![]() |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
While this may not be the best system to some people, thank you to the individuals who worked long and hard on this project to bring together so many ideas regarding a standard point system! I can't wait to see where this leads with inter-district play!
I too am confused as to why Rookies are held point wise on the same level as a Chairman's award winning team. I agree there are challenges and hurdles to jump through but considering some rookies bring home 1-2 rookie awards before even considering their robot performance, standing, and elimination results the system does seem uneven. Only time will tell, let's give it a season and see how it goes. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
As it is, I know many Legacy & HoF teams decide not to attend their DCMP because it would eat up one of the spots for a cusp team allowed at that event in the current model. Im not sure this new model does anything to change that. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
While I appreciate the motivation of FIRST to inspire rookie teams, I feel that the Rookie awards already in place are sufficient. Making rookie status the equivalent value of points that a Chairman's award carries is sending the wrong message. Rookies need to be inspired, yes, but do they not also need to have a goal to work toward? The biggest fall off of rookie teams is not in year one or two, but in year 3 or 4. Something needs to be done to MAINTAIN teams, not simply bring in new teams that will only dwindle and drop out after all the initial "rookie status" benefits go away.
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
I can't say I'm too happy about the point system.
It builds on my opinion that the culture of FIRST has changed drastically over the past 5-10 years. It's less about robots/engineering/competitions, and more about education, spreading the word, and getting more teams involved. While this may get FIRST out to the public, it's making sacrifices to competitive teams. This means that when you go to your district championship, you're going to have a rookie team, that's gotten lucky, and they have the rookie team bonus of winning an extra five matches, but they can't really play, so they end up on the winning alliance. Then, at championships, you'll have teams who can't really play either. Right now, with the current flawed system (this new one will only be worse), you have about 6 matches per championship division where an alliance scores less than 10 points. That means that there are enough non-scoring teams playing in eliminations, that in 140 matches there are multiple matches where 3 non-scoring teams are put together. For instance, in 2011, the championship was (in my humble opinion) ruined by the whole will.i.am thing. They sacrificed the fun that some teams would have in order to spread FIRST. Again, in 2013, we had a pathetic 8 matches per team at CMP. Why? So that many teams could come, not to compete and to be the 400 or so most competitive teams there are, but to be inspired. In pretty much every event, there are a handful of competitive teams that will be playing in elims for sure, and are usually alliance captains. My way of judging the competitiveness of robots at an event is the competitiveness of the last few picks. We're getting to a point where the cmp elims 1st seeded alliance's second pick is a below average robot, and worse than 100's of robots that didn't qualify It's also possible to build a competitive robot without any engineering at all. Just put together the kitbot, wire together the control system (both of which have detailed manuals), and download an already written piece of software, no understanding of computers required. Bolt a tray on top of the robot, and drive in a straight line to the low goal, hit it, and the discs fly in. Make a passive ten point climber, and you're already in the top 50% for weeks 1, 2, and 3, all without writing a single piece of code, without adding a single motor, and only doing one thing (hanging) in teleop. It all comes down to the balance of competition vs. spreading FIRST/inspiring new teams. For some people, the engineering/competing/innovation aspect is most important. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
The rookie bonus does not apply to the rankings within an event, so rookies will not advance to eliminations based on this bonus.
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
If you have specific issues or questions, please send them to the link in the blog, so that they can be reviewed and addressed.
I will make a few comments that might help. Every change that was made was modeled to see how it would have impacted previous years results. The FiM database and MAR databases of results are exceptional and helped us significantly. Just about every comment made in the posts so far was also discussed by the team while we worked through this. The panel was diverse in experience, philosophy, approach to each point. We tried every angle. While there might be a specific item you don't like or agree with, step back and look at the total system and what it accomplishes. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I'm ok with a district slot being taken when a team wins at a regional. I'm in Indiana, sitting on the outside of districts, but we're possibly headed for district play in 2015. Here's my reasoning:
The number of bids a district gets to the championship is supposed to be proportional to the number of teams it has within the district. District teams are allowed to play outside their district in a regional. Non-district teams are not permitted to play in a district event. Essentially, the opportunity exists for a district team to "steal" a non-district slot and in the past there was no reciprocal arrangement. This method ensures a more even distribution of teams. Note: teams from districts are still be eligible for the Championship through the waitlist, just like non-district teams. It is practially impossible to create a completely "fair" system, but I feel like this system is more fair than the previous policy. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
I am frustrated that you feel the above scenario is a detriment to FIRST and how some teams build their robots. There is nothing wrong with teams with very limited resources doing exactly what you described. In fact, there are many many teams that couldn't score the 14-16 points you mentioned in your scenario. And yet you make it seem like if they followed the plan you outlined they are somehow learning less, and not getting a true appreciation for engineering or getting a positive FIRST experience. The figuring out the kitbot, control system wiring, and some pre-written code is asking a TON for most rookie teams and even rookie team members of veteran teams. The resources in place to help them hit the ground running are fantastic resources to relive that early burden. If these resources were not in place many teams would be so lost and frustrated early on that many would not make it to their events with a functioning robot and may not even bother trying again the next year. It's terrible that you feel teams that utilize these resources are not getting a full experience. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Although there are a few things I would have done differently, I'm very excited by this update. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Some of the points that magnets brings up are true, but FIRST wouldn't really be FIRST if we didn't spread the word and end up with all the awesome sponsors who make everything possible. I'm excited for districts in 2013! Does anybody know if the NE districts will be getting the robot access period that FiM and MAR got last year? |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
I already posted this to the blog, but wondering if anyone here knows: When are the team age points applied? Each event, after both district events, or at some other time?
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
It would be helpful to share the MAR/FiM databases. I ran (an extremely fast) model of MAR from last year here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...0E&usp=sharing (I know we're gaining more slots this year, but.....) Team 11 and 2016 would "eat" two of MAR's slots (winner in Palmetto and RCA at Buckeye) Compared to actual results: Teams 303, 193, and 293 no longer qualify for World CMP Rookie team 4460 attends in their place - buoyed by (edit:45) award points at MAR CMP (Entrepreneurship, 10pt rookie). Seems like it's taking a few step away from what the Michigan point model was designed to encourage (best performing robots earning the most points), at least from what I understood via the excellent EWCP cast with Jim Zondag. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
2013 Championships second picks by #1 seeded alliance: Archimedes: 2959, OPR = 72.3 Curie: 862(I think) OPR = 67.8 Galileo: 4039, OPR = 55.7 Newton: 217, OPR = 23.2 Average 2013 OPR: 17.4 |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:55. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi