Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

Keep in mind getting into MSC itself with upwards of 260 michigan teams is very hard. And almost all of the teams getting into champs by qualifying at MSC generally deserve to be there.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

I see your point. However going in to a competition (especially a state championship) knowing that there is a 50% turnover of teams going to STL leaves a pretty sour taste in my mouth. Maybe I'll get used to it.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

Doesn't it seem reasonable that it should be based on total district size?

It seems more unfair to me if a district sends 2x as many teams %wise.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

Oh no, don't worry, I understand that MI is very dense with teams. Maybe the answer lies in sending more teams to MSC. :o

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

So you'd rather dilute the talent pool? Since MSC qualification is based on skill, increasing the amount of spots available only allows more less competitive teams in, which are the teams that wouldn't be qualifying for Worlds anyway.

Adding more teams to MSC stills send the same top teams, but dilutes one of the most talent rich events.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

If anything, Michigan has to few slots for Championship. They currently have 275 teams signed up. With 32 slots that's 11.6% going to Championships. Compared to other regions, this percentage is low. EDIT: Three teams signed up in the twenty minutes since I posted this. 278 in Michigan now.

New England has 24 slots for 161 teams. That's 14.9%.

MAR has 18 slots for 108 teams. That's 16.7%.

Texas has 111 teams and four regionals, for 24 slots. That's 21.6%.

Ontario has 113 teams and 5 regionals, for 30 slots. That's 26.5%!

In fact, qualifying for the MI State Championship is harder than qualifying for the World Championship in Ontario. Only 23.3% of Michagan teams qualify for their State Championship. I think it's fair to say that the size of MSC could be increased without diluting the talent at the event.

These numbers could change slightly as more rookies register, but they'll still show that it's tougher to qualify for the World Championship in Michigan than elsewhere.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

Those last 2 Texas and Ontario percentages are a little misleading. They are open regionals, not districts. Teams from other areas can win those slots.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

I have the same question... sending only one Chairman's or EI winner from each district really limits the representation of the district for those awards at championship.

Also not crazy about the fact that NE teams just lost 6 spots at CMP... this is based on a comparison to last year when we had 5 regionals in our area which have been replaced. From what is stated here, I agree that Michigan is not as fairly represented even based on percentages, but we are specifically losing spots that we had last year. :eek: Concerned that the transition period to the district system is going to be more difficult to sell. It would be easier if it was possible to make it more consistent for all teams.

That's true... but those teams are also allowed to travel to any other regional as well and earn slots there, further increasing their percentage. However, this is not true for teams in the districts. If they were to go outside their district and win, they lose a spot for the district.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

That's true, although every team that qualified from an Ontario event last year was from Ontario.

Eight non Texas teams qualified from Texas last year.

Ignoring borders, around 15.5% of all teams qualify for Championship.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

Yes me to, when they go to percentages in 2015, we (FiM) should get a few more...

If we look at the number of districts, and the number of spots feeding to championships..

(I assumed 40 teams per district)

FIM = 32/260 teams = 12.3%
PNW = 24/80 teams = 30%
NE = 24/180 teams = 13.3%
MAR = 38/120 teams = 15%

I have heard rumblings around Michigan of a need to add another district to support the number of rookie teams that joined this year. That will be 14 districts, about 280 teams, and a 11.4%

TORC is currently waitlisted for both our events we wanted to attend.

So yes, when you make it to MSC you are halfway there. You've eliminated the 200 teams you were capable of beating from the pool. Now all you need to do is finish the weekend better than average...

That is easier said than done.

One dose not simply walk into Championships through MSC. (but it is kind of exciting either way.)

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

I'm not sure where you're getting your numbers from, but last I checked about a week ago, the PNW district (WA and OR) had 189 teams registered for 2014, which is 12.7% for PNW.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

As Jim and Jon put it last night, the district system is not meant to get more teams to champs, but to give the vast majority of teams who don't make it to champs a greater number of matches per season, or a greater return on investment. Keep in mind that at those 5 regionals, at least a few of the spots went to teams picked in later rounds that wouldn't qualify otherwise (although there are always exceptions). In a district system, this pretty much never happens. You have to be one of the best to get to champs. The 24th team at MAR champs, for example, was on Einstein this year.

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

Technically this is true and technically it is not true. I've heard a lot of people saying New England should get 30 spots because we had 30 spots previously but in looking at the 2013 season of the teams who qualified for St. Louis it breaks down as follows:

29 slots were given out to teams (GSR did not have a Rookie All star).
Of the 29 only 20 teams were from New England.
Of these 20 teams only 18 attended the World Championship.
Of the teams who came to New England events 7 of them qualified for the Championship.
Of the 20 New England winners two of them double qualified (126 BOS winners and RCA & 2648 PTR winners and EI).

The way I see it you could argue that NE should be getting 30 but if every district took what they originally had you won't fix the scalability issue. If anyone thought NE our any district would keep their original number they weren't looking at the reality of FIRST moving forward.

Also looking at NE events in the past, our events have been home to many teams from outside of our borders such as Canada, New York, out the country, and many teams who traveled to New England over the years.

Technically, New England will be sending the most teams we have ever sent to the Championship in 2014 which is something I am very excited about!

Re: FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

I see your point... it is a paradigm shift. And for the most part I think it is a good thing. I especially think it will be a great when everyone has transitioned to districts so that we get back the ability to travel and meet teams from around the country at that level (ie. before CMP). It is just difficult to get through this intermediate phase where we still have both systems co-existing... they are each good in their way but they are not equal. As previously noted by someone in the thread about the original district point blog, the districts were built to reward different things; it is about multi-event performance rather than a single event achievement. I think this is a good goal but it will take time to adjust to that new way of thinking. And it is just a little harder with the 2 perspectives existing side-by-side and essentially competing against each other.

BrendanB - The one thing you didn't include in your analysis was the NE teams that qualified at events outside of NE regionals. I'm just curious where that number puts us. I would argue that those teams should count in your analysis because they are included in the total district spots in the current system.

I personally need to try to remember that and I will try to remind myself of that when I start thinking "it's not fair..." It's never been about fair; it is about learning and inspiring. It is about life, and everyone knows that life is not fair. At least that's what my mom always told me. ;)

Is this a NE-specific ruling or a new standard? Last year, 2834 won Buckeye and still competed at both MSC and Worlds.