Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I believe I fall somewhere in between you two. I think that 8 practice matches is too few. If the only solution to that is to not allow waitlist teams than so be it (one team I have mentored was a waitlist team that got in). BUT the quote about "many Championship robots that simply were not Championship caliber" is entirely off base. If a team builds a "not Championship quality robot" but does wonderful things in their community and wins a Chairmans award are you really suggesting that they shouldn't get in? I can safely assume you are not but this is the very grey line you are crossing. Should "not Championship quality robot" rookies get into champs? I think we should try to inspire as many teams as possible without severely impacting other teams. In this case I believe teams were impacted by not getting enough matches, but the "quality" of robots is not the point as Oblarg points out.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

This, I can agree with. Reducing the total number of teams that get in off the waitlist for logistical reasons, and to increase the quality of the event for the teams which qualified, is a perfectly reasonable aim.

And this is essentially my point - and no, I do not think that he is advocating that teams which qualify but are "not championship quality" be denied access. What I took his post to mean is that we should continue to allow waitlist teams, but pick and choose which ones based on perceived robot quality.

That, to me, reeks of elitist nonsense and seems entirely contrary to the spirit of FIRST.

If I am, indeed, misreading this, and this is not what he was advocating, and Jared would like to clarify such, I would be very happy to hear it.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I could not agree more with every single one of Jared's points!

100% spot on!

Unfortunately, I can't add on to his rep, b/c apparently I agree with him too often.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Sure. Of course this is my own answer, not his, though I've already indicated my agreement. I second the statement under the definition that "elite" means teams who 'should' place (barring at-fault failures) in a specific range--for example the obvious division favorites. Certainly the entire division is not favorites. Altering the rankings (lack of matches*) to the point that these teams drop out changes a lot more than just their chances. In fact, it affects all "championship caliber" teams that come looking to perform their best with and against the best: from winners to wildcards to RCAs. It's not a competition if you can't actually compete.

As for how it changes the interpretation, it goes back to the waitlist debate. How inspiring is the waitlist? Is it really garbage to advocate inviting wildcards in place of waitlisters? Certainly there's a great deal of inspiration to be had there. What about expanding the district qualification model? None of these groups are inherently elite (e.g. 1640------->----->Daisy), but they are much more likely to result in a balanced competition fitting of what so many teams have put so much into making.


*"There were many Championship robots that simply were not Championship caliber, and this combined with the 8 matches-per-team format..."

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Ok, having read your post I think this is a matter of talking past each other more than anything, and nothing other than a clarifying post from Jared will resolve it.

If he's advocating reducing the number of waitlist teams that are accepted for the sake of the competition's quality, I have no problem.

If he's advocating discriminatory selection based on perceived "caliber" among the teams who are to be accepted from the waitlist, then I have a big problem.

So, I propose we pause this here until we receive clarification. Sound reasonable?

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

The thing I haven't seen mentioned yet that definitely needs said:

Karthik needs to be given a larger space for his presentation. (More time would be fantastic as well). The number of people who came and were thoroughly interested and engaged throughout was incredible, but I am sure there were many more who could not get in to the room, or did not want to fight the crowds. There was something to take away from this presentation to teams of all resource and ability levels.

This may have been true of other presentations as well, but I believe Karthik's in particuar was probably the most blatant problem.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Why?

As I said before, why should a team with quick fingers be let in over someone who performed better at their regional but didn't qualify?

I take issue with who is let off the waitlist because it is a lottery. I would much rather see teams compete who performed well at their events. A universal point system would help create something like this.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

For the same reason the waitlist exists in the first place, or at least what I have always imagined that reason to be. To allow teams who otherwise might not have the experience to compete in the championships, which is a lot of fun and very inspiring, indeed.

If you truly think this is a problem, get rid of the waitlist entirely and be done with it.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Please read the first line of my signature.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I apologize, please substitute "championships" for "nationals." Force of habit - that's what they've always been called on teams I've worked with.

Now, do we have anything else to discuss regarding the topic at hand? I think we're at a bit of an impasse, myself.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Something that I do not think has been mentioned is the practice fields at regionals.

I loved the full practice field at Worlds. When my team played at our regional competition, I was disappointed by the lack of chains / box on the small practice fields. This did not give an entirely accurate simulation of gameplay on the field. In addition, I saw many frisbees fly through the goals and into the pit area, which could have potentially been dangerous.

I would not suggest a full practice field at the regionals, but a practice field that is a closer replica of the field would be great, especially for calibrating autonomous and practicing lining up shots.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

The loading station on the DC Regional practice field was simply a vertical piece of wood with slots cut in it. No ramps.

Yep, you heard that right. No ramps. Not polycarbonate, not wood, nothing at all. It was completely and utterly worthless, and 4464 had to scramble to bring our own because were still making critical revisions to our feeding system.

This is rather unacceptable, and I hope they're better next year.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

I'm not really talking about Jared's opinion, just my own. (I happen to agree with what I think he said, but he's plenty capable of speaking for himself should he choose.) For myself, I'm curious about how you're measuring inspiration. If wildcards are ok, what's inherently wrong with, say, a points-based (a la districts) waitlist system? Why is getting rid of the list entirely better than inviting via performance rather than lottery?

The negative lesson learned here for me is that FRC is hitting the point where attending Worlds has the potential to be less inspiring to teams than actually qualifying. I don't think it's there yet, but this year's 8 matches is definitely going that direction. I don't envy FIRST is the decision of how far to diminish the Worlds experience for one set of teams in order to accommodate those that achieved less success in that season.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

Because I do think there is a lot of value in having a small "lottery" system to allow teams who did not qualify to experience championships, and I think railing against that with only the rationale of improving the robot quality-competition seed correlation for "elite" teams is a pretty lousy way to view FRC. From a competition-logistics perspective it may indeed be necessary, but that was not how I read his given rationale.

Moreover, robot quality has never been, for me, the ultimate end of FRC. It's certainly not what is celebrated by the Chairman's award. Waitlist judgments based on robot quality seem to me to violate one of the most crucial underpinnings of the organization itself.

And, finally, that particular passage just struck me as very ungracious. The implication strikes me as very much "if you are at championships with a robot that does not perform, you should not be at championships, and should feel bad about it simply because you might hurt the seed of an 'elite team.'" This strikes a nerve, for me, and it additionally bothers me that it seems few other people here have a problem with it.

Ultimately, I think we can all agree that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere on the number of teams that go to championships. We can also agree that certainly we want the competition at championships to be of a fitting caliber, so that the event does not seem like a glorified regional. I simply think, and I believe the existence of a waitlist at all is evidence that FIRST agrees, there certainly is value in allowing for a number teams which have not qualified to attend, and furthermore that if any judgment is to be made about waitlist teams attending, robot quality alone is not a metric which is wholly indicative of the type of team FIRST wants to see at a regional.

Re: 2013 Lessons Learned: The Negative
 

How about this: Instead of inviting teams that may end up discouraged from poor performance against extremely competitive teams, instead have less teams total and use some of the extra funds generated from a smaller amount of teams to bring some of those struggling teams to championship to watch. I suspect the teams that really need the championship experience are not the ones that can afford to pay full price, but the ones that cannot afford to, and cannot afford the travel cost.

However, I realize that logistically this would be a nightmare, but just a thought. Perhaps one that could spark a better idea?