Chief Delphi - Future Championships

Page 2 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)

- Championship Event (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)

- - Future Championships (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116532)

Joe Ross

02-05-2013 18:50

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo (Post 1271512)

If a universal point system isn't on the table, another way to do it is by qualifying a set number of teams at each event, no matter what. There's a pecking order of which achievements qualify you for the next level, and if a team near the top of that list is already qualified, the bid goes to the next team on the list.

FTC uses this method. Here is their list

Quote:

Qualifier Host Team (NOTE: Assuming that the team competes at one other tournament within the region and has met the criteria set forth by the Affiliate Partner in the agreement. This applies to qualifying tournaments only.)
Inspire Award Winner
Winning Alliance Captain
Inspire Award 2nd place
Winning Alliance, 1st team selected
Inspire Award 3rd place
Winning Alliance, 2nd team selected
Think Award Winner
Finalist Alliance Captain
Connect Award Winner
Finalist Alliance, 1st team selected
Rockwell Collins Innovate Award Winner
Finalist Alliance, 2nd team selected
PTC Design Award Winner
Highest Ranked Team not previously advanced
Motivate Award Winner
Highest Ranked Team not previously advanced

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...nt-information

Nemo	02-05-2013 19:46

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Ross (Post 1271556)

FTC uses this method. Here is their list

Yeah; I didn't mention them since people might get scared by the association with FTC. FTC qualification is unfair for one big reason: not enough qualification slots from each tournament, so the winning alliance captain's first pick usually doesn't qualify for the next level. With only two spots to earn from most events, only the Inspire winner and the winning alliance captain get invitations to the next level. In my opinion it is questionable to put the Inspire runner-up ahead of winning alliance first pick, but that is a judgment call. Anyway, FTC either needs either more slots at the Championship or another layer of competition (super regionals) to remedy that. It's a problem.

bduddy

02-05-2013 20:06

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1269953)

I heard an idea at the Championships that I don't know if I support. The idea was essentially to allow an optional, opt-in "fifth division" for rookie all star winners, culture change award winners that did not medal at events, etc. That way, these teams get the "championship experience" while not dragging down the level of play or being forced to play nightmare match after nightmare match. The division would be optional so that rookies who feel they can handle the big dogs could still compete in the normal four divisions.

Who would really opt in to that, though? Who wants to pay thousands and thousands of dollars to go to championships and then decide beforehand that they have no chance of winning? Obviously that's not what the championships are about, but I doubt - in fact I hope there are no teams in FRC with that mindset.

Nyxyxylyth

02-05-2013 20:45

Re: Future Championships

I'd like to see some sort of leveling. At the very least, there should be some attempt at balancing the 6 teams in each qualification match.

There shouldn't be any matches at the World Championship where an alliance scores less than 10 points. It's hollow for the winning alliance and demoralizing for the losing alliance, and it doesn't make sense to the crowd.

I sat through three rounds like that and it's no fun. I'd love to see a system where every match was a tossup, and OPR wasn't the near sure thing it is now.

Alan Anderson

02-05-2013 21:44

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nyxyxylyth (Post 1271626)

I'd like to see some sort of leveling. At the very least, there should be some attempt at balancing the 6 teams in each qualification match.

Please don't bring back the Alliance Algorithm of Doom. It was bad in 2007, and I don't think it will ever be a good idea.

plnyyanks

02-05-2013 22:05

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1271664)

Please don't bring back the Alliance Algorithm of Doom. It was bad in 2007, and I don't think it will ever be a good idea.

That's way before my time, and I've never heard of it; can you elaborate?

EricH

02-05-2013 22:13

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by plnyyanks (Post 1271679)

That's way before my time, and I've never heard of it; can you elaborate?

Someone apparently thought that lower team number = better robot. Result:

All teams at an event were placed in one of three brackets, by number. (This wasn't too hard to figure out by Week 3, BTW.)
Each "random" alliance was composed of one team from each bracket.
Add in the normal turnaround time and a deemphasized "not too many times with/against each team" factors, particularly at a small event.

Result: You guys (1124) would NEVER be with 1114 in a match*, but would probably get pretty badly beaten by them in 3-4 matches. 330, on the other hand, might be with them in 2-3 and against them in 1-2. Guess who seeds higher, regardless of who has the better robot?

It was so bad that corrections had to be applied mid-season because of such cases as mentioned above, and then it did a better job but not the best. It has never returned.

*Unless you happened to be on the other side of the dividing line from them... probably not.

Nyxyxylyth

02-05-2013 22:18

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1271664)

Please don't bring back the Alliance Algorithm of Doom. It was bad in 2007, and I don't think it will ever be a good idea.

I've only got one year in, so I went back and read the 2007 threads. That algorithm definitely made everybody unhappy.

I suppose the current luck-of-the-draw system generates less unhappiness overall, but many times it felt more like a "Convocation" than a "Championship".

Alex2614

02-05-2013 22:25

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by treffk (Post 1269941)

I actually calculated this out the other day. It would take teams from Montana(5), Wyoming(3), Colorado(48), New Mexico(5), North Dakota(3), South Dakota(1), Nebraska(0), Kansas(20), Oklahoma(48), Iowa(5), Missouri(62), and Arkansas(18) to make up an amount of teams that just barely exceeds the number of teams in Michigan.

I love the theory of the district model but there are a few kinks that would need worked out for areas that do not have high density of teams thoughout a state or a predetermined amount of land.

This might answer your question. http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...1&d=1363286050

While I don't necessarily agree with the "super-regional" concept, I do like the district model they have set up here.

plnyyanks

02-05-2013 22:27

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricH (Post 1271687)

Someone apparently thought that lower team number = better robot.
<snip>

Crazy stuff, I guess that's why it was never spoken of among our team. Although it generated some nice discussion back then...

Nemo	02-05-2013 23:10

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by treffk (Post 1269941)

We're from Iowa, and I'd love to get into a district system. We travel about 5 hours away for the events we attend. It would probably be roughly the same if we were in a district system. If we qualified for district championships, the result would be that we'd get three regular season events instead of two for the same registration fees, and we'd end up having to travel to an extra event. If the new events are still in our ~5 hour driving radius, that sounds like gravy to me. (and 12 qualifiers per event? Sounds pretty nice...)

Alex2614

31-05-2013 23:25

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moon2020 (Post 1269785)

Without reading the back story:

If more matches are added requiring another day (Tuesday evening/all day on Wednesday vs Wednesday evening/Thursday), I don't mind flying in on Tuesday morning and paying for another night in the hotel. However, it is possible that not everyone (students/mentors/volunteers/staff/etc.) will be able to support this schedule. FIRST may not be able to support this schedule either as an extra day costs additional money.

FIRST is growing. Adding two FRC Divisions with 66.667 to 100 robots per division is not a bad idea, but is there enough room to accommodate another practice field in the convention center and two more fields in the dome?

Which brings up the other option to move Jr. FLL, FLL, and FTC to their own Championship events to gain back the floor space, but where does that leave these future FRC students?

Can the store be moved to a different location to gain back the floor space?

World Congress Center in Atlanta seemed bigger to me (unused floor space).

I have been saying this for a while. The store takes up space in the convention center, and is not even close to being NEARLY big enough to accomodate its traffic. There are so many unused spots in the facilities that can be used.

Yes, Georgia World Congress Center had a much bigger convention center and a lot more open space than St. Louis. I've been wanting to go back ever since we moved away.

Nemo	11-09-2013 16:46

Re: Future Championships

Here's a thought that occurred to me because of this other championship thread.

How about we have N super regionals that essentially take the place of the championship? After those are done, the winning teams get to participate in a much smaller event where the super regional winners duke it out. I'm talking about a very small number of alliances, like 4-8.

I suggest this for two reasons:
1) Venues only need capacity for 100 teams instead of 400
2) For the vast majority of teams, it doesn't add a level of championships*

*That's my big complaint about the conventional FRC super regional idea. Too many competitions for teams and families to pay for; too many vacation days for volunteers and mentors.

PVCpirate

12-09-2013 22:56

Re: Future Championships

All this is making me wonder if FRC will ever start to look more like high school sports in competition structure. In football, for example, the state championship is the end of the road. Not that I think it will happen soon, but will the FIRST championship go away in the future?

Steven Donow

12-09-2013 23:08

Re: Future Championships

Quote:

Originally Posted by PVCpirate (Post 1291141)

I don't think FIRST will reach the exact model of HS sports. The goal of a FIRST team in every HS, in my opinion, is incredibly challenging and likely will not happen. My personal feelings towards the endpoint for FRC(in it's current state, that is) is a Superregional structure. Districts--->State Championship---->MAYBE regional championship, 40-60 teams-----> Super Regionals, ~100 teams---->Championship ~400 teams

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:10.

Page 2 of 3

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page