FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

Posted on the FRC Blog, 10/3/13: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ip-Eligibility

Well, nothing's changed. I have to say though, I was honestly quite afraid when I first saw the title of this post; I thought that the day had come where they had to adjust the Championship eligibility somehow. But, that time will come eventually. I do wish that the wildcard system was adjusted so that any prequalified teams, not just teams that qualified earlier in the season (winning, ei, ras, chairmans, or other wildcard), generated wildcards though. With all of the double-qualifying, I'd also expect more than 20 teams getting in off the waitlist...maybe 50. We'll see though.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

How many got in off the waitlist last year? Makes sense that this year would be a few less.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

Well, this all but confirms that alliances will stay at 3 teams, based on the fact that "3" Winners will qualify from each event. But really, this is not much of a surprise at all.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

the unquestionable 2014 FRC game as deciphered from this blog post :p

This clearly means, that the game is some kind of mail-theme. We have to pick up pallets with team members on them, and stick them into slots. The number of slots on the field is determined by the level of competition, with championships having the fewest number of available slots. :D

Obviously, we have to put the team near a slot, and the team member has to decide if he wants the tiny, cramped chairman's award slot, or the spacious "regional semi-finalist" one. your score directly depends on your ability to convince that team member that they do want to be crammed into the smaller slot. :P

OMG LEAKED! :p :D

Hahaha!!



Just kidding

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

I strongly hope that FIRST only takes enough wait list teams to make even divisions. The size of divisions made the number of matches at champs too low last year.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

This isn't a unique/exclusive correlation. Newton was a 100-team division in both 2012 and 2013, but we played 9 in 2012 and 8 in 2013. (2011 was 88 teams with 10 matches, though.)

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

The 2012 game made for quick turnaround with automatic scoring, easy bridge calls, little penalties, and game reset was extremely quick.

2013 had a lot more field reset time involved but I really preferred Ultimate Ascent over Rebound Rumble.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

I know. (Ahh, reffing 2013, how I won't-particularly-miss-you.) That's the point behind the number of teams not directly correlating to number of matches.* We won't know what turnarounds to expect next year, so I argue it's premature to talk about waitlist in this context. The GDC is in control of much of what influences average turnaround, and given Frank has acknowledged the match issue, we'll hopefully see 2012-style timing and be able to view the waitlist in that context. (Read, hopefully we won't all be groaning #ohnochampionshipmatches when the kickoff video talks about belaying robots off pyramids...)


*The other side of this coin in the total time available, which CD also discussed at length back then.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

I'm really disappointed the wildcard rules didn't change.

The wildcard system made a HUGE difference to the caliber of the teams attending Championship. Every region was represented at CMP by more of its top talent because of the wildcard rules.

I see no real reason (other than causing some slots to be wasted) to not extend the wildcard rule to generate wildcards ANY time a team who is already qualified for the 2014 Championship earns a slot in 2014. This includes 2013 FIRST Champions, HOF teams, Sustaining teams etc.

The net difference is a maximum of 27 slots.

Additionally, a team who has earned a slot by any means at a previous regional, who wins EI or RCA at their 2nd or 3rd regional does not generate a wildcard currently. They should.

Each event should qualify 6 teams that arent already qualified for CMP.

Additionally, the same should hold true for District model teams. If a team is already qualified by some other means (say, winning an out-of-district regional), then they should not eat up a district slot that could go to another team from the district.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

The problem with adding 27 slots is that's 27 "new" slots in a system that already has more slots "acquirable" than existing; there are already too many spots available.

And if I'm not mistaken, I believe in MAR (so it should follow through with FiM history) the last statement does hold true; the only example of this I could find/think of excluding team 341(who have a HoF spot, so it's skipped anyway) was 2590 in 2012, who, along with having enough qualifying points, as well as previously winning the Montreal Regional, were skipped over in giving out point spots according to this document

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

If we followed the wild car rules you propose there would be a need for more that 400 teams. IIRC there were only about 20 spaces available for the wait list last season due to the current wild card system.

As we move to more districts the wild card system will go away. Every district will send the number of teams they are allotted. If a team can't go the space is offered to the next highest ranked team until all slots are filled.

Since we have two more districts this season that means there will be fewer unused spaces and thus Frank's prediction that there will be fewer than 20 wait list spaces this season. You can rest assured that people at FIRST headquarters ran through a number of scenarios when determining the wild card system to maximize the number of teams that go on to CMP based on merit, w/o running the risk of not having enough spaces for those teams.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

The truth of the matter is that we DO need more than 400 teams at Championship.

I have proposed a solution that provides 4 divisions of 140 teams with 12 qualification matches each.

Each division running 2 fields, as the 2004 and 2006 Toronto Regionals were done, provides nearly double match throughput. It requires fewer volunteers than adding more divisions, avoids lengthening Einstein, as well as avoiding noise pollution issues associated with having 8 different divisions crammed too close together.

We've outgrown the old CMP model. Something drastic has to change in the next 2 seasons. It makes the most sense to make such a change in 2015 when the control system is already being revamped.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

As the pressure to increase the # of teams at CMP keeps coming up, how about increasing the # of teams that make eliminations similar to offseason events such as IRI? Good teams can continue to play, other than the 8-10 matches in recent CMP events.
The format of just 24 making eliminations out of 100 or more teams, seems a bit too low.

2013 was the perfect example of why such a format would have been useful.
Teams were rushing to get reinspected after they attached a blocker against full-court shooters.
At IRI and TRR, we just selected a robot that could already do it.

I would guess that every team that attends CMP would want a greater chance at making eliminations.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

>4 Divisions
>2 fields each
>Pretty sure that's 8.

What I said was 'With the current 4-field structure'.

Adding one field? Possible, but Championship will just get cozier, which is hard.

Adding four? That's not going to happen anytime soon unless you can find double-the-venue. (As well as twice the staff, volunteers, etc to run them.)

By the way, you still haven't answered WHY we need more than 400.

Re: FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility
 

I think this might be the best solution. Just allow each alliance to pick their "4th bot."