understand, there will
be 2 stages in Florida. It took all day Friday for 60 matches to be played
on 2 fields in Philly. The reamining 23 were played Sat. morning until noon.
I would love to have several seeding matches, however, it is a logistical
problem in Florida. With 220 teams playing, it will take 220 matches for
all the teams to get four seeding matches. Assuming 4 fields, then 2 matches
can go on at once. Therefore, you will need almost as twice as long to
complete the seeding matches as you did for 60 matches in a day at Philly.
Friday ran from 9:30 - 4:00 pm with a half hour break for lunch, a total of
6 hours of seeding matches (approx.). Double that and add a break for lunch,
it looks like will be going on into the night in Florida as it is with 4
matches.

The practice rounds will require 55 x 15 minute slots or 13.75 hours of time
for everybody to get one practice round (if there only 4 playing fields).
So this could roll over into Friday morning, then the seeding matches begin
and go into the night. The last seeding matches are completed Saturday
morning and the Quarters can start after noon.

I'm sure FIRST would like to have more seeding matches, but there is only
so much time in the 3 days that they have to play with. What I have said could
be subject to change, but I think they like the 2 stage format because
both stages could be located in a way where you use only one arena. I think
the stages will be somewhat facing each other (maybe at a some angle?) and
the stands are in between. This would allow matches on both stages without
getting up and changing their seats. Spectators could just turn towards the other
stage.

I could be wrong on the above statements, but I think it might go that way.
Let's wait to see what the format really is and go from there. If there are
more than 4 fields, that will move things along. But I really don't know
for sure other than the stage count.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:23 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I'm sure this won't win me a lot of friends, especially considering the host of this site, but here it goes...

I think each team should be limited to one (and MAYBE two) regionals MAX. This is for a variety of reasons, two of which I'll share here:

1. The regionals are becoming way over crowded. If you want more qualifying matches (which I definitely do), the only way to get this is by reducing the number of teams. Another point: if teams that only get to go to one regional and that regional happens to be the Great Lakes Regional, that team is only guaranteed 10 matches between the regional and nationals. That is very little reward for all of the work that went into the project. It would be nice to play more matches.

2. Big Money = Big Winners? Is this what FIRST is all about? A team that can afford to go to multiple regionals is at a HUGE advantage. It essentially gives these teams more time with their robot (beyond the six weeks). First, the drivers get much more practice at the regional. Second, the team gets to debug the robot at the regional. Third, the team gets the robot for 72 hours after the regional for more practice and work. A team that goes to multiple regionals can do terribly at the first regional and by time nationals comes along, they could be one of the best teams. On the other hand, a team with less money may only go to one regional and miss out on all of the practice and debug time and will end up being an also-ran at the nationals.
In other words, one team may actually have better engineers, builders, drivers, etc. but it won't be seen because other teams get much more time.

If FIRST continues to allow teams to attend as many regionals as they wany, they at least should give everyone their robot for 72 starting on Saturday night following every regional. This would allow the small money teams a better shot at competing.

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/15/99 5:40 PM MST


In Reply to: One more thing... posted by Chris on 3/15/99 4:23 PM MST:



I do agree that a team going to more than one regional has an advantage, but I see no reason to stop this. This isn't just a competition, it's a learning experience. And if more kids can go to more competitions then FIRST gets more cash and more kids learn, who cares if a "rich" team will get some more practice.
But since space is becoming an issue at regionals, regional teams should take a priority. What I mean is that each team can choose 1 regional which they are pretty much guarenteed (unless a lot choose the same regional). Then after that, the only way they can get into other regionals is if there is space. So this way each team will have their 1st pick of regionals and no multi-regional team will displace a local team. Makes total sense to me.
:-Dan



: I'm sure this won't win me a lot of friends, especially considering the host of this site, but here it goes...

: I think each team should be limited to one (and MAYBE two) regionals MAX. This is for a variety of reasons, two of which I'll share here:

: 1. The regionals are becoming way over crowded. If you want more qualifying matches (which I definitely do), the only way to get this is by reducing the number of teams. Another point: if teams that only get to go to one regional and that regional happens to be the Great Lakes Regional, that team is only guaranteed 10 matches between the regional and nationals. That is very little reward for all of the work that went into the project. It would be nice to play more matches.

: 2. Big Money = Big Winners? Is this what FIRST is all about? A team that can afford to go to multiple regionals is at a HUGE advantage. It essentially gives these teams more time with their robot (beyond the six weeks). First, the drivers get much more practice at the regional. Second, the team gets to debug the robot at the regional. Third, the team gets the robot for 72 hours after the regional for more practice and work. A team that goes to multiple regionals can do terribly at the first regional and by time nationals comes along, they could be one of the best teams. On the other hand, a team with less money may only go to one regional and miss out on all of the practice and debug time and will end up being an also-ran at the nationals.
: In other words, one team may actually have better engineers, builders, drivers, etc. but it won't be seen because other teams get much more time.

: If FIRST continues to allow teams to attend as many regionals as they wany, they at least should give everyone their robot for 72 starting on Saturday night following every regional. This would allow the small money teams a better shot at competing.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/15/99 6:42 PM MST


In Reply to: I agree . .but it doesn't have to be THAT bad . . posted by Dan on 3/15/99 5:40 PM MST:



I agree with Chris that it is a HUGE advantage to go to more than one regional.

Everything Chris listed as an advantage is true. It does give our drivers more drive time. It does give our engineers more time to debug the robot.

Is this fair? no

Is it going to change? I don't think so.

There are many things that are not fair about the FIRST robot competition and there will always be unfair aspects.

By the way, in my opinion, the multiple regional issue is probably not even the most unfair thing (Experience and funding are the biggest unfair factors, in that order).

Our team's leadership has always been of the opinion that if this robot competition is to be a serious endevour, then we should do our best to maximize our chances of winning, within the bounds of ethics and the rules determined by FIRST.

So... As long as we are allowed to go to more than one regional and we can convince our sponsor's management to write the checks, we plan to continue.

Comments?

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/16/99 7:29 AM MST


In Reply to: I agree too -- really posted by Joe Johnson on 3/15/99 6:42 PM MST:



I knew this would start a big discussion. Let me clarify a few things:

If we had the resources to go to more than one regional, we would be there. Don't get me wrong, myself and our students would love more opportunities to play. I have nothing against the teams that do this.

Everyone also overlooked one big point. I didn't necessarily say limiting the regionals is the only option that would level the playing field. I think if the other teams are allowed equivalenvt times with their robot that they would have gotten had they attended a regional, that would definitely help.

Example: We could not attend the Chicago regional. The teams that could attend get their robots for 72 hours after the regional ends to work and make changes. Why not give everyone their robots for 72 hours? In this way, the teams that could not attend miss out on the scouting, driving experience, fun, etc., but they still get equivalent time to improve their machine.

Any thoughts on this option?


: I agree with Chris that it is a HUGE advantage to go to more than one regional.

: Everything Chris listed as an advantage is true. It does give our drivers more drive time. It does give our engineers more time to debug the robot.

: Is this fair? no

: Is it going to change? I don't think so.

: There are many things that are not fair about the FIRST robot competition and there will always be unfair aspects.

: By the way, in my opinion, the multiple regional issue is probably not even the most unfair thing (Experience and funding are the biggest unfair factors, in that order).

: Our team's leadership has always been of the opinion that if this robot competition is to be a serious endevour, then we should do our best to maximize our chances of winning, within the bounds of ethics and the rules determined by FIRST.

: So... As long as we are allowed to go to more than one regional and we can convince our sponsor's management to write the checks, we plan to continue.

: Comments?

: Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Jerry Eckert, Engineer on team #140 from Tyngsboro, MA High School and New England Prototype/Brooks Automation.

Posted on 3/16/99 8:09 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: I agree too -- really posted by Chris on 3/16/99 7:29 AM MST:




: Example: We could not attend the Chicago regional. The teams that could attend get their robots for 72 hours after the regional ends to work and make changes. Why not give everyone their robots for 72 hours? In this way, the teams that could not attend miss out on the scouting, driving experience, fun, etc., but they still get equivalent time to improve their machine.

: Any thoughts on this option?

If I remember correctly, back in '96 teams which went to Disney but did not attend
a regional were allowed to ship the robot a few days later than teams which also
attended a regional. This was intended to compensate for the extra time the teams
who participated in the reginal would get at the end of that competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Nate Smith, Student on team #74, Holland FIRST Robotics, from Holland High School and Haworth, Inc..

Posted on 3/16/99 10:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: I agree too -- really posted by Jerry Eckert on 3/16/99 8:09 AM MST:



That was the case this year too...teams who participate only in the National tournament did not have to ship out their machines until Wednesday, while everyone else had to ship on Monday...

: If I remember correctly, back in '96 teams which went to Disney but did not attend
: a regional were allowed to ship the robot a few days later than teams which also
: attended a regional. This was intended to compensate for the extra time the teams
: who participated in the reginal would get at the end of that competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/16/99 11:55 AM MST


In Reply to: Same this year... posted by Nate Smith on 3/16/99 10:31 AM MST:



Yes, this rule still applies, but it is somewhat outdated in the fact that it assumes teams only go to one regional. Perhaps teams should get an extra 48 (or 72) hours for each weekend that regionals are held. For every regional that a team attends, one 48 hour period is removed from your alloted 'extra build time'.

Example: The normal ship date is Feb. 22. Assume there are 7 weekends in which regionals are held. This would equate to an extra two weeks to work on the machine (7 x 48 hours). If a team goes to 3 regionals, than they get 6 days taken off of their extra time, giving them only 8 days after the Feb 22 build time.

At first, this may not seem fair. You might state that you punish teams that attend regionals by taking away extra build time. I look at it this way: what if a team goes to a regional on all 7 weekends (as some teams do). These teams get Thursday, Friday, and Saturday to do some work on their robot. Then they get the robot from Saturday night through Monday. This gives these teams an extra 5 days of work per regional. Let's say that you can't really work over night because they shut down the pits, so we'll take away 24 hours. This still gives 4 days of extra time per regional. If you attend 7 regionals, this equals 28 extra days of work time. That's one whole month! If we believe in the 4 days extra per regional, I'm only asking that these teams give up 2 days. Therefore, there is still an advantage to attending the regional in terms of work time (not to mention the driver practice, scouting, etc), but this advantage is reduced.

Okay, maybe there is no team that attends a regional every week (or is there?), and two extra weeks may seem a bit much at first. Then perhaps FIRST should determine which team is going to the most regionals. Use the number of regionals this team is attending instead of the number of weekends that regionals are being held.

As Joe stated, the biggest 'unfairness' in the competition is funding. Perhaps some rules need to be in place to lessen this advantage. It occurs in virtually all sports: the NFL has the salary cap, Formula One has technology limitations, the NCAA limits football scholarships to 85 per team, etc. All of these rules are in the interest of fairness of the competition so that the 'small market teams' can compete on a level playing field with the 'big market teams' that have a funding advantage. There are already a few rules in place within FIRST toward this end, but I would maybe like to see more.

: That was the case this year too...teams who participate only in the National tournament did not have to ship out their machines until Wednesday, while everyone else had to ship on Monday...

: : If I remember correctly, back in '96 teams which went to Disney but did not attend
: : a regional were allowed to ship the robot a few days later than teams which also
: : attended a regional. This was intended to compensate for the extra time the teams
: : who participated in the reginal would get at the end of that competition.

[archiver]

Posted by Dan, Student on team #10, BSM, from Benilde-St. Margaret's and Banner Engineering.

Posted on 3/16/99 3:22 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Hopefully, this is my last post... posted by Chris on 3/16/99 11:55 AM MST:



I have to disagree. There should never be a spending cap on education. This is not just a competition, winning isn't the ultimate goal. Tons of things are unfair if you look at this solely as a competition, but if you look at FIRST as an experience the word "unfair" doesn't apply.
If someone wants to spend money on education why should we stop them? A more sensible thing would be to divert the multi-regional money to create more teams. :-Dan

"As Joe stated, the biggest 'unfairness' in the competition is funding. Perhaps some rules need to be in place to lessen this advantage. It occurs in virtually all sports: the NFL has the salary cap, Formula One has technology limitations, the NCAA limits football scholarships to 85 per team, etc. All of these rules are in the interest of fairness of the competition so that the 'small market teams' can compete on a level playing field with the 'big market teams' that have a funding advantage. There are already a few rules in place within FIRST toward this end, but I would maybe like to see more."

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/17/99 7:05 AM MST


In Reply to: Unfair for what purpose? posted by Dan on 3/16/99 3:22 PM MST:



This is long, but stick with me.

How is going to more than one regional more educational than going to one? Neutralizing a funding advantage has nothing to do with education. In fact, I think limiting the number of regionals might lead to increased educational spending. Instead of spending all of the money on the extra entry fees, plane tickets to the regionals, and hotels, why not buy some computers for the school or donate the surplus to start a practical technology course at the school? That does more to further education than to take a team of a few students to 3 extra regionals. The point is, you can limit spending in such a way that it doesn't affect the educational value. (I do admit that attending one regional and the nationals is necessary to get the whole effect of the program).

And let me make another important point. If the competition is not competitive, it does lose its educational value (you'll have to follow me for a little while to understand why). When a team is not competitive, the students really become disappointed and start to lose interest in the program. Our team knows this from experience. Our first year in the competition, we seeded something like 5th at the Chicago regional and won the Rookie All Star Award. We then went to nationals and seed in the top 20, faired well in the tournament, and won the National Rookie All Star. The students were very excited and really got into the whole FIRST thing and learning about science and technology. They were into it before we were winning, but they became much more excited after they saw that we were good engineers and they could believe in us and what we were 'preaching'.

Year 2 (last year): Our robot never really got finished, we never got it to work properly, and we never got any practice with it. We went to our one (and only) regional which was the Great Lakes Regional. We missed most of our practice rounds trying to get our robot to work and spent all of our time between qualifying rounds fixing problems(does this ring a bell this year, Joe? (BTW, I was at Chicago scouting)) We lost every single match, seeded dead last, and went on to lose our two tournament matches within about 20 minutes of the start of Saturday morning. The students were devestated. They seemed to lose faith in us and what we were trying to teach them. So, one can preach the ideals of FIRST; that it is more about the learning experience and such, but if the team isn't at all competitive, the students really lose faith. We know that from experience. As a side note, we worked 72 straight hours after our regional to do a complete redesign. We ended up seeding and finishing the tourney around
the top 25 percentile at nationals (not too shabby).

In conclusion: competitive = good experience for students not competitive = students losing faith. We've been on both ends of the spectrum and know this to be true.

Granted that is a experience that is very extreme, but it does happen. If FIRST wants to continue to thrive, they need to make the competition competitive for all teams. Some companies suggest that their teams must do well to keep their funding. If the teams does poorly, they view it as an embarassment to the company. If these teams end up not being able to be competitive, these companies may withdraw from the program. This is a harsh reality that FIRST needs to address before teams start dropping out (and some have already). Believe me, if teams (or companies) aren't competitive, they lose interest. Not just from a financial standpoint, but it becomes difficult to find students and engineers that want to fill out the team. Look at the high schools that have great football teams. Everyone wants to go out for football. At my high school, they had to beg people to play. The same holds for FIRST (that may not be in spirit with the FIRST ideal, but it is the truth).

One more thing (I know I've said that before). Please don't think I'm 'crying' because my situation. I love my team and I think we'll actually do well. I also harbor no bitterness toward other teams that go to a lot of regionals. It is within the rules and perfectly fine. My argument is completely based on what I believe is best for the longevity of FIRST. Since our team has seen both the highs and the lows, I think I can comment better than most on how teams react to being competitive and non-competitive. Granted, every year some teams will not be competitive. There is nothing to do about this. However, if these teams start feeling that they will never be able to compete, they will lose interest. In summary, most important is the feeling amongst the team that they have a chance to play on a level field. This is what brings engineers back the next year.

To sum up my feelings: Our team may end up doing great and winning it all (who knows). Then again, we may not. But I know one thing, I would like to see all teams have the same shot at doing well. Even if we were one of the 'Goliath's', I would still like to see all teams have a fair chance. It's for the good of the future of FIRST.


: I have to disagree. There should never be a spending cap on education. This is not just a competition, winning isn't the ultimate goal. Tons of things are unfair if you look at this solely as a competition, but if you look at FIRST as an experience the word "unfair" doesn't apply.
: If someone wants to spend money on education why should we stop them? A more sensible thing would be to divert the multi-regional money to create more teams. :-Dan

: "As Joe stated, the biggest 'unfairness' in the competition is funding. Perhaps some rules need to be in place to lessen this advantage. It occurs in virtually all sports: the NFL has the salary cap, Formula One has technology limitations, the NCAA limits football scholarships to 85 per team, etc. All of these rules are in the interest of fairness of the competition so that the 'small market teams' can compete on a level playing field with the 'big market teams' that have a funding advantage. There are already a few rules in place within FIRST toward this end, but I would maybe like to see more."

[archiver]

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Chris on 3/17/99 7:05 AM MST:



I have not had time much this year to follow through the information on this great web board, but yesterday I was looking for something else and came upon this debate.

I feel compelled to make some comments

Unfair chances of top 20 teams being eliminated
Unfair chances of bottom 20 teams making it to the finals
Unfair advantages of teams with money
Unfair chances of teams going to more than one regional
Unfair chances of teams going to regionals with 6 vs 12 preliminary matches
Teams feeling like they lost because they came in last at the competition

FIRST has one tough job trying to make things fair
Face it, ladies and gentlemen,
THEY NEVER WILL BE SEEN AS FAIR BY EVERYONE
The more you try to make it fair, the law of unintended consequences will make something else unfair
Yes, FIRST can improve things
Yes you need great competition to have excitement and to make FIRST work
There will be great competition in the finals
Your great robot may not be part of that competition and it won't seem fair
There might be some mediocre competition in the finals too and that won’t seem fair
The attitude of people on your team, particularly the adults and their ability to find the things to celebrate, even when your robot falls to pieces in front of the world will do more long term than winning a trophy

Our team has been involved in FIRST since 1992
We have had inspiring years with great robots
We have had uninspiring years with poor robots
We have had uninspiring years with great robots
We have had inspiring years with poor robots and no trophies
I have been actively involved with FIRST for 8 years and give 10-15 talks per year on FIRST to hundreds of people
The things this discussion is concerned with here are not the important issues in my mind.
If you let them become too important, you will burn out.
Don’t get me wrong, I really love to see great competition, but it is ok if we are not in it (but I would just love it if we were).
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but the way the adult leaders on our team approach FIRST is from student inspiration - the big picture, not the competition
If we have to choose between having a more competitive robot and inspiring students, we choose to have the less competitive robot

The role of the adult on a FIRST team is a really tough one
If your robot does not do well at the competition and you get angry or treat the situation as unfair, your students will get angry and see the experience as unfair - people will leave feeling like losers
I have to disagree with Chris' comment "competitive = good experience for students not competitive = students losing faith. We've been on both ends of the spectrum and know this to be true."
We have been on both ends of the spectrum too, and know that both can be a good experience
If you let people feel the disappointment that will come with a lost match or elimination (let people cry if they need to – I have had my shoulders cried on lots),
then help them channel their energy to move on, the experience can be made into a very positive one. I do think that this is a lot harder to do at Disney than at the regionals, but that is a different topic.

Maybe I am the eternal idealist, but I take to heart what Woodie Flowers says – robots will lose, but the people are all winners. Each team can come away feeling like a winner if they choose to.

Best of luck to everyone this year.

Elaine

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/17/99 10:31 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



I guess I'm alone on this one. Perhaps I should have kept my thoughts to myself. I guess I just figured if the NCAA enacted a scholarship limit (not at all popular at the time, either), FIRST could enact a regional limit. I guess I was wrong.

[archiver]

Posted by Joe Johnson, Engineer on team #47, Chief Delphi, from Pontiac Central High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/17/99 6:58 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I feel so lonely :( posted by Chris on 3/17/99 10:31 AM MST:



Chris,

Don't be so sure you are all alone. You have expressed many important points. I am sure that many agree with you.

In fact, I agree with you in some respects and have plainly said so.

As to limiting regionals, I am sure that it will happen. The timeframe is probably the same year that the regionals become qualifiers for the Nationals.

Could you image the howls if a college tried to join two conferences just so that they could have two shots at winning a conference title and getting into the NCAA tourney?

I think it will happen.

As to competitive = inspiration, I think that there is an element of that but it is not the main component. Our first year out we too were not very competitive, but I think we managed to inspire more than a few kids just the same. It is a little easier to have credibility as an engineer when you're seen as Midas with the golden design touch, but there have been many times (Chicago included) where we looked anything but golden. Yet, even failure with grace can be inspirational.

Keep up your postings. I like to hear your opinions.

Joe J.

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/17/99 2:16 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



I now have to agree with Elaine. No matter what you do someone will always thinks something is unfair.

Elaine's comments made me think about our rookie year. We were ecstatic about just being part of it all. We were happy that our robot could score points. We never won a match that year, but it did not matter because we were enjoying everyone else's success.

We need to look at the bright side of things. For example, at the Motorola regional we played so often that I rarely got a chance to see other robots compete. I never did see all the robots compete. So, if there are less matches, it will just allow us more time to observe and cheer for other robots, more time to talk to other teams about what they did with their design, more time to enjoy the whole thing rather than just getting caught up in just our matches.

I feel better about only having 4 matches at the nationals already. Good luck to all and let the cards fall where they may!

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Raul, Engineer on team #111, Wildstang, from Rolling Meadows & Wheeling HS and Motorola.

Posted on 3/17/99 2:16 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



I now have to agree with Elaine. No matter what you do someone will always thinks something is unfair.

Elaine's comments made me think about our rookie year. We were ecstatic about just being part of it all. We were happy that our robot could score points. We never won a match that year, but it did not matter because we were enjoying everyone else's success.

We need to look at the bright side of things. For example, at the Motorola regional we played so often that I rarely got a chance to see other robots compete. I never did see all the robots compete. So, if there are less matches, it will just allow us more time to observe and cheer for other robots, more time to talk to other teams about what they did with their design, more time to enjoy the whole thing rather than just getting caught up in just our matches.

I feel better about only having 4 matches at the nationals already. Good luck to all and let the cards fall where they may!

Raul

[archiver]

Posted by Chris, Coach on team #308, Walled Lake Monster, from Walled Lake Schools and TRW Automotive Electronics.

Posted on 3/17/99 3:39 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Huh? posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/17/99 9:28 AM MST:



Is everyone getting sick of me yet? I know I am.

As you see by the subject, please don't put words in my mouth. Also, please don't assume I mean something that I don't.

I've never really used the word "unfair" except when quoting Joe and in the paragraph surrounding that quote. I don't usually like that word. I only used the words "advantage", "disadvantage", and "level playing field". Whether the advantage, disadvantage, etc. was gained fairly or unfairly is another point, and is usually very subjective, as was pointed out by Elaine.

This is everything I've said in a nutshell (I think I should have written it this way to avoid the confusion in the first place - sorry):
Do I believe going to more than one regional is an advantage? yes
Do I believe going to more than one regional is unfair? no (I even stated this. If we could do this, we would)
Do I believe having every team go to equal number of regionals levels the playing field? yes
Do I believe going to only one regional as opposed to multiple regionals saves teams money? yes
Do I believe that the money would be better spent helping the schools and students than going to multiple regionals? yes
Do I believe going to only one regional as opposed to multiple regionals creates more matches per team? yes
Do I believe that students get more excited when they win than when they don't? yes (people are not ideal objects. They react emotionally. When we had our bad regional, we did everything in our power to fire up the students, and the engineers showed a good attitude, but nothing seemed to work.)
***Do I believe leveling the playing field is in the best interests of the future of FIRST? yes

That is all I said. People may agree or disagree with any of the above points, it is their right.

[archiver]

Posted by Elaine Anselm, Engineer on team #191, X-Cats, from Jos Wilson High School and Xerox.

Posted on 3/18/99 10:58 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Please don't put words in my mouth posted by Chris on 3/17/99 3:39 PM MST:



Chris - My appologies to you - all of my comments were not directed at you and I was not trying to imply so. I had read through many postings and stopped at yours. The response was a cumulative one. Sorry if you or anyone else took it that way.

I am really glad that you and so many other people feel so passionate about FIRST. My feeling is that you can keep the enthusiasm and the passion with or without a winning robot, but that is my opinion and I resect yours.

Best of luck to you and your team.

Elaine

[archiver]

Posted by Bethany Dunning, Coach on team #163, Quantum Mechanics, from International Academy and Quantum Consultants/EATON/ITT Industries.

Posted on 3/18/99 1:19 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Sorry for the implication posted by Elaine Anselm on 3/18/99 10:58 AM MST:



Alright. I'd like to post my $.02 here as well. I'm all for teams going to
multiple regionals. Wouldn't you go to more than one if someone handed you about
$60 000 for your robotics program? That's an awful lot of equipment to buy for
those of you that said that's what you'd like to do with that money. Give it to
another team - I wouldn't. Competitions (from what I hear, and if it's anything like
ASCE concrete canoe competitions) are a blast, and a great learning experience.
It's not like there is nothing to be gained from regionals. If this isn't about
winning, then why are we all so worked up about other teams getting more practice
and more of this and more of that. To me, going to multiple regionals is something
to strive for and aim for. It's part of building a strong robotics program.

[archiver]

[archiver]

Posted by michael bastoni of team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School sponsored by Boston Edison Co.

Posted on 3/15/99 10:00 PM MST


In Reply to: One more thing... posted by Chris on 3/15/99 4:23 PM MST:



Gentlemen,

You seem to concede readily that going to more than one regional is unfair.
You also (some anyway) seem to agree that too few qualifying matches are unfair.
Yet many seem to accept attending multiple regionals as an, you can't change life
sort of fact...yet you rail against the loss of opportunity provided by too few
qualifying matches....

Come come men...accept all unfairness...or.... change the unfairness that you are
capable of changing...Would we all willingly agree to attend only one regional?....I think
not...but we at team 23 would certainly consider it if everyone else would...

Should we all join in then and ask FIRST to amend the rules? to Limit all to one and only one
regional?....Should all those teams who can attend only one regional demand we do it?...what if they did.
Hmmmmm...so much to consider. Mind you, we are only now returning from "tuning" our robot after team 68
savaged us in the playoffs...mind you they lost since they were so intent upon wrecking havoc
on our poor little gladiator....they failed to see our partner, the mighty megatrons #314 mount the puck..
And we did not cry foul...we did not call in the refs...we dusted off our rugged little robo-warrior
and proceeded to the finals...We did this because we feel FIRST needs aggressive robot contests, action events and I could
give you about a hundred reasons why....


Regarding qualifying matches...

What if the qualifying matches were all independent? NO ALLIANCES...every robot for itself?
Then the top eight chose an alliance partner for the playoffs...and we had say two sets of playoffs?
And then the winners of those duked it out on the big mat ? The number of playoff sequences would be a function
of the number of teams...let's use that 20% you guys are kicking around???

Think about it and let me know your opinions, please.

Anyway...take it from us.. we were a 28th seed team picked by a 7th seed team....God bless
the Megatrons #314 and "Doc" . This combination went to the finals...is somebody going to try to
convince us that all the better robots were still in the pits???? I don't think so
Philly was rugged...I think the coming regionals will be even more so...

Good night crazy friends.

Mr.B

[archiver]

Posted by Daniel, Student on team #192, Gunn Robotics Team, from Henry M Gunn Senior High School and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 11:00 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: One more thing... posted by michael bastoni on 3/15/99 10:00 PM MST:



First off I'd like to comment on the regional situation. As I am from a west coast team, this is the first year I've been able to attend a regional competition. It was amazingly helpful. In fact, I can see how doing a few more would be even better for my team -- but we can't; we don't have the cash. Some teams (Delphi) do have the cash. Here's what I've got to say to them: "I envy you!" I am so completely jealous, but I'd never look to take that away from a team. It'd be like telling them they can only learn so much before we cap it. Silly.

Now for Mr. B. I think by introducing the "alliance" into the competition this year, FIRST has added a whole new dimension to the game. During the regional it was made obvious that good strategic teamwork could easily make the difference between losing and winning a match. The GRT 'bot (for example) has a large aluminum arm that we have used on many occasions for defense. In fact, some of our highest scoring matches were those where we kept the opposing alliance busy while our ally was free to graze the playing field and pick up whatever floppies were lying around. Teamwork is everything. It would be a HUGE change to eliminate that part of the competition. I feel it would be even more drastic than saying "oh never mind, there's not gonna be a puck anymore". Maybe not for everyone, but for enough teams to make the difference.

These are just my opinions. Opinions can change. I'm very interested to hear more thoughts on these issues!

Back to physics homework!
Daniel
GRT Student Co-Captain

[archiver]

Posted by Jason, Coach on team #252/254, Bay Bombers/Cheesy Poofs, from Broadway High and NASA Ames.

Posted on 3/15/99 4:52 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



If, as has been stated, there will be only 2 stages (meaning 4 fields) at the Nationals instead of the 3 stages they had last year or the 4 stages people have been asking for, then it seems to make sense to increase the size of the playoffs.

With only 4-5 qualifying matches it is very unlikely that the true 8 best teams will end up in the playoffs even after 8 allies have been chosen.
But if the top 16 teams make the playoffs and pick 16 allies, than I feel there is a pretty good chance almost all of the deserving teams will be in the top 16 or be chosen.

It just seems obvious that if regionals (30-50 teams) have the top 8, than the Nationals (with 200 teams) should have the top 16 pick allies.
Even with only 2 stages and 4 fields, 16 alliances in the playoffs is very doable. I hope FIRST decides to at least increase the playoffs to 16 alliances if they can not increase the qualifying matches to at least 8.

Jason

[archiver]

Posted by David Kelso, Coach on team #131, CHAOS-, from Central High School and OSRAM SYLVANIA/ Fleet Bank.

Posted on 3/15/99 5:23 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



: Nothing like a topic that strikes the heart of everyone.
Perhaps what needs to be considered for the future is the design
of the game. Back a mere 5 years ago in Ramp and Roll, scoring
was done as you played. The score was known the instant the game
finished. If the future games were quicker to score, then there would be
far less down time between rounds and therefore time for more rounds.
If I recall, in Ramp and Roll, 33 teams in THE Regional each played about
5 rounds each on a Saturday in about a 4 hour period.
: I am serious, very serious. Think about it. A top 20th percentile team (i.e. a very good team) has a 1 in 5 chance each match of being partnered with a bottom 20th percentile team (i.e, a not very good team). In this case, the good team is essentially playing 2 on 1. So far so good.

: Now, what chance is there that a top 20th percentile team will be paired with nothing but bottom 20th percentile teams for all their qualifying matches? It is approximately (1/5)^4 or 1 in 525.

: This doesn't sound too terrible until you realize that there are 40 top 20th percentile teams. Essentially, one time in 13, the situation will occur. Not too bad of odds, you say, it will only happen on average once in every 13 FIRST Nationals, and that one time, the team will most likely be picked up by one of the top 8.

: Yes and no. In a field of 200 teams, it is going to be very hard to stand out of the crowd, especially if you lost every match and are very poorly ranked.

: The situation gets worse when you realize that only 3 such nightmare matches are likely enough to spoil any chance such a team has at making it into the top 8.

: The chances of this are considerably more discouraging: 4 X (1/5)^3 or about 1 chance in 30.

: With there being 40 top 20th percentile teams in a 200 team tourney, FIRST is virtually assuring that the randomness of the seeding will keep one or two team that might otherwise have a legitimate shot at the top 8.

: The story gets worse when you ask yourself how many middle of the road teams (say 20th percentile to 80th percentile) have great tournaments simply because they end up with three or more top 20th pecentile teams for partners.

: Again, the odds are 1 in 30, but in a 200 team tourney, there are 120 teams in the middle! At the Nationals, 4 of these middle teams have a legitimate chance to make it to into the final 8 just because they were lucky enough to have 3 more great partners!

: The only solution is to have more qualifying rounds.

: I feel that this is a serious threat to the integrity of the Nationals.

: I hope that there is time to change the plan for the Nationals.

: I urge you to "write your congressperson."

: Joe J.

: P.S. Note that the proposed plan is a step back even from prior Nationals. They are proposing FEWER matches at the Nationals than they had last year. Not only fewer for all teams (all teams had at LEAST 6 matches in prior years -- 4 seeding round and a minumum of 2 in the tourney) but fewer overall matches! Note that while there are 33% more teams at the Nationals this year (~200 vs. ~150), but this year's format lets 33% more teams play each round. Therefore, by having most teams only have 4 matches at the Nationals rather than 6, FIRST is actually proposing a reduction in the absolute number of matches of over 33%. This is progress?

[archiver]

Posted by brian beatty, Engineer on team #71, beatty/hammond, from hammond schools and beatty machine.

Posted on 3/15/99 8:28 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



Joe: While I agree with most of your logic, I tend to disagree with your overall conclusion. Yes, more qualifying rounds will tend more accurately determine who the best 8 machines are on that day. Yes, I wish there were more rounds just because it is more fun than 4 or 5 rounds. Without going into a thesis on your mathematics, yes, there is a chance(almost a certainty) that at least one of the teams in the top 8 is not a top 8 team. But, here is what I think will happen.

1. 5 of the top 8 teams will be top 16 teams.
2. Of the 8 picked teams, all will be in the top 16 teams.
3. Of the 3 non-top 8 teams, they will be in the top 30%.


In conclusion, this elimination match(quarterfinals) will be the toughest, most competitive one seen to date. Compare this to last year, an early loss meant relegation to the loser's bracket, which then meant your team needed to be a Houdini to pull one off( just ask Wildstang, Baxter Bomb Squad, and some team that won three Regionals but can't remember their name). Sorry Joe, while I dearly wish for more matches, you will see many teams that should be in it resurrected from the "loser's" bracket that under the old system would never have got the opportunity.

Sincerely,
Brian Beatty

[archiver]

Posted by Ron Partridge, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison/Entergy/Pilgrim Station.

Posted on 3/16/99 3:01 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by brian beatty on 3/15/99 8:28 PM MST:




: Joe: While I agree with most of your logic, I tend to disagree with your overall conclusion. Yes, more qualifying rounds will tend more accurately determine who the best 8 machines are on that day. Yes, I wish there were more rounds just because it is more fun than 4 or 5 rounds. Without going into a thesis on your mathematics, yes, there is a chance(almost a certainty) that at least one of the teams in the top 8 is not a top 8 team. But, here is what I think will happen.
:
: 1. 5 of the top 8 teams will be top 16 teams.
: 2. Of the 8 picked teams, all will be in the top 16 teams.
: 3. Of the 3 non-top 8 teams, they will be in the top 30%.

:
: In conclusion, this elimination match(quarterfinals) will be the toughest, most competitive one seen to date. Compare this to last year, an early loss meant relegation to the loser's bracket, which then meant your team needed to be a Houdini to pull one off( just ask Wildstang, Baxter Bomb Squad, and some team that won three Regionals but can't remember their name). Sorry Joe, while I dearly wish for more matches, you will see many teams that should be in it resurrected from the "loser's" bracket that under the old system would never have got the opportunity.

: Sincerely,
: Brian Beatty
:

[archiver]

Posted by Ron Partridge, Coach on team #23, PNTA, from Plymouth North High School and Boston Edison/Entergy/Pilgrim Station.

Posted on 3/16/99 3:45 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by brian beatty on 3/15/99 8:28 PM MST:



I also would have liked to see more qualifying rounds in Philly. Everyone could see the better teams rising to the top as the matches progressed. However, the "draft" in this years game is the great equilizer. Many good teams never made the play-offs before, but now a smart and well informed top 8 team will be looking at all the matches for the best alliance partner. Every team and every match is important to the outcome of the top 8. Teamwork is the battle cry for this year's game and if some of the rookies and lesser known schools make it to the top, great! Building an engineer's dream robot will not win this years competition. It will be the two teams who work together and understand how two different robots can complement each other. It always takes time to learn how to play the game every year and this year the real game is picking the right draft choice!

Good Luck, Ron Partridge

[archiver]

Posted by P.J. Baker, Engineer on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 3/16/99 12:04 PM MST


In Reply to: The Society for More Qualifying Rounds posted by Joe Johnson on 3/14/99 7:43 PM MST:



I’m not sure, but I think FIRST may be a little more clever than we are giving them credit for. I was not in Philly with the Bobcat, but from the video I saw and some pictures on WPI’s page, I am pretty sure that team 177 played against at least two teams twice in our 6 seeding matches. There is a post below that says the same thing happened at KSC "How Random is Random?". Based on those two observations and nothing more, I wonder if this is what is happening:

FIRST recognizes that the field is too big for a small number of seeding matches to produce the "real" top 8 teams when the picks are completely random (your opponent/partner could be anyone in the tournament at any time). To combat this, they randomly break the field up into several smaller groups that end up playing more of a round robin format. In these smaller groups, the best teams should be able rack up a respectable scoring average even in only 4,5, or 6 seeding matches. Obviously, this is not as good as having a large number of seeding matches, but it is better than everything being "completely random"

I may be way off base here, but I thought I’d throw this idea out for everyone to kick around.

Good luck everybody!

P.J.