Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   Championship Location Announced (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=119873)

dodar 08-10-2013 12:37

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosiebotboss (Post 1295289)
Which is why FIRST is moving towards Disricts. In a few years, we may well find ourselves with a Super Regional Model as well. The District Champs would play in a Super Regional, say one in the 4 quadrants of the US, northeast, south east, mid west and west coast for example. Then the teams would qualify for Worlds from the Super Regionals. World Champs would still be 400 teams.

From a venue perspective, where else would be an appropriate venue? What city has a domed stadium with a huge conference center attached with 25,000 hotel rooms within wlaking distance?

Atlanta.

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.

Racer26 08-10-2013 12:58

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1295285)
Fair, scalable Worlds qualifications is one of the main benefits of districts. In fact, it's a key mission of the model, precisely because of the realistic maximum size of Champs. It really shouldn't have to get bigger, nor should it. 400 is a lot of teams--and perhaps more importantly, a lot of volunteers and supporting resources. We've certainly got some growing pains in this era, but the upshot shouldn't require a drastic size increase.

I agree its one of the primary benefits of the district model: BUT. Until all teams are on the district model, its not fair to them to qualify proportionately fewer than would qualify in a regional model.

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.

Alan Anderson 08-10-2013 13:32

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1295294)
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.

The stands for the convention center FRC fields in St. Louis were pretty much as big as would fit, and were slightly too small to handle everyone who wanted to watch. It worked out, barely.

But how much seating is "enough" for Einstein?

dodar 08-10-2013 13:37

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1295301)
The stands for the convention center FRC fields in St. Louis were pretty much as big as would fit, and were slightly too small to handle everyone who wanted to watch. It worked out, barely.

But how much seating is "enough" for Einstein?

I dont think you understood his post.

JB987 08-10-2013 13:53

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.

Joe Ross 08-10-2013 14:11

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1295294)
It seems to me that FIRST is targeting a rate of about 1 team in 8 for the long-term ratio.

Given that you've shown the ratio varies wildly from region to region and year to year, what causes you to draw this conclusion? Don't you think there are other factors in play?

Racer26 08-10-2013 15:05

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.

Steven Donow 08-10-2013 15:14

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1295313)
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.

The qualification of district teams is supposed to follow that region's percentage of total FRC teams=the same percentage of team's at championships. So, let's say MAR is 10% of all FRC teams and there are 400 teams at championships, MAR should have 40 qualifying spots at championships.

themccannman 08-10-2013 15:17

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.

Cory 08-10-2013 15:33

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1295304)
I dont think you understood his post.

His point is you'd have a really hard time setting up stands in a convention center at the scale required. You're basically constructing an arena. This is from Einstein in 2002 when championships was 290 FRC teams, no FTC, and far fewer FLL teams. Think about how much bigger that has to be to accommodate basically twice as many people.

Racer26 08-10-2013 15:58

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by themccannman (Post 1295315)
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.

Certainly this is the direction things will have to go long-term. Until we get more districts online though, this isn't a workable solution.

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.

Steven Donow 08-10-2013 16:08

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1295321)
Certainly this is the direction things will have to go long-term. Until we get more districts online though, this isn't a workable solution.

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.

Bigger CMP doesn't mean more teams to have people volunteer...many team's bring what is considered a "skeleton crew" compared to what they bring to regionals/districts. And just because there are more volunteers(many teams don't bring people/have people strictly volunteering at Champs...) doesn't mean there are more trained volunteers...that's the challenging part. With an additional field you need additional FTAs, Head Refs, head Queuers, scorekeepers, Field Supervisors, inspectors, etc. All positions that require significant training. Not to mention that with the double-field structure, what happens if one field has technical issues? This could essentially derail the entire competition. The reason there were so few matches/team this year at championships was due to the significantly longer reset time compared to past years.

Racer26 08-10-2013 16:18

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DevenStonow (Post 1295322)
With an additional field you need additional FTAs, Head Refs, head Queuers, scorekeepers, Field Supervisors, inspectors, etc. All positions that require significant training.

Except you don't. That's the whole point of a double-field division, and not going to an 8 division format. A dual-field division only needs one set of refs, one set of scorekeepers, one set of field resetters. It really only needs some additional queuers, and some additional crowd control volunteers. Most of the additional volunteers needed are relatively untrained positions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevenStonow (Post 1295322)
Not to mention that with the double-field structure, what happens if one field has technical issues? This could essentially derail the entire competition.

And this is different from a single-fielded division how? If anything, having 2 fields allows for some added fault-tolerance in this regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevenStonow (Post 1295322)
The reason there were so few matches/team this year at championships was due to the significantly longer reset time compared to past years.

Agreed. The truth of the matter though, is that matches are 2:15 long. Match cycles since 2009 have always been in excess of 6 minutes, so my 200% argument should hold true.

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.

Steven Donow 08-10-2013 16:27

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1295326)
Except you don't. That's the whole point of a double-field division, and not going to an 8 division format. A dual-field division only needs one set of refs, one set of scorekeepers, one set of field resetters. It really only needs some additional queuers, and some additional crowd control volunteers. Most of the additional volunteers needed are relatively untrained positions.



And this is different from a single-fielded division how? If anything, having 2 fields allows for some added fault-tolerance in this regard.

1. Refs need breaks in between matches and if you're having two seperate fields, they scorekeepers can't just keep getting up and walking back and forth between scoring tables(the people at the scoring table are what I define as scorekeepers, different years have allowed different definitions).

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.

Alan Anderson 08-10-2013 16:34

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DevenStonow (Post 1295314)
The qualification of district teams is supposed to follow that region's percentage of total FRC teams=the same percentage of team's at championships...

That's an unwarranted assumption. I'm pretty sure the original district-based region quota was based on how many Regional competitions it replaced, not on how many teams it involved. Besides, what is true right now might not be true later. There are rumblings of a significant revamping of how merit-based qualification might change in the near future.

Racer26 08-10-2013 16:35

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DevenStonow (Post 1295328)
1. Refs need breaks in between matches

So you have a few extra. I know from the fields I've volunteered on they had a few extra. The goal here is to require less than 200% of the volunteers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevenStonow (Post 1295328)
and if you're having two seperate fields, they scorekeepers can't just keep getting up and walking back and forth between scoring tables(the people at the scoring table are what I define as scorekeepers, different years have allowed different definitions).

I envision this as being done with a single scoring table, connected to two sets of field hardware. I agree, walking back and forth would be silly. The two fields would need to be connected in order to generate sensible rankings anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevenStonow (Post 1295328)
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.

CMP already has no ability to easily switch over to "play on another field". Yes, technically Einstein sits there set up, and they keep a spare field on a truck in the loading dock, but the reality is that to switch anything like that out is a non-trivial operation.

As long as the sequence of the matches is respected, match separation should be unaffected by playing through on the working field.

Lil' Lavery 08-10-2013 17:02

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by themccannman (Post 1295315)
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.

What [US] sport(s) actually follow that format all the way through a national tournament, let alone a world championship event? For the most part, there aren't "official" high school sports championships beyond the state level, and only rarely are there actual competitions/tournaments to decide them. For instance, the High School football national champion is typically decided by a poll.

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?

Mr V 08-10-2013 17:06

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson (Post 1295330)
That's an unwarranted assumption. I'm pretty sure the original district-based region quota was based on how many Regional competitions it replaced, not on how many teams it involved. Besides, what is true right now might not be true later. There are rumblings of a significant revamping of how merit-based qualification might change in the near future.

You are correct that the original system was that a district sent they same number of teams as did the traditional regionals that the district replaced. However in that time FiM continued to grow and grow, so for the 2013 season they and Mar got a percentage of the available slots (less those dedicated for pre-qualified teams, I assume) based on the percentage of teams their district represents.

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.

Patrick Flynn 08-10-2013 20:09

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1295321)
Examining dual-field divisions a bit further:

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.

I think your missing a couple things here, First yes bigger CMP means more teams, but that doesn't necessary mean more volunteers. Many of the people that volunteer are coming regardless of if their team does or not.

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

Racer26 08-10-2013 20:37

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.

Patrick Flynn 08-10-2013 20:43

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Racer26 (Post 1295388)
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.

I took last years map replicated the field size and tried to post 5 in. Simple put they don't fit. Actually 4 barely do.

maths222 08-10-2013 21:27

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.

Alex2614 09-10-2013 00:45

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.

bduddy 09-10-2013 01:26

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Flynn (Post 1295390)
I took last years map replicated the field size and tried to post 5 in. Simple put they don't fit. Actually 4 barely do.

What about placing two of the fields on the short sides of the floor?

Chris Hibner 09-10-2013 08:39

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex2614 (Post 1295432)
Many of the facilities that won a bid did not have a football dome (Detroit, Louisville off the top of my head; others?).

Did you word the part about Detroit not having "a football dome" that way because Detroit has two football domes? (As in: Detroit doesn't have a football dome, it has two!) Just wondering ^o)

maths222 09-10-2013 09:51

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

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)
From an FTC perspective, this does not make sense. Sticking more people in an already crowded area will only make seating worse. FTC, with its smaller field, is much better up close. I know FRC is not that great from far away, but it is much better than FTC (the screens are not nearly good enough to be far away. Also, FTC has 2 divisions, with two fields each. Having division fields separated by a whole FRC field will only make people need to walk back and forth a lot, and be stuck sitting behind FRC teams who can afford to stay put (not trying to complain, just pointing out that it does not really make sense. Also, FTC currently has 1 scoring table per division, and one set of interconnected field electronics. Dividing it around an FRC field would make that very difficult. Also, this would save very little space other than the gap between FTC and Curie (I think), as the fields would not get any smaller, and they are pretty compact as they are.

Alex2614 09-10-2013 10:30

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by maths222 (Post 1295493)
From an FTC perspective, this does not make sense. Sticking more people in an already crowded area will only make seating worse. FTC, with its smaller field, is much better up close. I know FRC is not that great from far away, but it is much better than FTC (the screens are not nearly good enough to be far away. Also, FTC has 2 divisions, with two fields each. Having division fields separated by a whole FRC field will only make people need to walk back and forth a lot, and be stuck sitting behind FRC teams who can afford to stay put (not trying to complain, just pointing out that it does not really make sense. Also, FTC currently has 1 scoring table per division, and one set of interconnected field electronics. Dividing it around an FRC field would make that very difficult. Also, this would save very little space other than the gap between FTC and Curie (I think), as the fields would not get any smaller, and they are pretty compact as they are.

I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying. If we had more FRC divisions, we could team up an FTC division with an FRC division. So two FTC fields (one division) for an FRC division. The FTC fields would be just as far as they are now. And the FTC teams could stay put because they only play on that field. but instead of putting all FTC fields together, you spread out the divisions among FRC divisions. so FTC would be set up just like FRC, with their divisions separated. This also promotes interaction between the two programs.

Alex2614 09-10-2013 10:33

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Hibner (Post 1295475)
Did you word the part about Detroit not having "a football dome" that way because Detroit has two football domes? (As in: Detroit doesn't have a football dome, it has two!) Just wondering ^o)

From what I have seen, they are not attached to a convention center though. Unless I am missing something.

BrendanB 09-10-2013 10:35

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex2614 (Post 1295510)
I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying. If we had more FRC divisions, we could team up an FTC division with an FRC division. So two FTC fields (one division) for an FRC division. The FTC fields would be just as far as they are now. And the FTC teams could stay put because they only play on that field. but instead of putting all FTC fields together, you spread out the divisions among FRC divisions. so FTC would be set up just like FRC, with their divisions separated. This also promotes interaction between the two programs.

But now similar to FRC you are going to need to have FRC's equivalent of Einstein for FTC teams to gather and play their finals. That ends up using more space than the current layout with FTC in one area with their own space in the stands.

maths222 09-10-2013 10:59

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.

Nemo 09-10-2013 12:05

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1295344)
What [US] sport(s) actually follow that format all the way through a national tournament, let alone a world championship event? For the most part, there aren't "official" high school sports championships beyond the state level, and only rarely are there actual competitions/tournaments to decide them. For instance, the High School football national champion is typically decided by a poll.

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?

I agree. Our team would be really hard pressed to attend a fourth event. Three is already tough.

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.

Nate Laverdure 09-10-2013 13:05

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nemo (Post 1295523)
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.

This is a really cool idea. One additional challenge is that CMP is currently used for many administrative functions: announcing big changes, presenting top-tier awards, giving important speeches, etc. These things would either have to be split or repeated amongst each of the super-regionals, or they'd have to find another venue. Also, I imagine it would be tougher to invite a super-VIP to an event that's not necessarily the year's premier event.

Steven Donow 09-10-2013 13:15

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Laverdure (Post 1295532)
This is a really cool idea. One additional challenge is that CMP is currently used for many administrative functions: announcing big changes, presenting top-tier awards, giving important speeches, etc. These things would either have to be split or repeated amongst each of the super-regionals, or they'd have to find another venue. Also, I imagine it would be tougher to invite a super-VIP to an event that's not necessarily the year's premier event.

Doesn't Kickoff serve the same purpose? My assumptions/feelings/hopes would be that when we eventually move to the SuperRegional structure(ie. what was in that powerpoint; I personally feel like this won't be for at least 10-15 years), we'll eventually have a yearly "FIRST Conference/Convention/World Festival". Think, everything about the Championship, but without the competition. There could be so many more panels/roundtables, and the executive meetings that FIRST has at Championships could occur then.


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)

Chris is me 09-10-2013 13:46

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrendanB (Post 1295514)
But now similar to FRC you are going to need to have FRC's equivalent of Einstein for FTC teams to gather and play their finals. That ends up using more space than the current layout with FTC in one area with their own space in the stands.

This could be done by placing the FTC finals on Einstein during Saturday morning. This ends before noon, so at FRC alliance selection time, the FTC fields can be removed. Perhaps even place them on risers, VRC style. Maybe these risers could roll away to the side hallways of the Dome to clear Einstein more quickly.

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.

Alex2614 09-10-2013 14:57

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by maths222 (Post 1295516)
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.

No, you are not correct. As I have said before, I would place an ENTIRE FTC division with an FRC field (multiple FTC fields). Also, I know that the idea of increasing the number of FTC teams at worlds has been addressed. So why not move to 4 FTC divisions? Or keep the same number of FTC teams, but make 4 divisions of 50 (rather than 2 of 100). Again, just a thought.

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:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1295534)
This could be done by placing the FTC finals on Einstein during Saturday morning. This ends before noon, so at FRC alliance selection time, the FTC fields can be removed. Perhaps even place them on risers, VRC style. Maybe these risers could roll away to the side hallways of the Dome to clear Einstein more quickly.

Another issue that has been brought up is seating. Could we open up the upper deck? Just a thought, really. But you also have to think that on the sides of the FRC fields now is empty space, and empty seats. the FTC fields would go beside the FRC fields where there is currently empty space.
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.

Alan Anderson 09-10-2013 16:03

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex2614 (Post 1295548)
Take a look at the attached PDF. Very rough, but you get the idea.

How much time have you spent on the floor of the Edward Jones Dome? I'm trying to picture it from the middle, and I'm having a hard time imagining how everything will fit. You haven't left much room for the AV support, and I don't see how any of your proposals can handle the traffic flow. Your layouts all seem to provide much less access to the entrance tunnel than exists at present.

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.

maths222 09-10-2013 16:09

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).

Lil' Lavery 10-10-2013 12:38

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex2614 (Post 1295432)
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.

How do you work Einstein with 6 divisions? The Einstein tournament and presentation ceremony already traditionally run well after their slotted time, and adding two more divisions makes it even worse. You no longer have a clean tournament brackets like you would with 2, 4, or 8 alliances advancing, so you likely have to do some sort of round robin.

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.

themccannman 10-10-2013 14:06

Re: Championship Location Announced
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery (Post 1295729)
How do you work Einstein with 6 divisions? The Einstein tournament and presentation ceremony already traditionally run well after their slotted time, and adding two more divisions makes it even worse. You no longer have a clean tournament brackets like you would with 2, 4, or 8 alliances advancing, so you likely have to do some sort of round robin.

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.

This was my first concern too before even worrying about field arrangement. Einstein already takes up just about the maximum amount of time that it can without running late into the night. Having 8 divisions would mean 21 games on einstein. I can't figure out a good way of having a 6 team bracket, you can't give any teams by's into the semi's because there's no seeding order, and if you let every team play each other that's 15 games just for quarter finals. There's also always the possibility that multiple teams come out with the same W/L record screwing up the bracket.

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