FRC Blogged - Standard District Points Ranking System – More Info
 

Posted on the FRC Blog, 11/7/13: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...80%93More-Info

Thanks for the great clarification, Frank! +1 to everyone involved.

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

54 regionals x 6 qualifiers per regional = 324 unique slots.

32(FiM) + 18(MAR) + 24(NE) + 24(PNW) = 98

324 + 98 = 422

They are really banking on 22 slots being double dipped. 22 seems like a lot to hope they get taken twice.

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

DD + teams unable to go to CMP for whatever reason

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

There are 24 teams registered for champs currently. Unless I am mistaken these are all founding teams, HOF teams, and last year's champs winners/EI/RAS.

16, 20, 45, 51, 67, 103, 111, 126, 148, 151, 175, 190, 191, 236, 254, 341, 359, 365, 610, 842, 1114, 1241, 1538, and 3478.

I would wager 80% of these teams earn a spot this year, so that's 19 of 22 solved right there.

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

There's also the 27 pre-qualified teams, 24 of which are already registered for CMP. But plenty of qualified teams cannot or opt not to attend championship each year.

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

Isn't there also the wildcard system to keep in mind for regionals? That would make it even closer to having 422 teams going to champs.

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

Is 22 really to much to hope for? With 162 spots being given to regional champions and wild cards. I would be willing to bet that of those 162 more than 22 will also win a Chairman's Award, Engineering Inspiration, or Rookie All-Star. You also have to assume at least a few district teams will win spots at Regionals. You also have teams that earn a spot but can't go.

Great Job Frank, thanks for always explaining the reasoning behind the decisions.

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

For the 27 pre-qualified teams the wild card doesn't have any affect the first time they win. If they qualify through any other method, they burn a spot. If they then qualify again, that can be wildcarded.'

For example, when 254 and 987 won SD last year, no wildcards were generated. When 254 later won San Jose, wildcards were generated.

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

They will still pull from a wait list if there is one. I predict at least 22 teams will not be able to attend Worlds due to logistical or financial reasons

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

Helpful update... thanks Frank & Co!

Glad they're going with a proportional allocation... definitely the logical and fair way to go. I also like that the teams that qualified for CMP before the start of season to be in addition to the calculated proportional allocation.

It mentions in the point system document under awards that the DCMP Chairmans', EI, and RAS winners auto-qualify to CMP. It doesn't mention if DCMP Winners also get an auto-qualify to CMP. Also doesn't mention how many Chairmans', EI, and RAS winners there are... I believe at MSC last year there were 3, 1, and 1 (respectively). Does anyone know more about if this element will be "regulated" or if regions are going to have to decide for themselves?

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

You're missing 23, who is not competing in 2014 but could do so in the future.

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

It's pretty reliable to say that around 85% of all offered slots for CMP will be accepted, based on recent history (last couple of years), so you will likely see at least 25+ teams move off the waitlist.

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

I only listed the teams that are already registered for champs.

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

32 slots allocated to Michigan? Heck, when you get to States, you're half-way to Champs (assuming it will stay at 64 teams at the event).

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

Hope this is addressed soon. Pretty disappointing to those on the outside looking in.

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.

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

I'm not sure where either of you are getting your numbers from. Here shows 43 teams signed up in OR and here shows 111 teams in WA. That's 154 teams in the PNW.

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

This is a new rule that was posted as part of the district point system for 2014: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...80%93More-Info

Note that you can still compete, but the slots available for the district is reduced when a district team wins a slot at an outside regional.

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

I noticed your team missing and am glad to hear that you're just hidden :)

It's almost looking like Michigan might need 15 district events! Counting TORC Michigan is at 280 teams at the moment, so one team more would necessitate 15 district events. Of course that depends on how final numbers shake out and if any teams drop after the payment deadline.

Regarding proportional representation, Michigan currently has 280 of the 2634 teams in FRC, or 10.6% of all teams. Proportional repression would net Michigan about 43 spots from a 400 team world championship, but I'm pleased with the increase to 32 and the promise that it'll go to proportional next year. There's only so much FRC can change/fix at once.

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

But the slots NE does have are guaranteed to be NE teams. A rough estimate (though maybe someone who has a better grasp of what actually constitutes New England... sorry, Midwesterner here), by my count at least six slots last year were taken from teams not in NE. So it might actually be a better deal to have the guaranteed spots.

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

I got my numbers from here for WA (134) and here for OR (55) for a total of 189. It appears you get different websites and results by going through the USFIRST website vs FRCLinks.

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

I'm not sure where you got your numbers but we currently have 154 teams registered for the PNW district. For the 2013 season which was used to help determine the current year's number of teams that will advance we had 156. Total teams for 2013 were 2524. So we had about 6.2% of the total teams. 6.2% of 373 = 23 plus the 1 team bonus gives PNW the 24 slots. I'm certain the math of the other areas works out the same.

So this year about 16% of our teams will move on to CMP.

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

Operator error,
I went to here, http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...egional-events counted the number of districts, and multiplied by 40 and divided by 2. 40 teams in each district, each team plays two districts.

When I counted the districts, I did not scroll all the way down, and I had PNR as 4 districts, it is actually 9 listed.

So based on that, PNR = 24/180 = 13.3%

This is a rough estimate on the max total number of teams the district structure, with the regionals listed today could support, based on 40 teams per district.

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

The USFIRST Website includes teams that weren't active the previous year (and maybe not active the previous two years, I didn't look that far into it) as well as rookie teams that have yet to register for an event (the eight digit teams). It tripped me up when I started looking at Michigan a few months ago. According the the USFIRST website Michigan has 321 teams, but we only have 279 actually registered for an event this year.

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

I don't know where you are looking, but I am pretty sure 2851 Crevolution is in the same situation with two waitlists, so that may push it to 15?

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

Good! They were another team I was sad to see not registered. And there's also four more temporary eight digit team numbers that popped up today, so as many as 285 teams/15 district events if none drop out after the payment deadline.

I'll use 280 for estimates as it's a nice enough number...

64/280 teams will qualify for states - 22.9%
32/280 teams will qualify for worlds - 11.4%

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

It's nice to finally have this clarification.

So it seems that as of right now, the only question about CMP Qualifying left on the table will be how Wildcard Slots are being handled in 2014.

Also, the mention of going to a proportional representation system in 2015 and beyond is interesting..

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

In 2013, a total of 28 teams went to CMP from New England. This includes people that qualified from NE, from other events, and as HOF or founding teams. I don't have the numbers, but this number was pretty consistent going back to about 2010... I think it varied between 27 and 30 teams (despite the fact that there were only 3 regionals in NE back in 2010).

While the number of District-qualifying teams from New England will be 24 next year, that doesn't include the 5 teams already qualified for CMP from New England (126, 151, 175, 190, 236)... So, New England will send 29 teams to CMP next year... right on line with our recent historical average.

Regardless of whether or not it would line up with our historical average or not, I'm glad that it's being determined by percentage of teams (although only approximately in 2014)... it's the fairest way to do it, I think.

As a side-note, a district team that qualifies for CMP by winning at a regional doesn't really take away a slot from their region... they just ensure that they're one of those teams. If 1519, 230, and 3467 all traveled to the Albany-area regional next year, and we all won, New England would still send 29 teams (24 + 5 pre-quals)... it would just guarantee that we would be 3 of those teams. I think this method is about as good as any to try to bridge the two systems... this'll all work much better when a district-like system exists for everyone!

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

The more I've thought about it, the more I think people are using their own worries to throw gasoline on this fire. If a team wins a regional as a first or second team on the alliance, they are very, very likely to finish in the rankings just high enough to go to WCMP via their DCMP anyway. By the time it's all said and done, the team very well could have played upwards of 50+ matches by then and a probably also racked up a district win or at least a couple good finishes.

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

As long as there are two systems functioning at the same time, there will be someone thinking they are getting the short end of the stick compared to someone else. It's human nature. Things won't be "even" until we are all in a district model. Then there will still be folks who think they are still holding the short end of the stick.

Can't satisfy everyone all the time.

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

Spent a little time looking over the list, and I suspect there at least 6 or 7 more missing from the list, that are in the same boat. I know 2851 is planning on participating.

I suspect the following...
Teams that made it to MSC, missing from list...
2000, Team Rock, played worlds last year, played traverse city and gull lake. I suspect still playing, as these were full early in TIMS.
3421, Tachyon TECs - Team website calendar has no data this year, maybe out?

Active 4000's, that are missing...
4294 Star-trec, 3rd year,
4478 Materia Oscura, Played MARC offseason, I would think still in.

The way TIMS works, if you wait list for two events, you can't register and there is no payment due.

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

According to this post here it looks like 3421 is out for the duration.

I've attached my (somewhat discombobulated) spreadsheet that I've been tracking these things if anybody else wants to take a look.

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

I've also said this in the Registration thread, but I'll say it here for those trying to account for teams.

3421 won't be competing this year. Short version: school let go of lead mentor and doesn't want him to be involved, the rest of us mentors aren't in a position where we can take over that role, and the school has been hesitant to let parents get involved.

The parent of one of our students decided to create a team (5046) at their son's home school as the school is willing to part with the name, but not our supplies. (Specifically, the robot.)



More related: I'm excited to be able to play outside of Michigan soon. We've been trapped in our own state for far too long. I remember a seeing a thread in '09 asking what happened to Michigan teams because not much had been heard about them. Someone responded with something along the lines of "Oh, we're still here, we've just been trapped in our own state playing against each other. We're still good. Heck, we're even better."

So, really, for your own sake, let us out of Michigan so the first time you come up against us isn't at CMP after we've played 40+ matches against ourselves. =P

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

I've just re-read Frank's blog posts, his responses to comments and both CD threads.
In the CD thread for the initial blog Kim posed several questions:
I thought it would be useful to revisit these questions in light of the updates.


Firstly Frank's follow up post yesterday clarified Q2 and answers Q1 with a very clear justification and tantalizing hints of the future :)


There is also an answer to Q3 within the revised District Points Summary
So we know at least 1 EI and 1 RAS will be auto-bid to the FIRST Championship.


Which brings us to Q4: how many awards are given at the District Championship?


I don't see a direct answer to that question in the blog posts or points summary, although there is a potential hint that multiple DCAs will be awarded (my emphasis)
To me winning a DCA rather than the DCA suggests multiple DCAs at the District Championship, but I don't see clarification for other awards.
Am I missing something or reading too much into the word choice of an indefinite article?

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

Generally true. If you win (or place highly at) a District, chances are you'll continue to do well elsewhere, and that's generally good enough to get you to StL. Yes, it is possible you totally mess up at DCMP and fail to make it to CMP, but that's really unusual/rare.

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

Last year, MSC had three Chairman's winners. http://firstinmichigan.org/FRC_2013/...Supplement.pdf -- page 6

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

I think you've covered it all... I dont think the numbers of awards are yet clear in documented form. My guess is that they are still finalizing the answer to question 4.

This doesn't guarantee that there will be 3 winners from the district, there are several things that changed from the 2013 Michigan model.

In my opinion 3CA, 1EI, 1RAS makes sense, but its hard to tell what else may go into their decisions. I wonder if its possible the # of CA's to be proportional to the number of teams sent?

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

These are still being worked on. Please check with your district operating committees for more details as we move forward.