Chief Delphi
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   FRC Championship Size Sustainability (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116756)

Basel A 08-05-2013 12:20
FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
I've spent the past few days compiling the data on how each team attended the Championship qualified to get there. I did so to take a look at how well teams of each qualification method did at the Championship, but I noticed that the data tells a story of its own. You can see the full data in the CD-Media paper, but the below graph summarizes it all quite well.



Even though the Championship has been growing larger, the number of open spots is growing smaller and smaller. Note the dive of the % of registered teams. With new regionals each year, FRC is going to have to make difficult choices on who gets to go to the Championship and who doesn't.

Rosiebotboss 08-05-2013 12:48
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Hence the move to the District model....

Jon Stratis 08-05-2013 13:39
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
How do you handle teams that qualified multiple ways? for example, a team might win the competition AND earn Chairman's, or a Hall of Fame team might also be regional winners.

Kris Verdeyen 08-05-2013 13:49
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Quote:
If a team qualified in more than one way (e.g. Hall of Fame team wins a Regional), the team is listed twice. Teams attending the CMP that did not qualify in any way were assumed to have Registered, so if I missed any qualification method, that's where they'd be included. All the 2012 Einstein Teams were included in 2013's "Last Year's Winners." Championship Qualification in 2004 included a point system based on 2003 performance; I ignored it and assumed any point-based qualifiers simply Registered.
From the paper description.

Mark McLeod 08-05-2013 13:49
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Nice investigation, thanks!

Quote:
If a team qualified in more than one way (e.g. Hall of Fame team wins a Regional), the team is listed twice.
For example, add up the percentages and you'll find it's 111.8% for 2013
P.S.
And 6.5% of the overrun were turned over to wildcard teams.

sodizzle 08-05-2013 13:58
So for the sake of knowing, a district win was not counted into this data? Only a regional win which I'm assuming MSC counts as a regional in the data?

Basel A 08-05-2013 14:15
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodizzle (Post 1273358)
So for the sake of knowing, a district win was not counted into this data? Only a regional win which I'm assuming MSC counts as a regional in the data?
You're correct. A district win does not qualify a team for the Championship, so they were not counted. Winning MSC or the MAR CMP was counted as a "regular" regional win. District Chairman's, EI, and RAS Awards were treated the same way.

fb39ca4 08-05-2013 16:11
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
What about teams that qualified in the same way multiple times? There were teams this year that won three regionals.

plnyyanks 08-05-2013 16:14
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
From above:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1273339)
How do you handle teams that qualified multiple ways? for example, a team might win the competition AND earn Chairman's, or a Hall of Fame team might also be regional winners.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kris Verdeyen (Post 1273350)
From the paper description.
Quote:
If a team qualified in more than one way (e.g. Hall of Fame team wins a Regional), the team is listed twice. Teams attending the CMP that did not qualify in any way were assumed to have Registered, so if I missed any qualification method, that's where they'd be included. All the 2012 Einstein Teams were included in 2013's "Last Year's Winners." Championship Qualification in 2004 included a point system based on 2003 performance; I ignored it and assumed any point-based qualifiers simply Registered.

Basel A 08-05-2013 16:56
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fb39ca4 (Post 1273386)
What about teams that qualified in the same way multiple times? There were teams this year that won three regionals.
Now there's an interesting question. Same way, multiple times is double-counted (or triple-counted, etc.), except in 2013. I pulled the 2013 data separately (used data I already had from weeks ago). And apparently removed duplicates. I don't know why I did that. A corrected graph is attached. The primary difference is the number of Regional Winning teams, which is about 7% higher. This shows even more emphatically the effect of more regionals on the sustainability of the current qualification model.

P.S. Corrected data for 2013 has been added to the CD-Media page.

PVCpirate 08-05-2013 17:01
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Now that you've done that, I can clearly see the effect of adding new district systems on the regional winners. The only times that percentage goes down are 2008-09 and 2011-12, when MSC and MAR started, respectively.

Basel A 14-05-2014 18:44
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
2 Attachment(s)
Today, I updated the data in the paper referenced above. The trends shown make it abundantly clear that FIRST didn't have much of a choice in their recent decision to expand the CMP. The new graph is attached to this post.

I attached a second graph (qualification methods grouped) because it shows another interesting trend. Up until two years ago, there were about as many culture-changing teams as teams that qualified using their robot. In the past two years, the % of "robot teams" at the CMP has quickly outpaced "culture teams." The causes for this are obvious, but the effect is quite dramatic.

M. Lillis 14-05-2014 19:01
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1385320)
I attached a second graph (qualification methods grouped) because it shows another interesting trend. Up until two years ago, there were about as many culture-changing teams as teams that qualified using their robot. In the past two years, the % of "robot teams" at the CMP has quickly outpaced "culture teams." The causes for this are obvious, but the effect is quite dramatic.
Culture teams are those who got in off of EI, RAS, and Chairman's, correct?

Basel A 15-05-2014 00:01
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Lillis (Post 1385330)
Culture teams are those who got in off of EI, RAS, and Chairman's, correct?
Yeah. They're grouped pretty logically. The only real judgement call was putting HoF teams in History rather than Culture.

Jared Russell 15-05-2014 00:48
Re: FRC Championship Size Sustainability
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basel A (Post 1385320)
Today, I updated the data in the paper referenced above. The trends shown make it abundantly clear that FIRST didn't have much of a choice in their recent decision to expand the CMP. The new graph is attached to this post.

I attached a second graph (qualification methods grouped) because it shows another interesting trend. Up until two years ago, there were about as many culture-changing teams as teams that qualified using their robot. In the past two years, the % of "robot teams" at the CMP has quickly outpaced "culture teams." The causes for this are obvious, but the effect is quite dramatic.
Are you counting teams that qualified on total district points among the "robot" camp? Points come from both on- and off-field sources.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:30.
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi