![]() |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Let's put the Rookie/2nd year team bonus in perspective with some numbers.
If we ignore the age bonus, the average points total (i.e. expected points if we don't assign priors) for a "standard" sized district event of 40 teams is 25.3pts per team. In other words an average of 51.3 points from two standard district events. In that context an age bonus of 5/10pts per event seems too large, so let's assume the age bonus is a once-per-season bonus. Now confirmed by Don below. Note that the size of the event also impacts the average points per team. While the qualification match points awarded at an event are proportional to the number of teams attending, the other components are fixed per event so do not vary based on the number of teams. There are always 8 alliances (i.e. 24 teams get alliance selection points), always 4 alliances scoring elimination match points, and always* Chariman's, EI + 11 other awards (+ up to 2 rookie awards). So at a smaller event the fixed points are distributed across fewer teams leading to higher average points/team. In 2013 Michigan events were all either 39 or 40 teams, but 2013 MAR events ranged from 31 teams at Lenape-Seneca up to 43 teams at Bridgewater-Raritan. Under the new unified model the average points at a 31 team event is 29.2, whereas at a 43 team event it's only 24.4. Therefore a team attending the two largest 2013 MAR events (37 & 43 teams) would expect an average of 50.8pts and a team attending the two smallest (31 & 33 teams) would expect an average of 57.3pts. That's 6.5 points difference/13% advantage to the team at smaller events, more than the 2nd year age bonus. So all else being equal, teams should attend smaller districts. Or perhaps a better conclusion is that district events should be as close as possible to the same size. * in reality some awards are occasionally skipped at events (e.g. Judges award) |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Others mentioned district border hopping which would make sense, especially in the packed MAR/NY/NE area. I was more looking at travel as in, 25 going to Hawaii or Daisy going to Vegas. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
If we're forced to opt out of going to District Championships just because we wanted to travel elsewhere, then something's wrong. What's the point of us even playing in the District System to begin with if we're going to be forced out of it's Championship? It seems that people are viewing the District Championship as another step towards the World Championship rather than being it's own Championship with it's own worth and prestige. IMO, it actually makes MORE sense for a Team that competes outside of the District to also compete at it's Championship. I know this goes against common thinking, but look at it like this: A Team chooses to compete outside of MAR like 11, 2016, 1676, 25, etc. None of these teams have an Autobid into the CMP at this point, but all are worthy of representing the District more often than not. One/Any of these teams could win an outside event which would then Qualify them for the World Championship - meaning that they remove one spot from the system. Now if that same team chooses to compete at the DCMP and wins, or is up there in points - guess what? They still have only used one spot, meaning that the spot that they earned based on their District Performance will now trickle down to the next team. I guess the way I see it, a district team is only going to use one spot* no matter how often, or where they play. There will be the issue of 'poaching' a spot should the team travel, as they're going to suck a spot out of an event that should have gone to someone from that event, but it's an issue that isn't easily fixed. In any case, a district team that chooses to compete outside and then at it's Championship is doing little to no injustice in my book, considering that historically, any team that will go to an outside regional and win will more than likely qualify through the District Championship anyway. *Now there is the interesting issue of HoF, Original and Sustaining, and Previous Year World Champion Teams. No one has been able to conclusively state that these teams will not 'black hole' a spot or a series of spots should they chose to travel outside of their district and or win their District Championship. As far as I can tell, any team pre-qualified for the CMP prior to the competition season still 'black holes' their first CMP spot earned in that season. From their, the wildcard system comes into play at the regional level since the team has 'qualified at a previous event'. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
The whole 'school gym' issue is very overblown. It's about playing good teams. High level competitive competition is far more exciting than arena style seating. Believe me, I'm not thinking about the building we're in when we're playing the likes of 469, 33, 67, etc. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Now, as far as what those teams do at outside events, I'm under the impression that they're treated exactly as anyone else - and the way the wild card system worked in 2013 also backs this up. Quote:
Quote:
The real shame here is that it puts a lot of teams in a bad spot here, regardless of their status of being a 'historic qualifier'. It seems that with the way that things are moving, most teams are forced to make a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't decision' in regards to competing outside of their District. It seems that a lot of what we're beginning to talk about, specifically Championship Spots, and Advancing to the the next 'level' of play, are all the growing pains that we're experiencing as we're crossing the threshold where the traditional Championship Qualification Methods no longer work. Just playing the numbers game here, but as of right now, the qualification spots (traditional) break down something like this: ~100 Teams From the (4) District Systems, ~330 Teams From Traditional Regionals (6 Teams @ ~55 Events?), ~20-25 Historic Qualifiers for a total of 450 Teams, Maximum... Obviously, this math can't work (the Championship would be far too big) so it seems like someone, somewhere, is counting on teams making spots disappear either by 'double qualifying' or 're-qualifying'. In the case of historic qualifiers, it may be that we need to regard this as more of a safety net for an off year rather than a 'defacto' qualification. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
My comment was directed at an idea suggested a page or two back (scattered discussion throughout posts 79-97), specifically saying that a it might be wise for there to be a way to 'opt out of the District Championship' if a team wanted to go to an outside regional. |
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Here's my thoughts on how the District scoring should be changed as its implemented more widely:
- Losses in elimination rounds should count against a team, say -1. - Also, later wins should gain more wait, beyond simply 5 more points. This will give a bigger distinction for teams that make it to the finals, more than just 5 more points. Winning an overall event should be worth much more than winning 100% of the matches (e.g. 24 points for going 12-0 vs 30 points for winning the Regional.) Probably should aim for winning the regional to be worth 48 points instead (double winning the qualifying rounds). Scoring 6 points for quarters, 8 points for semis and 10 points for finals would do that. - Finally, you should normalize on a non-integer basis as a percentage. It's more difficult to win more matches in a longer tourney because of the abuse of the robots, but the current scaling doesn't give full credit for that. |
| 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