![]() |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
And the district model being the standard throughout FIRST will be alot longer than a few years. Its gonna take at least a decade for the team density down in the southeast to reach the capacity needed for districts. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
One of the main things I don't understand is what the obsession with domed stadiums is. Orange County Convention Center is the worlds largest convention space. You could easily plunk fields with enough temporary seating, and have plenty of room for the pits. As long as the temporary seating is done properly, it wouldn't be a problem. I believe the growth of the program will continue to accelerate. Currently, MI is qualifying teams at approximately the same rate as an area with 4-1/2 45 team regionals, about 1 team in 7.7. Ontario in 2013 had 3 regionals and 73 teams, qualifying about 1 team in 4. MAR qualified about 1 team in 7.8. It seems to me that FIRST is targeting a rate of about 1 team in 8 for the long-term ratio. For a 400-team CMP, thats 3200 total teams. On our current growth trajectory, we reach that number by 2016 at the latest. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
But how much seating is "enough" for Einstein? |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Regarding VIP seating...if I remember correctly, haven't a large number of prime regular, bottom (not floor) center section seats been set aside for them each year in addition to the boxes described by Libby? I seem to remember wondering why my team (and others competing on Einstein) were stuffed in sections to the side of center and seeing many empty seats available and teams getting over to Einstein later than other ones eventually being placed in the prime section;) There were empty seats last 2 years in that section even after moving in late comers. Not really complaining though as we were happy to be closer to the floor than other teams not on Einstein:D
As far as setting up stands in convention center...it is doable for Divisions (as we have seen in St.Louis) but likely extremely expensive to set up an Einstein arena with 25-30,000 additional seats. We got quotes for $40-60,000 just for 2000 seats at a convention center here in Las Vegas for our regional. Can't imagine the cost (and time) associated with setting up temporary seating for 30,000 just for Einstein. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
I'm drawing this conclusion based on the updated number of seats HQ assigned to our two 2013 district championships. I expect the number of seats awarded to our four 2014 district championships will keep pace at around 1 team in 7.7-7.8. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats what I'm expecting.
Anybody know if the number of qualifiers from MI, MAR, PNW, and NE are announced for 2014 yet? Ontario will roughly keep pace with the 1 team in 4 rate in 2014, with 5 regionals qualifying 30 teams, from an estimated 115-120 competing. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
As several other people have mentioned, due to the large average size of FRC teams along with the volume of teams at CMP, we're approaching the maximum capacity of any city to host the event. I don't think you can take many more than 400 teams to a single city to compete due to the physical limitations of the city itself, I can't think of very many places that can handle a regular population influx of 25,000+ people in one week. Instead of increasing the size of CMP I think the only solution (as previously mentioned) is adding another layer of qualification, e.g. super regionals. Looking at other highschool sports their qualification ladder goes something like this:
divisions --> sections --> regions --> states --> nationals --> worlds. FRC could adapt a similar method with districts --> regionals --> CMP. I hope I'm not being redundant but I'm just casting my vote. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
I don't believe that we've reached the maximum feasible size for CMP. I agree there are few places that have the space and the ability to deal with the influx of people a bigger CMP would require. I would say, actually that there is just two. Orlando, and the OCCC, or Atlanta, and the GWCC/Georgia Dome. Examining dual-field divisions a bit further: I think we all agree that GWCC had significantly more space than we needed for the pits. Enough to easily house up to ~600 FRC teams, plus FLL and FTC, still with room to spare. This: Attachment 15282 Is an NFL-football field (large rectangle, 360x160ft), with 12 FRC-field sized areas (40x70ft) drawn on it. The truth of the matter is that the floor of both the EJD and the GD are significantly larger than an NFL field, so things wouldn't be quite this cramped. While Einstein is being used for FLL, it could be curtained off from Archi and Curie to reduce noise pollution. Then for the Einstein rounds, some of the Archi and Curie seating can serve dual-duty with the curtains dropped. In 2013, we played 134 matches per division, with an average cycle time of 7:03, with 100 team divisions. Each team played 8 matches, except 4 per division who each played a surrogate match. With a match cycle time of 7:03, there is no reason to believe that achieving 200% of a single field's matches is impossible, but for sake of argument, lets say you achieve 194%. 260 matches, at 6 teams/match, and 130 teams/division = 12 matches per team. 520 team CMP capacity AND everyone gets 12 matches, without extending the length of the event. For what its worth, 7:03 cycle times is the longest cycle times CMP has had since 2008. Everyone cites a limited number of volunteers as a sticking point for a bigger CMP. I don't see that as a problem. Bigger CMP, means more teams, means more people to volunteer. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
FIRST had to make Championship Qualification matches start on Thursday afternoon to get 10/team in 2010 and 11, and just 9/team in 2012. We all agree that more matches is better. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
2. There IS more room for error. 2 fields allow for less tolerance because it implies the solution to a field fault can't just be "play on another field" or "play through matches on one field while the other field sorts out it's issues" because then that could mess with match separation. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As long as the sequence of the matches is respected, match separation should be unaffected by playing through on the working field. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
While the appeal of that format is obvious, there are significant challenges that it poises as well. The financial costs and time comittments to teams, volunteers, and FIRST/planning comittees increase with each level of competition added. For many teams, it's simply not feasible to compete four or five times in a single season. The appeal of that structure is obvious, and the logic behind it is easy to follow. But there should also be a parallel discussion. Rather than adding layers of competition, when is it time to start removing them? At what point is a "champioship event" simply not feasible? At what point is it no longer the best return on investment for the time and cost sunk into it by the participants, sponsors, and volunteers? Would FRC benefit from more of a "world festival" event similar to FLL? |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
That is why FiM had sent 18 teams until the 2013 season when they sent 27 teams. Mar sent 12 teams their first year based on replacing 2 regionals but for the 2013 season they sent 14. I am expecting to see something similar happen this season so I don't expect that the districts will know exactly how many teams they will send until after the payment date. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
Now about the adding more fields, Einstein there leaves no VIP area to see the field. Thats been addressed here before, the VIPS will get the good seats so that doesn't work. Where is the stage and floor seating going? Yes you've managed to cram the fields in but you've left less than 10ft between fields assuming the stadium is 50ft longer than the football field. The tunnel to the convention center isn't centered on a long side so that spacing doesn't really work out. Here's a map of the dome floor from last year. Laying the fields out the way you have just isn't reasonable http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...8&d=1366812834 |
Re: Championship Location Announced
I think you're forgetting that I've oversized the areas by a fair margin. An FRC field is 27x54ft, and the area I allocated for each field was 40x70. Additionally, an NFL football field is 57,600 square feet. The Georgia Dome advertises 106,000 ish square feet of floor space.
Yes, it would be tight. I think its possible. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Also, remember that FTC has 4 fields, and in their current configuration, that requires a space approximately as large as 1 FRC division currently occupies. Most of that space could not be reduced, as the driver areas are just far enough apart for ref teams and robot carts to comfortable fit between them. If FTC returned to the square, not diamond, layout, the width would be about the same, although the depth requirements of FTC might decrease.
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
I have three wild ideas that may be impossible.
First of all, i don't think we need 8 divisions. I can definitely see moving to 6 divisions, though. That seems most attractive to me. 1) FLL moves to the center of the floor with grandstands erected around that space. That gives FLL a more intimate playing environment and allows for more space. You could then take Patrick's picture and alter it a bit so that a couple of the filds are on the "short side" of the stadium. I don't like the option of moving FLL or FTC entirely into the convention center, so that seems pretty attractive. 2) Place an FTC field (and even an FLL table) for every FRC field. This eliminates the need for separate areas, and they just round-robin the playing. Run an FRC match, then FTC, then FLL, then repeat. (or combine this option with option 1 and just do FTC/FRC together, and FLL in their own separate area, either in the center of the dome floor or in a similar configuration to what we have now) 3) Move the championship to a location that has a basketball arena. I saw a proposal on CD (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=105379&page=1) to move the championship to the LA convention center and the Staples Center. FRC fields in the convention center. I know this seems unattractive, but it could work with the right setup (https://www.google.com/search?q=conv...s%3B718%3B312). I saw somewhere a picture of convention center grandstands with a "concourse" walkway going around the middle (http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i1...26_160835.jpg). Given a space like LA that has a much larger convention center than St. Louis (more of the size of the Georgia World Congress Center, if I'm not mistaken, but in one building). FTC and FLL play in the basketball arena. Then Einstein moves in on Saturday, basically ensuring that everybody has a a good seat 360 degrees all the way around the field. We only use one side of the dome for closing ceremonies anyway, I imagine the seating capacity is similar to the # of people we have at championships. It seems like FIRST was considering option 3 with the site selection for 2015-17. Many of the facilities that won a bid did not have a football dome (Detroit, Louisville off the top of my head; others?). Again, this may not work at all, but it's a thought. I always prefer to start with the craziest, most impossible ideas, and slim them down from there. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
If I understand correctly, all this would do is split up the existing FTC divisions into two separate areas. Am I correct? Also, how does having more FRC divisions affect this then, other than what matches are playing when? Regarding the Einstein concern, one of the sets of FTC fields could be used for divisional playoffs, just as the Franklin half of FTC is currently used for finals.
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
Super regionals could be the top level. It would remove the need for a gigantic championship event, and most teams wouldn't have to travel a ridiculous distance to get to them. Certainly I'd miss the chance to compete with teams in other regions, BUT if everybody is eventually in a cross-compatible regional system, teams can sign up for competitions in other regions if desired. I pointed out in another thread that a configuration topping out with super regionals still leaves the door open for a really small Einstein type event that only invites super regional winners. No Georgia Dome + World Congress Center required for that event. And if that wasn't in the cards, there's still IRI. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
Of course, that's just my little "fanfiction" of the future of FIRST, but I think the specific administrative things you mentioned are irrelevant towards the eventual addition of SuperRegionals/removal of Championship(which wasn't in the powerpoint laying out the potential SuperRegional structure) |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
I'm not sure I'm sold on the "FTC divisions with FRC divisions" concept, but it does seem like a cool way to combine the programs. The big problem becomes seating. FRC is already really crowded. While FTC doesn't take up as much space, any less space in some FRC fields means some people can't get seats at all. While I hate to suggest it, really... FTC's smaller field size, desire for close-up seating, and smaller crowd size make it a natural fit for pit fields. To make Dome prominence possible, perhaps 1-2 divisions could still be in the Dome. Or maybe more of the eliminations are shifted to Saturday and FTC runs on Einstein. Just spitballin' here. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Take a look at the attached PDF. Very rough, but you get the idea. I honestly think that all three of these options could work (in particular both option 1s, and option 3). In all three examples, I have 6 FRC divisions and 4 FTC divisions. This could work with any number of things, though. Including 2 FTC divisions as we have now. In fact, if we keep it at 2 FTC divisions, we could split FLL up among the FRC fields as well (or the remaining ones without an FTC partner). THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT FLL TEAMS DO NOT CROSS THE STADIUM though. I'm not saying have FLL teams playing all over the stadium, but rather have some play on one side and some play on another (as with FRC now and FTC in my document). I do realize that this is not perfect. I realize that there are still some minute issues that would need to be addressed, that I have not yet come up with a solution. One example is the FTC finals. I like this: Quote:
Again, I know that there are lots of details that still would need to be addressed. But I think with some creativity and planning, SOMETHING LIKE this could work. I"m not saying I have all the answers. Just throwing out something that could be worked with and morphed into something awesome. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
I'm also slightly concerned about the noise from one field interfering with an adjacent one, but that wasn't really a big problem between Newton and Archimedes last year, so it's probably manageable. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
One comment: concurrent adjacent FRC fields might actually be OK, given that speaker audio can be pretty directed (IE FTC), and visual distractions seem not to have been a problem for the adjacent fields in 2012-13 (I think).
|
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
Six alliances in a round robin means five matches per alliance, or fifteen total matches. That's six to nine more matches as are currently run on Eisntein, and has no real provision for tie-breakers or a true Championship match. In other words, the final match played might not even involve the team who is crowned champion. Can you think of a more anti-climatic ending? If you attach a playoff or championship match to the back-end, it's yet more time added on to the Einstein proceedings. Six divisions doesn't work from an Einstein perspective. |
Re: Championship Location Announced
Quote:
If we do move to 6 FRC fields, those fields would have to be fields that teams from every division rotate onto to save time. However, that makes it a nightmare for teams trying to find seats and scout matches at a different field every couple of matches. 8 fields would be more manageable for teams, but it would still be problematic trying to watch and scout matches halfway across the stadium, let alone scouting multiple matches happening at once. I don't think more than 4 FRC fields is doable unless each field is it's own division. You can't have 6 divisions because that screws up einstein, and you can't have 8 divisions because there's not enough space in the dome for 8 FRC fields, 2 FTC divisions, and an FLL hybrid einstein/presentation stage area. Point out if I made any errors, but I just don't think expanding CMP is really possible considering these issues plus all of the previously mentioned ones. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:18. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi