|
The Rest Of The Best
FIRST Community, we have a problem! Some very, very great and inspirational robots will not be attending Championships in 2012 and these robots should be at Championships. Right?
Please allow me to preface this post by professing that I believe Championships should be open to every team that has a desire and will to attend. Although I've thought this for years as demonstrated by this post, I understand and respect FIRST's decision to restrict the team participation. I also believe that much of the inspiration in FRC comes from the robots and that it is very important that a vast majority of the best robots attend the FIRST Championships. Now that we have reached the critical mass where the wait list for Championships is not cleared every year, I believe it is time to adjust the qualification criteria to attend Championships. Although I've thought of a zillion different ways to get the "Rest of the Best" robots to Championships, I believe there is a very, very simple solution that will get the vast majority of the Rest-of-the-Best to Championships. I propose that The top 3 seeded teams from each regional qualify for Championships. And I propose FIRST implements this proposal this year by slightly expanding the field to accommodate the Rest-Of-The-Best. Yep, you can quickly dub this the 177 or 2168 rule. Although, we've been discussing a rule like this for years as a balance to the number one alliance not getting the 1st and 2nd picks then the next alliance getting the 3rd and 4th, and so on, it has been on the back burner because the wait list for Championship was mostly cleared; but now, since this is not the case, it is time to take action … NOW! Now because the FIRST Community has a strong desire to see these great robots at Championships. Now because we have ignored this issue for years. Now because it is the right thing to do. Now because we must not wait until tomorrow for something that should be done today. I will let the number crunchers in the crowd determine how many extra slots we would need at Championships but I don't believe it would be that many simply because the number 1, 2, or 3 seed often wins the regional along with teams that attend multiple regionals often seeding in the top 3 multiple times. After this analysis, we may find that the top 4 seeded teams should qualify for Championships. It will not take you long to find that this is self-serving because 118 has seeded high at two regionals and has not qualified for Championships yet. Also, it will not take you long to find that I'm very fiery when it comes to the fact that the Robonauts should not participate in Championships unless we win "on the field", which includes the fields of Chairman's and Engineering Inspiration. Trust me, we will be trying our best to win at Lone Star this week. What do you think?, Lucien P.S. And for the record, here is one of the more creative proposals I've ever heard on this subject. The top 4 alliance captains from each regional qualify for Championships. This proposal has two effects, it gets most of the Rest-of-the-Best qualified for Championships AND makes it more difficult for a 2, 3, or 4 seed to accept a pick because they may be costing themselves a spot at Championships; this helps discourage super alliances .... one step further to parity than serpentine picking has taken us. For this same record, I'm not a big fan of the current picking process now that Championships has truly become a win-or-stay-at-home-wishing-you-were-there event. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I disagree with this method but not the idea behind it, I want all the best team's and robots to be at championship to make it a true championship. I love 177 and 2168 and would love for them to both be at championship however with this rule you remove a huge part of the regional competition. If you are a #1 or 2 seed and you know you have already qualified for championships by being that seed you won't strive for that regional victory. Going to championship isn't just about how good you are, it's a reward for having won and I think expanding the qualification for it would change what it means to make it.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I still believe that the current format has got it right.
We thought we had an excellent robot in 2007, elimination worthy also. However, the best we did was regional finalist losing to team 25, 103 and xxxx that year in NJ. Then we went to Vegas, sitting next to the Poofs being told we were going to be picked by them and 1425. Right before that pick, a rookie team chose us. Those are the breaks and you still have 1 more regional to go. See you at Lone Star this weekend.:) |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
While I agree that there are often many very good teams with very good robots that miss out on champs, I disagree with your method of solving the problem at hand. I would cite this year and 2010 as prime examples, in that those years more than any other the seeding algorithm has allowed for relatively mediocre teams to seed highly. It can not simply be resolved by saying the top four seeded teams go because that does not inherently prove they are the four best teams at that event. The process of seeding is too flawed to say that definitively.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
In 2010, 294 qualified for Champs as the ~17th pick. Then we seeded first on Newton and won it all.
I will be the first to admit that the robots at Champs should be better, but your suggestion does not do that. Better, I think, would be to allow the 2nd place alliance in as well, or at least a part of that alliance. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Aloha,
We ended up seeding 2nd in the Hawaii regional after putting in an average of 34 points per match (10 points in hybrid 17/17 times, only missed one shot the entire tournament, could easily bridge every time) but did not qualify for Worlds. We have an OPR rating over 28 which puts ranked 10th in the World right now at last check. I'm OK with not making it because I was not looking forward to raising $15,000 in four weeks to get my team there. I had to add credit limit to my credit card last year when we made it. Its also something I see every year when top scoring teams don't make which is why you are suggesting this I guess. Having said all that, i would love to see how we'd do at worlds this year with this robot which is much better than the one that finished 14th but was knocked out in the quarters last year on Galileo. We could only afford our home regional this year so our season is done. The part about not knowing how well we could have done with such a good bot and not being able to show a couple of features that are very unique does have me a little disappointed. We certainly would have tried hard to make it if we had qualified under the system you are proposing. I know we could have added a lot to this years tournament. One big problem I see is that the field is just about maxed out at Worlds already. In order to give everyone there a good experience with maximum matches I understand the need to limit who goes. If there was a way to add wildcards I know you could up the level of competition. Plus look, we need all the help we can get to qualify over here...we have to go up against Glenn at 359 and the team at 368 every year and hope they don't pick each other or its lights out! |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Whoops, messed myself up thinking about 24-robot-long pick list and included half of the seeded teams by mistake. Anyway, that was pretty cool what we did there.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I blame everyone else at that regional. How could they pass you folks up?
I do realize that your robot got much better at each subsequent event, including the epic 4 match finals in LA. However, it was the key to all of us (with 100) winning it all. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Thanks Glenn!
Back on topic. It seems that FIRST is in the nebulous zone in which there are too many deserving teams but just not enough teams to convert the entire FIRST community to the District model such as in Michigan. This will often leave a lot of very deserving teams out of the Championships. In my mind (and some other 294 mentors) getting enough of the community to the district format would be a desired approach. To me a district format allows the best teams qualify with points. As it is right now, going to three regional events at this point is very difficult for a lot of teams but may be their way to earn their way to champs. We would love to see the district model attempted in So Cal. Though we do like going to new places! (Spokane next week!) The field in LA was 66 teams and I know we have more than that in the LA area. We are getting big enough to perhaps start thinking about it. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Not sure if this is a good way to do it, but VEX tournaments have 3 tiers of participation based on team registration. At small events, only the Excellence Award winner goes to Worlds; at medium events, the champion alliance and two awards (Excellence and Design? Not positive) goes to Worlds; and at large events, the winning and finalist alliances plus the two awards goes to Worlds.
(Correct me if I'm wrong, VEX competitors.) Perhaps we could stratify FIRST events into two tiers of 50- and 50+? That'd create a lot of logistical complications though, and I'm not entirely sure how teams dropping out/registering last minute would be handled. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
At least we could adopt a similar system to the Michigan ranking system except it is calculated nationally. There a lot of details to debate about. Without going much detail it would nice to have a running wait list of teams eligible to go to championship (excluding those that qualified already from awards and the regional champions). Teams can see their score and get a rough idea about their chances.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
If 177's Einstein streak ends because they didn't qualify... :(
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
177's streak does not simply "end". And ditto on the district model, LA is getting way too big and dense for even the two regionals in the area. Our team is made up of two high schools, and there is literally another team (330), on the same road, in between the 2. I think it's rather silly that we only compete ~twice a year, considering how easy it should be to get a bunch of teams together here.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
So here is the real problem: The team lottery and teams who just "buy" into worlds. If you wanted to make worlds just "the best of the best," you would remove these ways into the competition. However, this is not what worlds and IMHO what FIRST is about. FIRST is about inspiration. Is it more important for upper level teams to be inspired by other upper level teams? Or is it more important for those smaller teams who can't "win on the field" to see what can be done if you exploit the resources you have effectively? I know what my personal answer would.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I like a points system for assigning priority to the teams on the wait list. Even without district models in place everywhere, it would still be possible to design a reasonably fair points system.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
The New York Yankees and The Detroit Red Wings may be two of the best franchises in their respective sports but occasionally they miss the playoffs.
I think the Championship should be a "Pure" Championship. Only Winners, Chairman's, Rookie All-Star's and HoF teams should attend in my opinion. This is not meant to be a slight to EI winners, Original teams, or the winners from the previous years Championship. But the winner of the Super Bowl doesn't get to automatically play in it next year. 52 Regionals (3 Winners, Chairman's, Rookie All-Star) = 260 Teams Michigan- Should Qualify 15 Teams (3 Regionals worth) MAR- Should Qualify 15 Teams (3 Regionals worth) HoF Teams- 15 Teams ----------------------------------------- 305 Teams total (76 Teams in each division) |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
If you like the sports analogy, then what of wild cards? Event winners and RCA winners are basically division winners. FIRST could allow other teams in based on some criteria, and they would be wild cards. Sometimes wild cards are a great thing, particularly when the same division has more than one great team in the same year. Analogous situations happen in FIRST regional competition.
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
A points-based qualification system and a district competition model are two separate (albeit complementary) concepts. Even if every region isn't ready for the latter, it doesn't mean you can't institute the former to help sort the waiting list.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Your cause is not helped by the new "coopertition point system" that we will probably be seeing more of. Its easier now for less-skilled teams to seed as high as 1 and 2, based solely off a good schedule (They used to only be able to get to like 5 or 4). If this continues your solution might still keep "better teams" from going.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
2009 - 132 Teams - 3 Regionals - 3 Woodie Flowers - 3 Chairmans 2012 - 190 Teams - 3 Regionals?! (it should be 4 Regionals) - 1 Woodie Flowers - 3 Chairmans Isn't this why we do the math? -Clinton- |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
-Clinton- |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I've created a Google Doc that pulls out all of the unique #1-#3 ranked teams from each regional/district*. Since there's no way to do this quickly, I'd like your help finding the teams that would already qualify despite the rankings (Chairmans, EI, Winners). I've started listing the accomplishments in the "Unique Top 3 Seeds" sheet.
Here's the link. *EDIT: Except for the Hawaii Regional, since the rankings are missing from FIRST's website. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
So yes, FRC has a waitlist-qualification problem. Quote:
Since I am most familiar with the Lone Star Regional, I will do a simple exercise to see if the top 3 seeds qualify method is a valid metric to evaluate performance. I encourage everyone to do this exercise for their regionals. (c) - went to championship (nc) - did not attend championship Lone Star Regional: 2011: 118 (c) , 2936 (nc) , 2587 (nc) - all three teams should have attended, but only 1 did 2010: 148 (c) , 118 (c) , 624 (c) - all three should and did attend 2009: 418 (c) , 3028 (nc) , 441 (nc) - 441 should have attended champs, 3028 had a lucky schedule ! 2008: 118 (c) , 501 (c) , 1477 (c) - all three teams should and did attend 2007: 846 (nc) , 118 (c) , 476 (c) - 846 should have attended champs 2006: 1902 (c) , 231 (c) , 704 (nc) - 704 should have attended champs Conclusion: the top 3 seeds qualify method at the LSR back to 2006 was a valid indicator, only one team in 2009 was an anomaly. Many teams did not go to championships from Lone Star, when they probably should have gone ! Disclaimer: the commentary on who should have attended championship is based on my own opinion and does not represent the feelings of chief delphi ! :yikes: |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
This is one of the best threads ever on CD and I totally agree with the original poster. There needs to be a way that includes teams that barely miss after seeing so much success. I think your proposed method might be a bit hard to implement at this point. Here is my proposed solution:
Perhaps the entire FIRST community could vote for 3 teams each year that deserve to go but did not qualify AKA The Peoples Choice. Very simple, each team gets 1 vote and it can not be for themselves. FIRST is about inspiration and it can be quite devastating for a team that did all of the right things but just encountered a bit of bad luck. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
174 is 26-8-0 this year and we haven't qualified for Champs. Do I believe we should have qualified due to our win/loss record or our status as a 5th seed at FLR? No. As much as I want FIRST champs to be about the best-of-the-best robots of the year, I don't think that it fits in FIRST's ideals. You either qualify though one of the awards, though your victories or when it's your due time on the waiting list. What makes FIRST different and better than traditional sports teams is only the best of the year have the shot at the national title, whereas in FIRST all teams can have a Championship moment at some point.
Not to disrespect the original 32, but I don't think that's a good enough reasoning for an automatic qualifier now that we have surpassed 20 years of FIRST. I agree that should go, but not upset it exists. And I think that allowing previous winners to return could also be dropped. Want to win back-to-back Championships? Earn it. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
HoF falls under the same category to me. While I understand we are now removing ~30 spots from the pool we need to come up with a better qualifying system rather than remove things that should be celebrated. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
We could always add an extra day, which would allow for bigger divisions.
But I personally think we should rethink the system so that only the best teams are going. I hear the argument that everyone wants to go to champs, but you should have to earn it. If champs truly had the best teams matches would be much more fun, and spectator friendly. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
20, 45, 126, 148, 151, 190, 191 |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
-Brando |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
The best way to deal with this IMHO is for the non-districted regionals to adopt a district-style point accumulation system that qualifies teams to attend a Week 7 super event - let's call it Nationals*. Points can be earned only at the first two Regionals a team attends. Make the event open by qualification only, and make it a two-division event open to 100-120 teams.
From this Nationals event, just like a district Championship, there would be 18 spots for teams to qualify for Championship. It gives teams who came really close, but lost due to bad luck, random robot/FMS issue, etc another chance to both play at a prestigious event and potentially qualify for the World Championships. To make this model more financially viable, either eliminate the entry fee for attending the Nationals/Super Regionals event or halve the registration fee for additional Regionals and the National event. * Or another way could be to have several Week 7 Super Regionals instead of a single Nationals event, to move the event geographically closer to teams. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Adopting a super-regional system would have its merits, but I can tell you that it would be pretty tough for our team to attend four competitions in one year. It would be a little different if we had district events in nearby cities and only had one competition that was far away, but all of our events are out of state.
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
In the other thread about a qualification-only championship event, I advocated for a points system similar to how the regions with district events do it. Teams could attend events and earn points throughout the season and the top 300whatever teams would qualify for CMP.
For MAR (and I'm assuming FiM is probably similar), points are awarded as follows: 16 points to the #1 Alliance Captain 15 points to the #2 Alliance Captain and so on 16 points to the #1 overall pick (if they accept) 15 points to the #2 overall pick (if they accept) and so on Winning Alliance: 30 points to the alliance captain and the first pick, 24 to the second pick Finalists: 20 points to alliance captain and first pick, 16 to the second pick Semifinalists: 10 points to alliance captain and first pick, 8 to the second pick Each team receives 2 points for each match they win and 1 point for each match they tie. Technical/design awards and the coopertition awards are worth 5 points and the rest of the awards are worth 2. The winners of the Chairman's Award are the only ones who automatically qualify. I'd advocate for keeping automatic qualifications for the previous year's winners, HoF teams, original teams, etc. The number of spots they take up is pretty negligible and many of them qualify anyway each year. I think the points system does a pretty good job at determining which teams deserve to go to the championship in terms of robot ability. Obviously, a separate system for the actual Championship Event would have to be determined, but I posted the MAR one here just to give people an idea of how it would work. Perhaps even we could keep the current qualification rules (regional winners, RCA, EI, RAS) the same and use the points to determine the "at-large" or "wildcard" spots? |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
First note that I'm using 1114/2056 as examples since they're popular robots and teams to follow, so most people know their history and accomplishments each year.
FIRST will forever need teams wanting to buy a ticket to championships. Why? There are 52 Regionals, but not 260 unique teams that win those Regionals and/or get RCA's/EI's. To further emphasize this point, let's look at Canada. This year, 2056/1114 have dominated Canada's 3 Regionals Waterloo, GTR-E, and GTR-W (though not always together). A potential 12 slots from winners and RCA's went to only 7* unique teams since 1114/2056 take 2 slots via RCA's and 5 slots via winning. (* no research was done for the other teams to know if there was an RCA/Winner overlap). So there is a gap between space available at the venue and # of teams who've "earned" a slot. FIRST needs to fill those slots or the cost of the venue on a per-team basis would rise. Teams who want to buy a ticket to championship (such as those Canadian teams who are really good but can't get past the 1114/2056 combo every year) are more likely to be able to buy a slot, fullfilling their want and FIRST's needs. IMHO, if a team has completed a robot that's performed "average" on the field at a Regional then they've earned a slot to Championships. It shouldn't be up to us to deny those students the incredible experience just because they didn't have the right combination of strategy, talent, and luck at their event, especially if they've done enough to fund raise the near-astronomical cost of going to St. Louis on short notice. Save the "best of the best" attitudes for IRI, and remember that winning a FRC event is considered a secondary goal to FIRST's main mission. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I admit that I am relatively new to FIRST, and when I first learned that there were so many ways into the Championship *other* than winning a regional, I was surprised. It seems to me that the Championship should be reserved for only those teams that have shown that they have what it takes to win in a given year, not based on legacy reasons or those who can afford to "buy in." Clearly there is a lot more to it than that, but the Championship is already quite large as it is. If/when my team makes it to Championship, it will be because we won and not gotten in another way, and it would be nice to know that all the other teams there followed the same path.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I should add: I think the district model is the way to go and I look forward to it being implemented in CA.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I believe that at each regional the highest scoring robots in the scoring categories should be allowed to attend championships. Categories like Hybrid Points, Tele-op points, and endgame points. having a balanced selection of bots at championships would be the best in my opinion.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
We need a way of keeping track of individual scores and points before you can implement such a system |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
An interesting thought inspired by Jesse's post. What if the wait list spots were prioritized to go to teams who attended the same event as teams who earned multiple bids?
For example, since 2056 grabbed four championship bids (three regional wins and a RCA), the three spots created for wait list teams would be awarded to teams that attended the same regionals as 2056 (GTR-E, GTR-W, Waterloo). It could be done via a points system or simply by first to register (as it is now). In essence, this is accomplishing a similar feat to the District championship point system, allowing a set number of robots from each event to attend the championship. It also opens the door for teams that are perennially "stuck" behind high end competitors that dominate events. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
FIRST does celebrate individual teams through Chairman's, EI, etc... |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I think the District's point system is pretty good, but of course there needs to be some way so that those teams that can only afford one regional, but do very well can be compared to those that do well in multiple events.
That being said, the teams that enter Championships currently do deserve it. EI award winning teams are great inspirations on how to run and function as a team. There's the argument that the third alliance partner shouldn't move on, but that third alliance partner can be, and is often, essential to the victory. I'm pretty sure everyone here saw the Finals Matches for the famous GTR-west regional this past weekend. If you haven't seen it, here's a link: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/21501483 2200 and 4001 didn't seem like stellar bots, but they really did make it possible for the Blue Alliance to win the regional. Their defense and their place in the strategy made it possible, and their unique and key role in the winning strategy deserves a spot in CMP. That being said, there are teams like 118 that deserve a spot in CMP as well. Look at their OPR. It's a solid 33.9, ranked 6th in all of FRC. This is higher than 1986, 148, and 16, who've all won 2 regionals already. 118 has been amazing, and had bad luck as the only thing preventing them from moving on. If anyone watched the CT regional, 118 had comm issues in their semis, which was arguably the only thing preventing them from moving on. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
I think that a better way to go about it would be for each regional (or other qualifying even) to have a certain number of tickets to CMP, and that these tickets are all given to different teams -- so if a Regional Champion is also a RCA winner, then the extra ticket(s) flow down a pre-determined, known, objective hierarchy of teams. (Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, it could go to the Finalist captains, then the finalist first pick, then the finalist second pick... Or it could go to the top-seeded non-qualified team. Or to the winner of a particular award... Depending on the number of tickets you'd need a list of five or six (or as many as ten in later regionals) spots to take duplicate tickets). As an off-the-cuff idea I'm sure there are some devils cavorting in the fiery details, but even so I'd be much more comfortable with a 'spread-the-wealth' system that doesn't give the prerogative to the team that won extra golden tickets. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
There was a thread similar to this in the CMP subforum, but this one has caught fire so I find it necessary to share my thoughts on this here:
Quote:
Change is necessary, and it should be coming. The East Coast, West Coast, and Texas are thick with teams and we're still cobbling together this ancient regional model and allowing the fastest fingers to sign up for CMP. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Also, nothing prevents Michigan teams from playing outside of their district. If you feel the need to qualify more Michigan teams than they are more the welcome to sign up at a regional and compete for one of those spots. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Personally, I think the way to go is to do away with the wait list as the primary source for allowing teams into championships after qualifying. If teams who have already qualified qualify again at an event by winning, getting an RCA, EI, etc., then they should have some way of looking to the next best teams at the event and offer them a spot at Championships rather than immediately going to the wait list. Then if these teams cannot make it, by all means use the wait list as a fall back plan! They could choose to use either seeding or even OPR as a metric for this.
For example: This years qualifying teams from the Connecticut Regional were 694 for RCA, 1511 for EI, 4055 for Rookie All Star, and the winning alliance of 195, 181, and 20. Of these 6 teams, 2 of them had already qualified for the Championship (181 with their Chesapeake Regional victory and 20 with original and sustaining status). With these 2 spots that are now open, FIRST should invite the next highest seeded teams to the Championship or the next highest OPR teams to Championship rather than resorting directly to the wait list. If these teams cannot go, then fine go to the wait list. If you go by highest remaining seed, 2168 and 177 would get the additional bids. If you go by highest remaining OPR, 118 and 558 would get these bids, and 177 would have gotten a bid earlier in the year at WPI because 190 already qualifies with original and sustaining status and won the event, and they have the next highest "adjusted OPR" according to Ed Law and Team 2834's scouting database. So to summarize: if you go by seed 2168 and 177 would have qualified, with 118 still having an even greater chance of getting a bid next week given that many of the teams there have already qualified. If you go by OPR, 118 and 558 would have gotten the bids at CT, and 177 would have already received a bid from WPI. If any of these teams could not make it or raise funds for the Championship, then by all means, the wait list is reasonable. As for those who argue that the less competitive teams should be able to go to the Championship for inspiration, I wholeheartedly agree! But there are other ways to get there. Many regional winning alliances are comprised of 2 highly competitive teams and a less competitive team (not saying this is always the case, just a trend). The Rookie All Star award, RCA, and EI awards offer another avenue for less competitive teams to earn their way to the Championship. Also, these less competitive teams who earn their way in will also happen to be the ones who will best be prepared to implement what inspires them at the Championship in subsequent years and become competitive. I'm saying this because having teams like 118 and 177 this year miss out on the Championship DOES NOT, in my opinion, best achieve the mission of FIRST. There can be better criteria in place to ensure that deserving teams such as these are very likely to be at the Championship when they perform as they have this year. However, everyone must understand that no matter what system FIRST has in place, there will always the remain the possibility that a deserving team is left out. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
I don't like the idea of "selection" by the re-qualifying teams, because this invites a biased system. I'm not saying teams are dishonest, but many teams may prefer to select their friends to go for several reasons, when by the pure performance numbers a lesser known or rookie team might deserve to go. A system like this would allow great teams and robots like 177, 1983 and 3256 to qualify for championships with their phenomenal robots. We all know 177's story. They haven't won a regional since 2006 but they made 6 straight trips to Einstein, and they've clearly built one of their best robots to date this year. It would be a shame not to see them go. 1983 has been #3 and #1 seed are their two events, and finalists both times. The second instance was largely due to massive lag of both 1983's and 488's controls systems in match 2 of finals (having won match 1) resulting in neither team being able to use their camera targeting systems. While they still have another chance to qualify, they clearly are deserving of a championship berth (currently #6 overall OPR I believe) regardless of what happens at Spokane. 3256 reached the finals at both Sacramento and Silicon Valley, losing to 971 both times. They were the 2nd overall pick at SVR and very very good. It's also noted that all 3 top seeded teams (971, 1868 and 254) had already qualified for championships as regional winner, RCA and HoF teams respectively. These are just a few stories of many, but the point is that it would be really great to see a transparent method put forth by FIRST that would reward currently CMP waitlisted teams with a spot at the championships who are most deserving of going, for whatever reasons may be. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
EDIT: Nuttyman beat me to it. Darn. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
The method of teams earning their way to championships is very skewed. It has its ups and downs.
On the up-side, the winning alliance gets to bring veteran teams, usually the #1 seed, and a rookie, usually the 3rd pick. The great thing about the entire winning alliance going to worlds is that it gives the power teams the chance to go to championships, and it gives the rookie team, or 3rd pick, one that usually doesn't go to worlds, the ability to experience the competition and hopefully make the changes they need to make over the course of the year so that during the next FRC season, they ARE the powerhouse team. On the down side, there are very few methods of getting the other various "great" teams to a regional. Yes, there is the RCA, EI, and Rookie All-Star awards, but what about the other great teams. Yes, the rest of the best as the topic starter calls it. Clearly it's not something that I, or any one of us can come up with a fair solution to it, as we all have the best interests in mind for our own team, but this is something that FRC needs to address. Like Dale from 1056 said, their robot performed great at the competition, and coming from personal experience, their team is a great one, but they didn't make it to champs? Somethings wrong here, as the same thing happens at every regional. Many months of planning go into the FRC season. Not to mention the 6-weeks of staying till 11PM every night after school to work on the robot. Teams MUST be given the opportunity to go to worlds. Championships should not be only a reward, but an experience and an OPPORTUNITY. All teams should be able to find a way to go. As not being able to go really does give the feeling of being left out. FIRST needs to address this, but thats just my opinion. Secondly, where are the students? Shouldn't teams be represented by the student members. Not the coaches, alumni, college students, or the mentors. FIRST is about shaping future engineers. It's what FIRST is about... the kids. Not the adults helping the kids. But that's another issue. Probably one that will never be addressed. That's all for now. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
My thought of the two regionals we attended - Pittsburgh and Wisconsin - is that the teams finishing in the Top 8 at each event were generally legit. It would be interesting to see the Top 8 lists from all regionals, with OPR's attached. Let's see how many "lucky" teams really did make it into the Top 8. And haven't we had the same arguments about "lucky teams" seeding high back in the old W-L-T as first sort, then ranking points as second sort model? Aren't you always going to have some anomalies like that? I'd much rather have this system, where a team - be they awesome, average, or poor - can TRULY accomplish something of value to directly earn CP to overcome bumps in the road (communications issues, mechanical breakdown, etc.), than any of the old systems where match losers get extra, rather meaningless "ranking points" that don't give them a realistic shot at rising very far in the overall rankings due to being a slave to their W/L/T record. Most of the best teams in FIRST have had few issues coming out on top with this CP model in place, because they've embraced the coopertition bridge and gotten the job done, in addition to their usual excellence at scoring points elsewhere. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
A few thoughts and a conclusion:
1. Logistically 360 is probably the right number of teams for Championships. 2. Eventually all those spots will be taken by qualifiers under the current system. 3. But with some teams earning multiple championship qualifications and some choosing not to go there will always be room for some from a wait list. 4. There was no announced merit system for moving teams from this wait list. Conclusion: I saw the teams at CT, they are great. But it is too late to change what is done to move teams off the wait list this year. Looking ahead a merit system for filling out the Championships field makes a lot of sense. It needs to be announced in the Fall so we can all make appropriate plans. I think the system should involve order of finish (finalists, semifinalists) as the primary criteria. We all knew this day would come. Let's not let it spoil our FIRST experience. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
"Lucky schedules" will always be a part of any system that anyone can devise, as it is with almost every sport or competition. Stay in the game long enough and it all evens out.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
It seems like a strictly mathematical system will always have its flaws, i.e. teams seeding high based on lucky schedules. So, why not take the system previously mentioned where teams that qualify more than once give one of their tickets to the championship to another team, and have the judges determine who gets that ticket? They already get a close-up view and detailed description of each robot as well as being able to see them in action from the best seats in the house, so it wouldn't take that much extra effort to get them to determine who moves on. I am relatively unfamiliar with the judging process, but from what I have seen, they seem to be the closest to an unbiased yet human way of determining who moves on.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Obviously, this does increase the chances of ties in a point-based system. Additionally, any biasing in the ranking system towards running more qualification matches (FiM/MAR rankings reward 2 points per qualification win) or larger events (FIRST's proposed ranking system would award 50 points to the #1 seed at a 50 team event but only 35 points for a #1 seed at a 35 team event) would have to be considered as well. But I think this is a less fundamentally flawed system than encouraging later season events. |
FIRST is about inspiring young budding engineers and it has done an amazing job thus far. I would propose a simple adjustment to make it even better.
*** All regional finalists are not allowed to pick each other again in subsequent regionals in the same season. *** 1. This promotes diversity so that teams can learn a more diverse set of teammates and as we all know, diversity foster innovation. 2. Younger, less established teams get more opportunities to learn from veterans and super-teams on the field. This is priceless. 3. From a fans viewpoint, it is more exciting to see a wider variety of alliances. Just watch F1 between 1114/3161-led red team and 2056-led blue team in the GTR west this year. It was riveting and exciting. It's this kind of excitement that brings us back every year. 4. It enables more REST of the BEST teams to get into CMP and reduce the need for a waiting list. 5. It is a small tweak that is more likely to be assimilated into the system. Simple is good. What do you think? |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Well, taking an old idea I had about the Championship - imagine if every team was slotted to a Division right at the start of the season.
Team 1 Archimedes Team 4 Newton Team 5 Newton Team 7 Galileo Team 8 Curie Team 9 Galileo Team 11 Archimedes Team 16 Curie (repeat) The teams are divided up randomly like that, so to ensure the same teams don't always end up together. And teams will be randomly set up at the start of each year. 90 teams from each Division will be invited to the Championship. In order to be invited, you must either a) acquire one of the many automatic qualifiers, b) apply and have the top ranking of all teams applying. Firstly, all of the automatic qualifiers will be given their Slot at the beginning of the year: the original 32, last years winners and so on. So if Team A, B and C won last year, and Team A and B are in Curie and C is in Newton, there are now 88 Slots left in Curie and 89 left in Newton. Then, all Automatic qualifiers will rank next, filling up the majority of the Divisions. A team with multiple qualifiers will be placed into the division first, and all other teams with only one will be placed next, in their total year ranking order based on all events they played. This way, if a division is top heavy and more than 90 teams earn qualifiers, those who earned more than one will be given a more automatic chance into the Division. Teams with better yearly records will be given their single bid bid whereas the lower teams who were simply selected second by the top seeds of the event will be left out (if that ever happens) So lets say that Archimedes has 20 Slots left after filling all of their Automatic Qualifiers. This means that the top 20 robotics teams in that year's Archimedes Division apply for Champs will be accepted in. If a team like 2056 has won 4 bids in a year, that means that 3 additional spots will be open to fill additional "application bid" teams. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
1) The waitlist is very important. It allows teams that would never have gone to championships otherwise, to attend. I think it is very important for the m to see the best, and WANT to not only earn their way there next year, but to also see how the best teams got there.
2) Teams who have one championships should definitely be allowed to go the next year. First of all, they worked hard to get there. Second of all, I think everyone wants to see the improvement they have made since the last time we say them 3) While it should be hard to get to championships, teams that deserve to go(namely 118) should be going. There needs to be a way to fix the system. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Consider 1319 (who registered for Championship on an open slot this year, but roll with this). Their trophy cabinet this year? Smoky Mountains Industrial Design Award Smoky Mountains Finalist Peachtree Engineering Excellence Award Peachtree Industrial Safety Award Peachtree Finalists Palmetto Industrial Safety Award Palmetto Innovation in Control Award Palmetto Quality Award Palmetto Semifinalists That's eight trophies this year, and two silver medals...but nothing that punches their ticket to St. Louis. In a perfect world (and one where they weren't registered), they'd be one of the top contenders for an open slot. Or consider 343, who collected two regional finalists this year and is not set to go to Championship this year. Obviously, 1319 would be the higher priority to get in...but two medals should get you pretty far up the list. Other notions: 1) WFA should remain not an automatic qualifier, but it should have a heft to it compared to other awards. 2) Every animation or website team that complains that their competition is meaningless would get something to hustle over. I don't know whether it'd draw the award back to the regional level as in years past, but imagine if even the top X teams in the contest as it sits got a rub. What bubble team fighting for a spot in the show wouldn't give it their best shot? 3) This system should lead to the end of the restrictions on rookie teams at Championship only getting there through RAS or a championship. If a rookie team can produce at the level that gets them in, they deserve the spot. 4) Performance from the prior year should be a tiebreaker across points. If one team has 30 points and earned 30 the year before, they should be offered the spot ahead of a team that earned 30 this year and nothing the year before. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Quote:
Can you say "six fields"? While we're possibly not ready for this now, at the current growth rate we should be there before the St Louis agreement runs out. Maybe I am missing something here, but such a thing could satisfy both camps: Those who want merit/performance to play a greater role, and those who want to allow those "wild cards" to "buy" their way in to get the CMP experience. Win Win? Surely there's a venue that can manage this. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I think we could fix a huge part of this using a sort of "post-season Judges Award". Here's how I think it would work:
A few teams from each regional that did not qualify for Championships are nominated by judges (or even other teams could submit a story about a team they think is deserving, if you want) based on something exemplary displayed at that regional, be it on or off the field. In my mind there would be 4-5 awarded per regional, with 2-3 being teams very close to winning the regional (the 118 and 177 award, if you will) and the remaining 2-3 being particularly inspiring teams, a sort of RCA/EI "runner-up". At this point it is basically your typical Judges Award, but with maybe a few more of them given out. After week 6 a group of judges would then select teams from this pool to fill the slots opened by teams winning multiple events/awards (leave a few slots for teams nominated out of the districts, I assume you would award these spots after that region's local Championship event). If any of these teams cannot attend for whatever reason, their spot goes to a waitlist, which could prioritize other teams from this Judges Award pool or be styled like the current waitlist. My original thought was to have this be decided completely within the regional, with any spots won by teams that are already qualified being given directly to winners of Judges Awards. However, this would be unfair to any teams that compete only in a Week 1 event, as no teams would already have a slot except teams from the Hall of Fame, original teams, and the defending champions. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I suggested quite a while ago that there should be an additional Judges Award, optional as the existing ones are, that would also qualify a team for championships; the judges would award it to any team with a compelling reason to go, whatever that may be. That could include performing very, very well but not qualifying for whatever reason...
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Much of this thread has been about competitive robots that do well on the field.
What about teams that narrowly miss out on a Chairman's Award? Or teams that narrowly miss out on Engineering Inspiration? If RCA is the most important award at a regional, shouldn't a team with a "near miss" on their RCA application deserve more consideration than a finalist or "top seed" spot? Jason P.S. No. Despite some occasional overlap in criteria, the Engineering Inspiration award is not the "Runner Up" for the Chairman's award. They are seperate and distinct awards. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Space constraints are an issue, as is the extended time for Einstein. With 6 teams, you have to figure out who gets the bye. A thread to consider: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=76476 (8 divisions, 4 fields) I know there are more, but I really don't want to go digging that far back right now. Maybe some other time. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
don't forget the robot is just the product. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Over the last half decade, FIRST has essentially added a whole other division "internally", meaning they upped the count to where you would have 4-90/5-72 team divisions instead of the earlier 4-70 team fields. Would FRC downsize the divisions when they add two, or actually add ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY PITS AND TWO FIELDS IN ADDITION TO THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FRC PITS, 4 FRC FIELDS, and everything else... I feel like we would make more of a large town than a village or hamlet in the pits. I don't know of any kind of facility that has all of that room... but I'm sure there is one. Let's go back to Reliant Park! /kidding |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
If I'm just being paranoid and this is directed at someone else, then simply disregard. :D |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Does anyone else feel that the "Rest of the Best", kind of has an Invitational sound to it? When I hear this, it kind of reminds me of the NIT.
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
FTC Qualification Order: 1.* Inspire Award Winner (Inspire is similar to Chairman's) 2. Winning Alliance Captain 3. Inspire Award 2nd place 4. Winning Alliance, 1st team selected 5. Inspire Award 3rd place 6. Winning Alliance, 2nd team selected 7. Think Award Winner 8. Finalist Alliance Captain 9. Connect Award Winner 10. Finalist Alliance, 1st team selected 11. Rockwell Collins Innovate Award Winner 12. Finalist Alliance, 2nd team selected 13. PTC Design Award Winner 14. Highest Ranked Team not previously advanced 15. Motivate Award Winner 16. Highest Ranked Team not previously advanced *Technically, #1 on the list is "Qualifier Host Team" but this only applies to local qualifiers, and it doesn't translate to FRC, so I left it out for simplicity. It would not be that difficult to design a similar pecking order for FRC. The top six spots could be the same as they are now. The next on the list could be, for example, the finalist alliance captain or the highest seeded team not already qualified. Note that as the Championship gets more crowded (absent an increase to six fields), a pecking order lets you easily scale back to five qualifying teams per regional. #6 on the list is not completely hosed, because they still qualify some of the time. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
As much as inspiration is important to students, keep in mind regardless of who goes to the Championship event, people will be inspired. Team ABC doesn't make it but Team DEF does, people still get inspired. I do not understand the "You are taking inspiration from teams who otherwise may not qualify for Championships." If you want to get there you have to earn it. The teams that I have grown up on, followed through FIRST, and mentored at all shared this idea that you have to earn your place, TINSTAAFL (There Is No Such Thing as A Free Lunch).
So lets say we implement Lucien's novel idea and beef up the competition at the Championships. Wouldn't seeing more competitive robots play on the field inspire more people? I'm pretty sure more people would follow Championships outside of Einstein if we had multiple match ups during qualifying along the lines of Poofs, Hammond, Baxter vs Simbotics, RoboWranglers, Wildstang? And this in turn introduces more people to some of the great designs in all of FIRST and inspires students next year to come up with even better ideas and helps show a greater understanding of what is possible in the realm of engineering. I'm all for adding the #1 and #2 seeds and potentially going to #3 and #4 seeds if there is room across the board at championships but I do not think elevating others is a good idea (A qualifies at earlier regional but still seeds #1 at later regional, team B does not move up) as space is always limited and whatever is left at the end could always go to the lottery. Pavan . |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Or instead of 4*90 teams, go to 8*45. This is 8 alliances for Einstein, and game play more like a small regional on all 8 fields, so the timing isn't as much of a problem. (Small regionals can fit in 12 matches + eliminations in <2 days easily) |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
Most importantly, what would the other two divisions be called?! :p |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I know this sort of throws support behind the current system, but I'd like to point out that part of the buy-in's function is to allow teams to make travel plans with greater notice when it's more affordable. For instance, the one time we went to Worlds, we bought in and then qualified by winning Philadelphia. (Granted, we had no idea we'd win...) We probably would not have been able to travel there if we hadn't per-arranged, at least not with our entire team. Unfortunately, the students who could and did most benefit from the inspirational opportunity would probably have been the ones that couldn't attend (i.e. students who aren't yet essential personnel).
I'm not specifically advocating the current system, but the issue of lead time is something, I think, to consider. Having just gone through some difficulty registering for the MAR Championship (we had, in fact, pre-paid), the more teams that qualify later in the season, the harder it is for everyone logistically. Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
However, I really like the thought of lower amounts of teams per divisions. 10 Qual matches per team split between 2nd half of Thursday and all of Friday. Then Saturday would start out with Division Finals, wrapping up around 11am. Then Einstein could start at 1pm instead of 4 pm. It'd basically negate the need for many teams to stay overnight on Saturday night in order to catch flights on Sunday since flights would be spread across more of Saturday. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
The "Awesome Historical Figures" 4: Tesla Euler Maxwell Morse Alternatively I propose a "New 4": Ritchie Hopper Sagan Turing I would be interested in going to a slightly-smaller-per-division, 8-division Champs. Would require QUITE the venue though... I'm also in support of "extra" invites trickling down in a merit based system (hopefully keeping a robot/Chairmansy balance). Edit: i dont remember all the FTC/FLL names. I think Euler might already be one. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
If there is an implementation of the seeding or ranking model, make sure it isn't unfair to the teams that can't go to many regionals. I think it's fine if there are more chances to get to CMP the more regionals you go to, but if you did a cumulative point tally of sorts, teams that are unable to go to more than one will have a huge disadvantage to those who are able.
Also, I second Tesla, Euler and Turing. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Going to eight somewhat smaller divisions wouldn't necessarily be a huge logistic challenge. If you do something like the 2006 GTR dual-field setup, alternating matches for Galileo Alpha division teams on one field with Galileo Beta division teams on an adjacent field, you can share big-screen video and personnel between them and you won't need a lot of separation between the fields. You can double up the split divisions in the pit area, so you wouldn't need much more in the way of volunteers.
It would be a very busy time for people working dual fields, with a match starting every 3 or 4 minutes. But the pool of qualified volunteers is getting large enough that I don't think that would be the limiting factor. I think the biggest issue would be more than doubling the number of Einstein matches. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I had an idea about how to increase the number of teams at the championship, but in an effort to not derail this thread I have put it here:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...hreadid=105379 |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Quote:
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Yep, 2 days off for a regional is already a lot, a whole week off for robotics just doesn't sound practical for someone who is working full time. Especially since most of us get only 2 or 3 weeks off a year...
|
Re: The Rest Of The Best
Just some random thoughts,
Sometimes losing at a regional and not qualifying for Champs is a good thing in disguise. Our team built a killer of a robot last year. We entered in only one regional confident we were going to 3 peat as the first seed and gain our berth to Champs. We ran into CAN problems with the Jaguars and a bunch of small problems on the field and we lost critical matches in quals. We ended up in the 5th seed alliance going against the #1 seed in the semi's at our home regional. We gave the Poofs and the Holy Cows a run for their money but we lost in the semi's and our season was over. We were real disappointed we didn't make it to Champs but this didn't stop our team. We took the monies we would of spent at Champs and spent it on new tools and new CAD computers. We did more demo's showing off the robot we built. We competed at 2 off season events and won Cal Games. We went to Madtown and lined up against two World Champions 973 and 254 in the finals. We searched for more sponsors so we can compete in 2 regional's this year. We held summer CAD classes for any student interested. We organized our growing team and sought out some new mentors to bring in new capabilities for this year. Our team also stepped up team promotion to judges at the regional this year. We figured it out that it doesn't earn any recognition if our innovative robot features are a well kept secret. We had mentors from two other successful teams come and talk to our team about how to talk to judges to show them what a great robot we have. The team didn't win a judging award this year but the judges came back multiple times to ask more questions and that was pretty exciting. Even more important than winning is the way our team worked together at this years competition. The students' level of accomplishment grows every year and it shows. There were students working on the robot, talking to judges, helping other teams with their robots, looking at other teams' robots, and watching matches to scout the other teams to see who would make the best alliance partners. This year has been a great ride so far and I am very proud of our team. FIRST is about being gracious competitors and we take that very seriously on the MVHS team. |
Re: The Rest Of The Best
I don't know other regionals, having never attended one, but I do know the Hawaii regional very well. This year, for about 80% of the teams at the Hawaii regional, Hawaii was the only regional. I don't know anything about other regions, but my guess is that that number seems unusually high to many teams on the Mainland US. For our regional it is actually unusually low. We just can't afford the airfare.
I am against any sort of ranking "counting statistic" that takes multiple regionals into account simply because it leaves Hawaii and Israel teams out in the cold. If the "buy-in" slots to Worlds were taken away, I would rather they were replaced with extra slots at the individual regionals assigned in proportion to the number of teams at an event than by extra slots worldwide. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:40. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi