Nationals a la NCAA
 

Posted by Chris.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 3/16/2000 1:33 PM MST



I've mentioned this last year, but I want to bring it up again. I think this would be a fun way to do the national elimination rounds. All it would cost FIRST is one additional round of eliminations (but a lot more teams get in). This also helps the problem of having too many teams.

1. There are around 280 teams going to nationals this year. Divide the teams up into 4 groups. This makes 70 teams per group (roughly the size of the Great Lakes Regional). These groups then play within themselves like a regional. The seeding is done within the group, a top 8 is determined, and the teams select partners from within the group.

2. Eliminations are then held within each group (4 stages at nationals and 4 groups means that each group does their thing at a particular stage). The eliminations then produce a champion of each group.

3. The champions of each group make up the 'Final Four'. This is just like the NCAA tournament in which there are 4 regions and the champions of each region make up the Final Four.

4. The Final Four then converge on the main stage and play for the championship.

There could be a special award for each team that makes it to the final four and then the grand prize for the champion alliance. This way, more teams are winners.

Step 1 above could be optional. I think having step one would solve some of the problems with having too many teams (as Joe J. mentioned in a post below). However, even if you don't want to do step 1, it would still be neat to have a top 8 for each stage and then have the 4 champions duke it out in the FIRST Final Four.

Perhaps it's too late for this year, but I think this would add a new level of excitement. Especially since making the Final Four would be a big honor (just like the NCAA tourney, teams hang banners from the rafters for Final Four appearances even if they don't win the championship).

I like it
 

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 3/16/2000 2:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Nationals a la NCAA posted by Chris on 3/16/2000 1:33 PM MST:



Chris,

I like it.

Teams could be randomly divided into A, B, C, & D groups. A's always play A's etc.

In this way teams would only have to scout 70 teams -- manageable.

I don't think that FIRST would devote each stage to specific groups because then one group would always be out in the sun :-(. But perhaps a rotation could be arranged. For instance, groups could all play on the same stage for rounds 1 & 2 but then switch for 3 & 4 and switch again fro 5 & 6, etc.

Actually, I think that this proposal helps make FIRST more TV friendly and therefore I think it should be adopted this year if possible.

One additional benefit is that it would also give teams a natural alliance to cheer for in the Final Four, thus keep more people invovled in the outcome of the Finals.

I see only upside to this proposal.

Other thoughts?

Joe J.

Great Ideas - Not too late!
 

Posted by Raul.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 3/16/2000 3:12 PM MST


In Reply to: I like it posted by Joe Johnson on 3/16/2000 2:53 PM MST:



These are great ideas.

I don't see why it is too late for FIRST to implement this format. It does not affect anything that the teams have planned for. There is no reason that I can think of why the format for the National should not be different from the regionals.

Figuring out how to balance the field for each section is the only issue. They just have to be careful not to load one group with too many strong or weak teams - how would they judge that? Maybe by results of the regionals?

Raul

Re: Great Ideas - Not too late!....give them a break
 

Posted by Fran .

Other on team #166, Team Merrimack, from Merrimack High School and Texas Instruments/R.S. Machines.

Posted on 3/17/2000 10:33 AM MST


In Reply to: Great Ideas - Not too late! posted by Raul on 3/16/2000 3:12 PM MST:




I realize that everyone is getting restless waiting to compete for the first time or again BUT what do you guys think the first people are doing while we type our opinions and great ideas on CDF?

They're on the road for all of March setting up and knocking down meets and I bet they don't even want to think about making any changes for this year but will love it for next year.

FIRST HQ is so empty right now that it echos......I know this because they have started a new program that will affect our future: ROBOWIZARDS......kids 10-13 can go every weds for 2 hours and get 5 weeks of lessons/hands on building on drive trains, pneumatics, linkage etc and then 5 weeks of building a robot like the high school kids!! I can't wait til these kids get to the high school and I wish our team memebers could take a mini-first program. They will also offer it as a 1 week summer camp. Well the point I was trying to make is that there are only a small handful of people at HQ now and during nationals week only the 2 guys running the kids program will be there.So maybe they will read your great ideas now and maybe they will in a saner time.

Fran
Team 166
TECHNO INSANITY



: These are great ideas.

: I don't see why it is too late for FIRST to implement this format. It does not affect anything that the teams have planned for. There is no reason that I can think of why the format for the National should not be different from the regionals.

: Figuring out how to balance the field for each section is the only issue. They just have to be careful not to load one group with too many strong or weak teams - how would they judge that? Maybe by results of the regionals?

: Raul

Re: Great Ideas - too late for this year
 

Posted by Jon.

Engineer on team #190, Gompei, from Mass Academy of Math and Science and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Posted on 3/19/2000 7:41 PM MST


In Reply to: Great Ideas - Not too late! posted by Raul on 3/16/2000 3:12 PM MST:



(ok, safety glasses people! i'm running on my basic knowledge of statistics... :)
Theoretically, assuming that the distribution of strong to weak teams is close to a normal distribution then a random breakdown into 4 groups would result in 4 groups with normal distributions right?

using the regionals results wouldn't be totally representative as teams get better after each competition and there are extenuating circumstances that may throw results way off and make crazy outliers in the data... plus what about teams that can only afford one competition?

i like the concept because it makes more recognized winners and stuff, but these issues are really weird...

maybe next year...

Re: I like it....eh.....
 

Posted by Michael.

Student on team #188, The Blizzard, from Woburn Collegiate Institute and Ontario Power Generation.

Posted on 3/16/2000 3:23 PM MST


In Reply to: I like it posted by Joe Johnson on 3/16/2000 2:53 PM MST:



But there are flaws eh?..I had to throw that 'eh' in...For example, all the so-called 'good' teams could be put in one division, and the final four could be between a super good alliance, and 3 not-so-super-good alliances, right? And you still would have to scout other teams, because the winners of each division would have to scout for potential ally's anyways...Besides, scouting is fun, isn't it?

Mike

: Chris,

: I like it.

: Teams could be randomly divided into A, B, C, & D groups. A's always play A's etc.

: In this way teams would only have to scout 70 teams -- manageable.

: I don't think that FIRST would devote each stage to specific groups because then one group would always be out in the sun :-(. But perhaps a rotation could be arranged. For instance, groups could all play on the same stage for rounds 1 & 2 but then switch for 3 & 4 and switch again fro 5 & 6, etc.

: Actually, I think that this proposal helps make FIRST more TV friendly and therefore I think it should be adopted this year if possible.

: One additional benefit is that it would also give teams a natural alliance to cheer for in the Final Four, thus keep more people invovled in the outcome of the Finals.

: I see only upside to this proposal.

: Other thoughts?

: Joe J.

Scouting??
 

Posted by Keith Liadis.

Student on team #131, C.H.A.O.S., from Manchester Central High School and Osram Sylvania and Fleet Bank.

Posted on 3/16/2000 5:20 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: I like it....eh..... posted by Michael on 3/16/2000 3:23 PM MST:



I'm sorry.. did you say that scouting was... *twitch twitch* FUN?!?!? hehe...

Re: Scouting??
 

Posted by Nate Smith.

Other on team #66, GM Powertrain/Willow Run HS, from Eastern Michigan University and GM Powertrain.

Posted on 3/16/2000 5:37 PM MST


In Reply to: Scouting?? posted by Keith Liadis on 3/16/2000 5:20 PM MST:



: I'm sorry.. did you say that scouting was... *twitch twitch* FUN?!?!? hehe...

Believe me, once you see our scouting system...you just might think it is...entering our scouting results into the system is as much fun as wandering the web...literally. Stop by the GM Central Intelligence booth in Chicago or Orlando to find out what I mean...

Nate

Randomize is best
 

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 3/16/2000 7:37 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Scouting?? posted by Nate Smith on 3/16/2000 5:37 PM MST:



I would say that FIRST should just randomly assign teams to the four groups.

Yes, there is a chance of the second or third or fourth best alliance being eliminated on the way the the Final Four, but this is not anything new.

The ranking as it is is not perfect. It is just as likely that second best alliance plays the best alliance prior to the finals. Similar fates are likely to befall the 3rd and 4th best alliances which are often eliminated prior to the semi-finals.

I really think that this would be a great system for FIRST to adopt.

As to scouting, I think that teams could greatly scale back scouting of teams from the off group. Teams could more or less limit scouting to the semi-finals & finals from each group. If teams knew which group they would be up against in the Final Four (say A plays B and C plays D) this would simply scouting even more.

Joe J.

Re: Randomize is best
 

Posted by Brett R..

Student on team #201, Viste-Feds, from Rochester High School and Visteon Automotive Systems.

Posted on 3/16/2000 8:03 PM MST


In Reply to: Randomize is best posted by Joe Johnson on 3/16/2000 7:37 PM MST:



If you did it any other way, like by region, all the regions would be sorta screwed, because the northeast has all the industry and mechanical engineers. >:)

I don't like it. I don't like it one bit. I don't know why so don't ask me. :)

Re: Randomize is best....eh?
 

Posted by Michael.

Student on team #188, The Blizzard, from Woburn Collegiate Institute and Ontario Power Generation.

Posted on 3/17/2000 7:35 AM MST


In Reply to: Randomize is best posted by Joe Johnson on 3/16/2000 7:37 PM MST:



: I would say that FIRST should just randomly assign teams to the four groups.

: Yes, there is a chance of the second or third or fourth best alliance being eliminated on the way the the Final Four, but this is not anything new.

: The ranking as it is is not perfect. It is just as likely that second best alliance plays the best alliance prior to the finals. Similar fates are likely to befall the 3rd and 4th best alliances which are often eliminated prior to the semi-finals.

: I really think that this would be a great system for FIRST to adopt.

: As to scouting, I think that teams could greatly scale back scouting of teams from the off group. Teams could more or less limit scouting to the semi-finals & finals from each group. If teams knew which group they would be up against in the Final Four (say A plays B and C plays D) this would simply scouting even more.

: Joe J.

But...you see, top ranked teams, i would think, don't pick an alliance purely on QP average and rank right? So you could have a wicked 'bot, and have low QP, it happens. However, you still can get picked the way it is now right? The way it is now, every team has an equal chance at getting into the finals. And, even if it is randomized, there still is a possibility that a lot of the 'good' teams will be put in one single division. And there is no way to stop that, because the divisions can not be assigned by 'goodness', because FIRST doesn't work like that. They also can't be assigned from regional results, because for most teams, regionals is a warm up, and things are still getting fixed. So QP means a little less in regionals. So with 4 divisions, there really is no fair way to divide up the teams. I'd rather chance doing well against 250 teams then risk being in a division of like 80 or 90, with the top 5 teams in it...right?

Mike
Team 188 - Blizzard
www.team188.com

I think this IMPROVES chances of low ranking teams
 

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 3/17/2000 8:36 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Randomize is best....eh? posted by Michael on 3/17/2000 7:35 AM MST:



It is not an easy straightfoward case, but I think on average, the idea of small groups (70 being small -- relative to 280 anyway) helps teams that will not rank high but are good partners.

Here is my logic.

Within each group of 70, all the teams have a fairly good idea of who is in there group with the skills that are needed to help win the championship of that group.

So, when the picking comes, the top 8 ranked teams do a pretty good job of picking alliance partners based on theses skills.

Then each group has its own quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals. THEN each finals winner from the 4 groups supplies one alliance to the FINAL FOUR.

Yes it is possible that the second place finisher from group B may have been able to beat any of the finalist from groups A, C and D but that is just the luck of the seedings, which is no different from the NCAA men's basketball tourney when you think about it.

I argue that teams that are good but rank low are less likely to fall between the cracks when there are 4 groups of 8 picking teams choosing from 4 corresponding relatively well know groups of 70 teams than when there are 16 picking teams choosing from a massive & bewildering group of 280 teams.

For one thing the math is better. 8 out of 70 is a better percentage than 16 out of 280.

For another thing, the social dynamics are better. If a group plays all 7 qualifying matches against teams from the same group, then they will simply KNOW more about the teams that they are picking from that group.

Finally, smaller groupings help low ranking teams trying to market themselves as good partners by limiting the number of teams that could pick them, therefore allowing them to focus there efforts.

By the way, one additional benefit is that it would allow FIRST to give out more awards without too much shame. They could have a 'play of the day' from each group, a 'rookie all-star' or two from each group, at 'group champion' & 'group finalist' from each group, etc.

This really would be a great idea to implement ASAP (2000 if possible).

Joe J.

Re: I think this IMPROVES chances of low ranking teams
 

Posted by Michael.

Student on team #188, The Blizzard, from Woburn Collegiate Institute and Ontario Power Generation.

Posted on 3/17/2000 9:25 AM MST


In Reply to: I think this IMPROVES chances of low ranking teams posted by Joe Johnson on 3/17/2000 8:36 AM MST:



Okay! Maybe.....a little right! Actually, it's a pretty good idea now that I think about it for low end teams. However, do you think that this would effect the finals? In the good 'ol one division thing goin' on right now, you can be pretty certain that the TOP 2 possibly alliances will be in the finals. But with 4 divisions....you can't be sure....right?

Mike
Team 188 - Blizzard

Not so, not so
 

Posted by Joe Johnson.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 3/17/2000 9:56 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: I think this IMPROVES chances of low ranking teams posted by Michael on 3/17/2000 9:25 AM MST:



... you can be pretty certain that the TOP 2 possibly alliances will be in the finals. But with 4 divisions....you can't be sure....

Not at all.

The same errors that sometimes prevents teams from qualifying that in some sense 'should have' also works to mix up the rankings of the teams that DO make the top 8.

So...

Assuming that the quality of the alliances is more or less equally spread between the 8 top ranked teams, then only 1/2 of the time will the 'best' two alliances will meet in the finals. The remaining times the 'best' alliance and the 'second' best alliance end up on the same side of the Elimination Tourney. In this case, the second best alliance ends up being eliminated prior to making it to the finals.

This is just the luck of the draw and one of the down sides of single elimination tournaments.

Again, it is good enough for the NCAA. We seem to live with it alright.

Joe J.

Dialectic then synthesis...
 

Posted by Karthik Kanagasabapathy.

Other from Sigh... No Team For Me.

Posted on 3/19/2000 1:13 PM MST


In Reply to: Not so, not so posted by Joe Johnson on 3/17/2000 9:56 AM MST:



I really like the newly proposed elimination system. I'd go through all my reasons, but Joe has covered all the bases. Michael brings up some reasonable concerns, but I think they could be addressed with one simple change.

Instead of playing each division down to one champion and creating a final four, play down to the two finalists of each division, thereby creating an 'elite eight'. From here, these teams could play off in some format to determine the national champion. Re-seeding these teams in some manner would probably make the most sense, but there are other options.

Overall, by allowing two teams from each group to move on to the next round, it lessens the effect of having a stacked division.

-Karthik