The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals.
 

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 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST



The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals.

Consider the following:
Randomly divide teams into groups - named for regions of the country (e.g. N,S, E, W) sponsors (e.g. Delphi, Baxter, NASA, DiamlerChysler) or for scientists (e.g. Newton, Einstien, Currie, Edison) or for Atoms (Helium, Boron, Nitrogen, Oxygen) or for Disney characters (Mickey, Goofy, Pocahontas, Tarzan) or whatever.

Each group would play all its qualifying matches against teams in its group. Each group would have its own picking teams that can only pick from within the group. Each group would have their own elimination rounds and crown their own Championship Alliance. Each Group Champion would go on to the FINAL FOUR.

The FINAL FOUR would be on the MAIN STAGE with everyone present. AT THE AWARD CEREMONY!!!! Why not? We are only talking about 12 teams here. This would be AWESOME! I would really love to see this happen. 15,000 fans all watching the finals! Worthy worthy worthy.

I would gladly give up a seeding round to make room in the schedule to allow this to happen: End the qualifying matches on Friday night, have picking be the first thing on Sat. morning. And begin the Elimination Rounds on Sat. AM. Note: with 4 groups and 16 qualifying alliances per group almost 50% of the teams to play in the Elimination Rounds even with 400 teams at the Nationals.

One more positive benefit would be that teams are more likely to KNOW who the good teams are in their group. This will allow teams to scout more effectively, which is impossible with 400 teams, and to pick the best teams to go forward into the Elimination Tourney.

Beyond even this, the seeding rounds are more likely to produce more accurate seedings because the seeding accuracy is determined by the ratio of seeding rounds to number of teams in the seeding group. By cutting the seeding group to ¼ the size the seeding becomes statistically 4 times better (for a given number of seeding rounds).

The only down side to the as far as I am concerned is that one group might be 'stacked' with good teams by accident. This is really no different than the current 'luck of the draw' teams face. Teams either are lucky or unlucky in the seeding rounds based on who they happen to be seeded with or against. At least in the 'regionalized' proposal, unluckily seeded teams would have a fighting chance of getting noticed by one of the picking teams, while they are more likely to go unnoticed in a field of 400.

One final advantage is that it would make a very dramatic, made for TV event of the Final Four.

I strongly urge FIRST to consider this poposal.

We gotta push for this!!!
 

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/15/2000 11:47 AM MST


In Reply to: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST:



Joe,

This stuff is great. All of this sounds familiar, but your added twist to have the finals during the awards ceremony is GREAT! Finally, we'll have a made-for-TV event.

I could care less how we are regionalized... if it's random, geographical, corporate, or even by seniority.... as long as we are split up into groups. I'll definitely be wanting to discuss this Thursday at the Forum.

Andy B.

Excuse me
 

Posted by Meg Z..

Student on team #349, Robahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Co..

Posted on 8/15/2000 4:06 PM MST


In Reply to: We gotta push for this!!! posted by Andy Baker on 8/15/2000 11:47 AM MST:



: Finally, we'll have a made-for-TV event.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the purpose of FIRST was ever supposed to be getting on TV. It might be great if one day FIRST was recognized as a TV-worthy event, but motivation behind any changes made should not be publicity. FIRST is meant to involve students in engineering. There are already all too many robots designed and built entirely by engineers with little or no student input and participation. Making it all about being on TV will just make this worse. When it comes down to it, fun as the competitions are and exciting as it is to win, FIRST is meant to be about the robot experience, not being famous.

Please note: I do not intend this to be in any way an attack on the ideas presented about changes in nationals. I simply think we all need to stay in the spirit of FIRST.

Meg

Re: Excuse me
 

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 8/15/2000 4:21 PM MST


In Reply to: Excuse me posted by Meg Z. on 8/15/2000 4:06 PM MST:



: : Finally, we'll have a made-for-TV event.

: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the purpose of FIRST was ever supposed to be getting on TV.

I'm sure that Joe isn't suggestting that the goal of FIRST and those involved it should be solely to seek publicity. I think his point is that Dean's real mission with FIRST is to inspire people and to fundementally change the way society thinks about technology + science. The wider an audience FIRST has the easier it is to spread that message. Just imagine the number of people who might channel surf upon FIRST, especially students, and go 'Hey wow that's really cool I'm gonna look into that.' That means more people getting involved with FIRST teams, which means more lives being changed, and each person FIRST reaches is one step closer to that ultimate goal of Dean's to change the way...not just those in FIRST think about science, technology, and engineering but the way poloticians, parents, teachers, everyone thinks about it and realizes it's importance and ability to raise the quality of human existance.

-Justin

Wholesale vs retail...
 

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 8/15/2000 7:18 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Excuse me posted by Justin on 8/15/2000 4:21 PM MST:



Actually, Dean is very candid about his mission in starting FIRST. Making a TV friendly sport was very much on his mind.

As Justin points out, the end result is not TV as a goal, but rather TV as a tool to change the culture of America (and the world).

Dean's vision for marketing technology careers wholesale (via TV and other mass media) rather than retail (via science fairs, etc.) is one of the main reasons I am such a FIRST zeolot. I really believe #1 that the goal is worthy and #2 that the plan can work.

So...

I do not think it is corrupting the vision of FIRST to make changes to the format that will help make it more TV friendly, rather I think that that is an essential part of the vision.

Joe J.

Re: Wholesale vs retail...-PLEASE READ
 

Posted by Dan.

Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.

Posted on 8/15/2000 8:25 PM MST


In Reply to: Wholesale vs retail... posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:18 PM MST:



--I do not think it is corrupting the vision of FIRST
--to make changes to the format that will help make it
--more TV friendly, rather I think that that is an
--essential part of the vision.

So how bout instead of the annual game change, we just have the same game each year?
And maybe we could take all the balls, floppies, etc. out of the picture--they're way too confusing for the mass market, they can only follow one ball at a time.
And lets say we take away most of the pesky rules. No more fussy fuse business or teeny catalogs to order from.

You see what I'm getting at.

August 23rd on Comedy Central, right after Southpark, Battlebots will make its prime time television debut. That is ONE YEAR AFTER ITS FIRST EVENT. Battlebots will, arguably, have more exposure in one year as FIRST has had in eight years. And the Comedy Central series is just the first of, perhaps, many robotic combat television shows. The Sci-Fi channel has already choosen a set for it's Robodeath show and MTV has already filmed a US Robot Wars show in London. The robots are nothing special either, just about any FIRST team could make a successful Battlebot.
I know Dean and Woodie hate Battlebots/Robot Wars because of it's malicious and 'un-coopertitious' aura, but--ironically--Battlebots WILL do what they are trying to do with FIRST.
It WILL turn engineers into stars. Kids WILL play with their Battlebots action figures--they already do in the UK, where Robot Wars RC and action figures are available. And people WILL realize that you can make some pretty cool things if you work hard and learn.
And, believe it or not, Battlebots isn't as malicious as it seems in the arena. I don't think Dean, Woodie, or most people have a good idea what happens outside of the arena. The atmosphere in the pits is just as friendly as FIRST and the atmosphere online is even friendlier. People share everything about their robots and give tips for others. The toughest competitor in my weight class (he's also a judge at a FIRST regional) has even given me some parts for free.

Maybe I didn't understand what you meant by 'changes to the format' but if you're looking for a highly marketable format, it's already out there.
I think the only way FIRST will get prime time exposure is if (like Joe mentioned a while ago) it creates a Pro-FIRST League where profesiional engineers compete and if the rules are simplified. But once Pro-FIRST gets its foot in the door, who knows.
Sorry for being the Johnny-One-Note on this Battlebots thing, but is a very good competition and a very good thing for FIRST. My school wouldn't even have been in FIRST if I hadn't found a link on the Robot Wars site. Lets hope FIRST gets some residual too, and hopefully figures out how to get itself out there as well.
Dan

I agree, with conditions.
 

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 8/15/2000 8:49 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Wholesale vs retail...-PLEASE READ posted by Dan on 8/15/2000 8:25 PM MST:



The success of Battle Bots, Robot Wars, Junkyard Wars, etc. is all very encouraging.

I have never attended a Robot Wars-type competition, but I would if one were in the area. I would participate in Robot Wars if I could clone myself. As it stands, I have to pick my battles and I choose FIRST.... at least for the present.

I have only seen on Battle Bots tape, but I was very much impressed by the help folks gave to eachother in the pits. I am quite sure that it is very FIRST-like.

But...

That said, I still like FIRST better. The main reason basically boils down to the same reason I like to what football more than boxing. It is not that I don't enjoy the fight, it is that I sort of hate myself for enjoying it. Let me explain. While at the end of the day, a lot of football player end up leaving the field in a horizontal attitude, unlike boxing, that is not the main purpose of the whole game, there are other goals that are primary which sometimes result in hurt players.

So it is with FIRST and Battle Bots. A lot of robots get broken in FIRST, but the goal is too DO something or prevent something from being done, not to break the other robot. This cannot be said of BattelBots.

And so...

I am sticking with FIRST for now. Hoping that somehow FIRST can make itself TV friendly enough to make it to Prime Time.

Joe J>

Re: How do we make FIRST ready for prime time?
 

Posted by Dan.

Other on team - from Carnegie Mellon sponsored by -.

Posted on 8/15/2000 10:01 PM MST


In Reply to: I agree, with conditions. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 8:49 PM MST:



Just for the sake of discussion, what does FIRST need to do in order to get into prime time? Nothing specific, let's just lay the framework for marketability. Let's assume that FIRST's philosophy remains the same; so the competition has to be non-destructive.

Here's what I think needs to happen:
------the robots need to be unique------
There need to be countless 'types' of robots, they need to be visually and functionally different even though they may be trying to accomplish the same thing. People want to give robots personalities and think of them as living creatures, this is easier when they're very unique visually. This was FIRST's best year in this respect; there were little wedges and great big armmed robots.
------the purpose of the robots needs to be simple and recognizable at first sight-------
This is why Battlebots can hook an audience so quickly. It's absolutely apparent, with no explanation, what's going on. And immediately you start thinking about what your robot would do. The moment I mentioned 'floppies' or 'trough' when describing the FIRST this year, I usually lost their attention.
Hmm, I can't think of anymore.
I think we should keep in mind that we can't look to long-established sports like racing or basketball for help. In order for FIRST to get its nails in the mass-market it needs to be far catchier and easier to understand than any established sport. I have no idea how that's supposed to happen though.
Dan

great thoughts Dan
 

Posted by Ken Patton.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


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

Posted on 8/16/2000 10:54 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: How do we make FIRST ready for prime time? posted by Dan on 8/15/2000 10:01 PM MST:



Dan, I think you are hitting on some key points here. Keep voicing your thoughts about making the game easy to understand - you are dead on in my opinion.

While I tend to agree with Joe on the merits of FIRST versus the merits of Battlebots (i.e., basketball is 'better' than boxing), there is probably some things FIRST could learn from Battlebots and you about making the games have more mass market appeal.

Hopefully Dean and Woodie are paying attention, and taking your ideas into consideration while they formulate future FIRST games.

Ken

Good Call Ken
 

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 8/16/2000 12:28 PM MST


In Reply to: great thoughts Dan posted by Ken Patton on 8/16/2000 10:54 AM MST:



Ken,

I think what you said about there being things that FIRST could learn from Battlebotts is _very_ important. It's been my expirence w/FIRST that people can tend to get into camps and those camps are the end all be all. A lot of the time it's either Battlebotts or FIRST and there is no middle ground (and that's not directed at anyone one personally). It is important to realize while we in FIRST have a different set of ideals we can learn from other Robotic competitions. A good analogy might be different cultures, in many ways FIRST has/is it's own culture and it's important to remember that other cultures are a wealth of information, and opprotunties to learn.

-Justin

Re: Wholesale vs retail...-PLEASE READ
 

Posted by Amy .

Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High and NYPRO.

Posted on 8/15/2000 10:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Wholesale vs retail...-PLEASE READ posted by Dan on 8/15/2000 8:25 PM MST:



To me, FIRST seems just as marketable as Battle Bots. Why it isn't on TV, I don't know, but...if the 2000 competition was televised, it would have been obvious to viewers that the object of the game was to put balls into the appropriate goal. Although the audience would not immediately understand other aspects of the game, i.e. other scoring techniques, how qualifying points are awarded, etc. I think that colorful balls, goals, and robots and the obvious object of scoring balls would be enough for a channel surfer to stop and watch. Watering the game down to make it completely obvious and immediately understood by the layperson would definitely cause FIRST to lose something in the aspects of strategy, scouting, and suspense, but you might have noticed that the competition has become much more viewer-friendly over the years without losing everything that sets FIRST apart from Battle Bots and Robot Wars. For example, compare the size of an average robot in 1992 to a 2000 robot...the 'bots are much larger and easier to watch and follow in a match. Another example-in 1992, tennis balls were used...last year, 13-inch balls.


Just my two cents...:-) ;-)

Re: Excuse me
 

Posted by Amy .

Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High and NYPRO.

Posted on 8/15/2000 10:06 PM MST


In Reply to: Excuse me posted by Meg Z. on 8/15/2000 4:06 PM MST:



Being on TV would mean more publicity for FIRST, hence more interest, more involvement, and more inspiration and recognition taking place. I think that being on TV is the ultimate in recognition. :-)

Re: Excuse me
 

Posted by Mike.

Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and NYPRO.

Posted on 8/15/2000 10:53 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Excuse me posted by Amy on 8/15/2000 10:06 PM MST:



I would have to agree with Amy and Justin and Meg because we have seen what happens when athletic events are put on TV (i.e. the Super Bowl, World Series) people go nuts and really get into them. Now if FIRST could pass on the fact that it is an intense competition by brodcasting it and make it widely known over TV then I think people such as students and companys and schools are bound to catch on and say 'Wow this looks awesome, I want to get involved' which I think will bring more teams and events to FIRST. And just maybe the US FIRST robotics competition will be another huge TV event, which could show people science and technology isn't just about computers and to show people there is more to the fields of science and technology, which I thought was one of the purposes of FIRST.

The Case Against 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals.
 

Posted by Nate Smith.

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

Posted on 8/15/2000 11:53 AM MST


In Reply to: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST:



While I agree that in the near future(if not already), something will need to be done about the size of Nationals, my personal opinion is that 'regionalizing' is not the way to go. Read on for my comments as to why...

: One more positive benefit would be that teams are more likely to KNOW who the good teams are in their group. This will allow teams to scout more effectively, which is impossible with 400 teams, and to pick the best teams to go forward into the Elimination Tourney.

While I agree that it is very hard, if not impossible, to scout all the teams at nationals as a single team, that is why the scouting alliances(SOAP, GMCIA, and others that I know are in the works) will become so important in the coming years until Nationals is made a qualification-only event. *cringes*

: The only down side to the as far as I am concerned is that one group might be 'stacked' with good teams by accident. This is really no different than the current 'luck of the draw' teams face. Teams either are lucky or unlucky in the seeding rounds based on who they happen to be seeded with or against. At least in the 'regionalized' proposal, unluckily seeded teams would have a fighting chance of getting noticed by one of the picking teams, while they are more likely to go unnoticed in a field of 400.

It's true that there is a greater chance of being overlooked if you are in a larger group, but it could also happen that you may get stuck with an alliance that is not as good as it could be, because the team that would be the best match for yours was locked into another group. And even though I know a few people will cringe when I say this, a way around being overlooked is to advertise...just one word of advice when advertising: don't put what your machine CAN do, put what it HAS done...


Just my thoughts...

Nate

At first I thought so too...
 

Posted by Splash.

Student on team #53, Team Inferno, from Eleanor Roosevelt High School and NASA GSFC.

Posted on 8/15/2000 3:09 PM MST


In Reply to: The Case Against 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Nate Smith on 8/15/2000 11:53 AM MST:



When the regionalizing idea came up, I thought, the mid-west was going to have a stacked division. Then I thought, make it random. Hopefully, ever division would be equal (probably won't happen, but hope). Then I realized that with 16 alliances in each of 4 divisions, 48 teams are going to be coming out of a group of 100. Considering that teams may pick from anyone, by the time the last 8 alliances are formed, the robots that teams wanted for partners are going to be gone.

After thinking about it, that is a positive. Chances are high that ever group is probably going to go through the same thing where one alliance after another pick from the top 16. This means that every region will have strong alliances. One region may have 12 hypothetically strong alliances, another region may only have 2. By the time they begin competing against each other, the best alliances will have emerged. This is just like Nationals in its current phase. (This is about to get confusing)If the #1 seeded team picks the #15 seeded team which was the
#2 seeded team's top choice and best match, they might feel if there was another strong team they would have a better opportunity. The system is the same, if you want to pick from a deeper group, finish ranked higher.

Regardless of the few negatives, it's still better than the current system. Less teams get overlooked, more teams get to experience the finals.

Re: At first I thought so too...
 

Posted by Amy .

Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High and NYPRO.

Posted on 8/15/2000 10:03 PM MST


In Reply to: At first I thought so too... posted by Splash on 8/15/2000 3:09 PM MST:



What about having only the top 8 seeded alliances from each division compete in the elimination rounds for that group, more like a regional?

Re: At first I thought so too...
 

Posted by Mike Kulibaba.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Other on team #88, TJ², from Bridgewater-Raynham Regional and Depuy, a Johnson and Johnson Company.

Posted on 8/17/2000 6:15 PM MST


In Reply to: At first I thought so too... posted by Splash on 8/15/2000 3:09 PM MST:



I would agree that this system is better but not perfect. I don't think there really is a perfect system. 1 group could have 12 great alliances and another could have 2. Only thing I don't like is lets say the group with 12 great alliances had an alliance that could beat everyone except the team it lost to in it's own division, what your really doing is hurting the teams in the strong division and also hurting the weaker divisions by not having stronger alliances. But then you look at it like this, maybe the alliance that comes out of the weakest group turns out to be the Champion. i don't know, it's complicated but if this came before me I would vote to give it a try

Kuli Tj²

LIVE?! ;-) ;-)
 

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 8/15/2000 1:29 PM MST


In Reply to: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST:



I'd just like to say right on to Joe's proposal, which is as always logical and thought provoking. It doesn't really alter how things are done very drastically either but it definetly makes it a lot easier to envision TV coverage of FIRST. Obviously there are a number of problems with trying to do TV coverage of the nationals in it's current form, especially LIVE TV coverage. I would love to see a mainstream channel like NBC covering FIRST live (well except for the bumbling idiot of a comentator Bob Costas...god help us if he ever tries to do play by play 4 FIRST ;-P). One of the major problems, as Joe eluded to is that the finals are still on multiple stages and therefore it is impossible to show all of the matches on TV (or the web for that matter). I watched the Nationals over the web for the first time this past year, and it was well a patience testing expirence ;-) Finally I ended up admiting defeat and just watching Einstien (because it had the fastest internet connections devoted to it), unfortunately I missed out on a ton of matches in general and most of my team's matches. I look forward to when I can watch FIRST nationals LIVE on TV, although even LIVE TV converage will never capture the FIRST spirit ;-) So good luck to everyone making a pitch for these kind of TV centric changes, wish I could be @ the forum to back you all up.

-Justin

not in huge favor...but can see the good points
 

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Other on team #419, Rambots, from UMass Boston / BC High and NASA, Mathsoft, Solidworks, Analog Devices.

Posted on 8/15/2000 6:20 PM MST


In Reply to: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST:



I was never one that liked the idea of 'regionalizing' the Nationals...the size of the competition was always something that set the Nats apart from Regionals in my mind...both great for their own reason.

But...I also see the need to put a 'cap' somewhere. I just don't like the idea of geographic separation, or sponsor for that matter. Probably the best way to divide the Nats in my mind is totally random... yes there are pros and cons to that, but geographic separation makes it just another regional, and sponsor separation brings the focus on the money factor.

Just my thoughts...

Lora

Re: not in huge favor...but can see the good points
 

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia.

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

Posted on 8/17/2000 6:13 AM MST


In Reply to: not in huge favor...but can see the good points posted by Lora Knepper on 8/15/2000 6:20 PM MST:



What is the best way to separate teams into regionals? I suggest the night before the competition begins there is a placement process.

Here it is in my mind...

The sun is just about to stop gleaming off the Epcot ball. The stands are packed. The spotlights are pointed at the giant clear ball with every team's number poised to be dropped in and mixed (like a lotto drawing). The cheering and team spirit is plentiful. The antipication of the ensuing competition is mounting and contagious. Then the first ball is dropped out and Team X is in the first region. The next ball is dropped out and Team Y is in the second region.This continues until all the teams are placed.

I can see teams being ecstatic about which teams are in their regional and which teams are not. 'Wow, I am glad that we don't have to play them until the finals.' Or,'This is great, what if we pick or get picked by Team A.'

This would eliminate the controversy about how to separate teams and would definitely be totally random.

Mike C.

Totally Random Regionalization!
 

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia.

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

Posted on 8/17/2000 6:15 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: not in huge favor...but can see the good points posted by Michael Ciavaglia on 8/17/2000 6:13 AM MST:



: What is the best way to separate teams into regionals? I suggest the night before the competition begins there is a placement process.

: Here it is in my mind...

: The sun is just about to stop gleaming off the Epcot ball. The stands are packed. The spotlights are pointed at the giant clear ball with every team's number poised to be dropped in and mixed (like a lotto drawing). The cheering and team spirit is plentiful. The antipication of the ensuing competition is mounting and contagious. Then the first ball is dropped out and Team X is in the first region. The next ball is dropped out and Team Y is in the second region.This continues until all the teams are placed.

: I can see teams being ecstatic about which teams are in their regional and which teams are not. 'Wow, I am glad that we don't have to play them until the finals.' Or,'This is great, what if we pick or get picked by Team A.'

: This would eliminate the controversy about how to separate teams and would definitely be totally random.

: Mike C.

Like that Idea =)
 

Posted by Lora Knepper.

Other on team #419, Rambots, from UMass Boston / BC High and NASA, Mathsoft, Solidworks, Analog Devices.

Posted on 8/17/2000 4:33 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: not in huge favor...but can see the good points posted by Michael Ciavaglia on 8/17/2000 6:13 AM MST:



Love that idea Mike! =) You have my vote of approval!

Lora

...my two cents...
 

Posted by Ryan Shanley.   [PICTURE: SAME | NEW | HELP]


Student on team #191, The X-Cats, from Joseph C. Wilson Magnet High School and Xerox.

Posted on 8/15/2000 7:04 PM MST


In Reply to: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST:



I like the idea of regionalizing Nationals to prevent what Nate was cringing at, that only teams that do well in their own Regionals would go to Nationals, an idea that has been hinted at numerous times as a solution to the growing size of the competition.

Also, I would like to see the groups stacked not-so randomly, to prevent random groupings of dominant teams. I have noticed that in past years' qualifying matches where two of the four teams were better than the other two, the better two teams were almost always in opposing alliances. This same evening-out process might hold for your grouping.

As a driver for the past few years, I have been disappointed in the diminishing opportunities to get to know other teams and team members, as a result of the National's growing size. With almost 300 teams, yet only a handful of matches apiece, it is almost impossible for teams to work together and make new friends, not to mention the growing challenge of scouting. Though regionalization would not give everyone a chance to meet each other, it would give each person the opportunity to work with strangers--with whom they are also competing--and make new friends from all over the globe, which is in my opinion one of the best parts of the FIRST program.

One other thing to think about would be whether or not teams would know before-hand who was in their group, so that maybe they could get to know their possible competition/allies. This also touches on my desire for full discretion regarding alliances, so that more strategy and teamwork would develop among teams.

...well, maybe that was more like two dollars, but...

peace
ryan

Re: ...another two cents... qualifying round alliances
 

Posted by Kirsten.

Student on team #177, Bobcat Robotics, from South Windsor High School and International Fuel Cells.

Posted on 8/16/2000 8:04 AM MST


In Reply to: ...my two cents... posted by Ryan Shanley on 8/15/2000 7:04 PM MST:



>>'As a driver for the past few years, I have been disappointed in the diminishing opportunities to get to know other teams and team members, as a result of the National's growing size. With almost 300 teams, yet only a handful of matches apiece, it is almost impossible for teams to work together and make new friends, not to mention the growing challenge of scouting.'

Re: ...my two cents...
 

Posted by Mike.

Student on team #126, Gael Force, from Clinton High School and NYPRO.

Posted on 8/16/2000 9:33 PM MST


In Reply to: ...my two cents... posted by Ryan Shanley on 8/15/2000 7:04 PM MST:



I agree something has to be done about the size of the nationals. This was my first year participating in FIRST and when I went down to the Nats this year I was hoping to meet people and make new friends, but when I was going through out the pits asking questions and taking pictures of the other robots for my team, there was so much work to be done, I didn't have time to stop and talk and get to know the actual team and people on it because I had the other 260something teams that I had to interview. And the FIRST crew is talking about an increase in the number of teams (and don't get me wrong I think that is great)but if there are more new teams in FIRST than that means more teams going and participating in the nationals and just how much bigger can the nationals get? Its already hectic enough with trying to scout the other teams and we don't have enough time as it is to scout the ones down there already and they are talking about more for next year! Something has to be done about the craziness of nationals.

Attempt to clarify
 

Posted by Justin.

Other on team Blue Lightning Alumni Association from RWU sponsored by FIRST-A-holics Anonymous.

Posted on 8/15/2000 9:44 PM MST


In Reply to: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST:



I think that some people have misunderstood what Joe was proposing. As I read back through his original post it seems as though what he was proposing was something like this. Teams would not have to win thier regional to get to nationals. However _once at nationals_ the 300 teams would be divided by some (any) criteria. And you would have little mini copetitions so in effect each satellite stage might be it's own competition as far as qualifying rounds go. Then the winning alliance from each stage would advance to Einstien where everyone could watch the elimination and ultimately final rounds together. Hope I got that right Joe, but perhaps I misunderstood.

-Justin

Got it... (IMO) positives explained
 

Posted by Andy Baker.

Engineer on team #45, TechnoKats, from Kokomo High School and Delphi Automotive Systems.

Posted on 8/15/2000 10:11 PM MST


In Reply to: Attempt to clarify posted by Justin on 8/15/2000 9:44 PM MST:



Justin,

You're right... what Joe's proposal did was try to rectify four problems at Nationals:
1. Make the tournament manageable from an organization standpoint (field setup, pit location, team-match assigning).
2. Let us realistically scout each other's competitors (100 teams to scout is much easier than 400 teams).
3. This enables more teams to make it to the finals, along with 'picker' teams having a easier task of choosing their alliances for the finals.
4. The added time between Q matches being over and the alliance picking would be longer in Joe's proposal, and the top 16x4 teams would have ample time to evaluate their selections.

There are some negatives, but I feel that the positives outweigh them greatly.

Andy B.

Re: Got it... (IMO) positives explained
 

Posted by Nate Smith.

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

Posted on 8/17/2000 11:13 AM MST


In Reply to: Got it... (IMO) positives explained posted by Andy Baker on 8/15/2000 10:11 PM MST:



: 3. This enables more teams to make it to the finals

My view on the decision in '99 to not have all teams advance to the finals is that FIRST is attempting to prepare us for the year that not all teams are allowed to go to nationals, based on regional performance or some other criteria. So, while I admit that it is frustrating to have a good performance and then get overlooked for elims, it's my opinion that any attempt to solve this by simply allowing more teams to advance would be a step in the wrong direction.

Nate

My take on why...
 

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 8/17/2000 11:35 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: Got it... (IMO) positives explained posted by Nate Smith on 8/17/2000 11:13 AM MST:



I believe that the fewer teams in the Elimination Rounds was not so much an effort to break the news to us gently that some day we would have to deal with an invitation only Nationals but more a byproduct of a number of factors.

It is my observation that FIRST is trying to avoid breaking into two or more leagues as hard as they possibly can. To that end, FIRST searched long and hard for a tourney format that could allow teams of widely varying resources to co-exist and to perhaps even flourish. FIRST really believes that the alliance format IS that format. This is the first contributing factor.

FIRST is trying as hard as possible not to have to limit the number of teams that can go to the nationals. (By the way, I have heard that, believe it or not, in coming years, Disney may build a temporary false floor over the drainage ditch near the National complex in order to allow for a larger number of teams to participate -- given the current situation, the complex can not expand much farther without bumping into this body of water). FIRST may eventually have to cry uncle, but as far as I can tell, FIRST is doing all it can to postpone that day. Every year for three years, I have heard something along the lines of, 'Next year or the year after will be the year FIRST will have to limit the Nationals.' So far it remains only a far off event. This too is a contributing factor.

FIRST is tied to a 3 day Nationals. This (together with the above goal) limits the number of matches per team, which forces FIRST to balance the number of teams in the Finals vs the number of seeding rounds. This is another contributing factor.

I believe all these contributing factors together have forced FIRST to limit the number of teams in the Elimination Rounds rather than an overall decision to prepare us for the day when the Nationals are invitation only.

Joe J.

Re: My take on why...
 

Posted by Splash.

Student on team #53, Team Inferno, from Eleanor Roosevelt High School and NASA GSFC.

Posted on 8/17/2000 3:05 PM MST


In Reply to: My take on why... posted by Joe Johnson on 8/17/2000 11:35 AM MST:



If there were more teams and hopefully, more money to FIRST so it can expand, would they be able to hire more people to run the tournament for longer each day? While I know no one wants to sit there all day, could it happen that some teams compete 10-4, some compete 12-6, and some compete 2-8. There is enough overlapping that teams would have the chance to see all the other teams in action, and also the schedule could be mixed up for more matches. This would also give teams more options while they are at Disney. Teams finishing early, could go back to the hotel early, relax at Disney, or sit and watch more competition. Teams starting early could sleep late, get in a swim, or even eat lunch before they arrived at the site (Speaking of lunch, see post under hit or miss).

I'd like to see more matches on Thursday as well. Especially if there are as many elimination rounds as there would be with the proposed 'regionalizing format.'

One Practice Round on Thursday
 

Posted by Michael Ciavaglia.

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

Posted on 8/18/2000 6:21 AM MST


In Reply to: Re: My take on why... posted by Splash on 8/17/2000 3:05 PM MST:



I totally agree with the idea of having matches on Thursday. The time at Disney is soo valuable! If we are tied to a three day event then one way of getting more matches is reducing/eliminating the practice rounds on Thursday.

I am more for the reducing practice time rather than eliminating because it is important to get the drive team out on the stage. The drive team needs to get rid of the jitters.

However, what if the we started earlier on Thursday morning to get one practice for all the teams by noon. The elimination round could begin by 1:00 P.M. This could increase the number of qualification matches or allow the elimination matches to be over by Friday night.

What is the difference if teams are repairing machines and practicing all day Thursday at Disney or if we give every team a 'Bonus Day' before the ship date. Instead of shipping on a Tuesday, make the ship date Wednesday and call Wednesday the 'Bonus Day' right from the beginning. I know the pit fall, teams will think they have until Wednesday instead of Tuesday, but this is called time management and FIRST shouldn't be responsible for that. What FIRST can do is add a 'Bonus Day' to compensate for the lost time at Disney.

What is the difference if you are fixing your machine in (insert your city) or at Disney fixing your machine? The time at Disney is very valuable and FIRST needs to maximize it to benefit the competition.

Bottome Line: Reduce the practice time at Disney. Add a 'Bonus Day'.

Mike C.

Eliminate Practice rounds!!
 

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


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

Posted on 8/18/2000 9:31 AM MST


In Reply to: The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. posted by Joe Johnson on 8/15/2000 7:02 AM MST:



Wow - it took me a while to catch up with all the postings. All this stuff sounds great. I agree with Joe's ideas in this and his other related tread.

I have one other suggestion to build on what Mike C. said - I wish I thought of this before the forum was over:

How about if we instead of having practice rounds, having more seeding matches and call them practice rounds? You know how last year we threw out everyone's worst score. Well just throw out the worst 3 scores. In effect, the 3 worst scores could be your practice rounds. If you don't do well, you can go fix your robot before the next match and try again. And if it still needs fixing you still have time to do that.

Of course, if you do well in the early rounds that would normally be called practice, you can count them. I agree that time at Disney is too precious to waste on practice rounds that almost no one watches or takes seriously because they don't count. This gives everyone more opportunities for everything. Play more matches, meet and team up with more teams, scout more matches. And most importantly, by eliminating 3 scores, it reduces the luck factor.

And why wait for the nationals; we should do this at the regionals. Just think about how many matches you could run.

I know some of you are thinking, what about when only 2 out of the 4 teams show up because so many teams are not ready on the first day (this happens quite often at the regionals). Well, it just gives those that are ready a chance to show there stuff whether alone, with a partner or two-on-one or one on two. Any way you look at it, more matches that can potentially count can only help. Also, if everyone knows that these matches could count, teams will try harder to be ready rather than just saying 'will fix it when we get there during the practice day'.

One issue - how do we get everyone inspected before the macthes start. Or do we really have to? If they get inspected and are found to be non-compliant, then they forfeit those matches. Is that so bad - remember you get to drop 3 matches (or what ever number would fit during the normal practice time)? If you have practice rounds nothing counts anyway.

I've said enough for now.

Raul

Re: Eliminate Practice rounds!!
 

Posted by Janna.

Student on team #349, The RoBahamas, from International Academy and Ford Motor Company.

Posted on 8/18/2000 2:46 PM MST


In Reply to: Eliminate Practice rounds!! posted by Raul on 8/18/2000 9:31 AM MST:



Hi...

Ok, I really like the idea that both Mike C. and Raul came up with and how they've combined them. The only issue that I saw as unresolved was the inspection, so I have a suggestion. Before I start, as a disclaimer, there are two variables that I have no idea about: shipping time and the inspectors. Assuming robots get to the venue at least a day before competition and that inspectors can do some inspecting without a team's help, this is my suggestion. If your robot is pretty much done when it is shipped and ready to be inspected, you could communicate this to FIRST somehow (don't ask me how, I don't know the details...maybe mark the crate or something.) So at the competition on the Wednesday night or something, inspectors could go through the marked crates and inspect with an abbreviated list (size, weight, etc.) I know teams would feel a little concerned about having inspectors poking around inside the robot, but if there could even be a few very general criteria met and the rest on Thursday, then that's less rushing the inspectors have to do before each team has three matches or whatever (because personally if I had to tell a team that all *four* previous matches were forfeited, I'd feel pretty bad...) and less worrying that the team has to do.

So for example, Team A has really good time management, has followed all the rules in the rulebook, and built everything perfectly (at least from the rules standpoint.) They pass preliminary inspection on Wednesday and compete in their qualifying matches Thursday. Sometime during the day, they get inspected fully, and, of course, pass. No scores lost, no worries.

Team B throws their robot in pieces into the crate, having not read the rulebook, and arrives without preliminary inspection. They quickly throw together their robot Thursday morning and compete in a few matches before finding out they'd have to forfeit them due to failure to pass inspection. They now have no extra rounds left to use.

I think this would give teams incentive to read the rulebook *carefully* and also to have a finished product by ship date, when they can ship and not have to worry until it's time to go out onto the field.

Janna

And most have already PASSED inspection
 

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 8/18/2000 7:34 PM MST


In Reply to: Re: Eliminate Practice rounds!! posted by Janna on 8/18/2000 2:46 PM MST:



Don't forget that most robots have already passed inspection at a regional.

It is a very small minority of teams that don't go to a regional prior to the Nationals.

I propose that if a team has passed inspection, they should be allowed to skip most steps of the inspection except for things that have changed. This should allow most teams to fly through inspections in no time, only explaining the changes made (if any) since the last regional.

Of course every robot should have to weigh in because when a robot is 129.9 lbs (as we try to be every year) even a little rust can put you over the limit ;-)

Joe J.