![]() |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
What if we counted extra events, but team's events after their first one didn't give teams as many points? So being a semifinalist at your second event would be the same number as points as being a quarterfinalist at your first event.
We couldn't take the average of the two events here, because going to a second event could hurt a team's chances, so the team's score for state would be the better of their two scores. This way the only teams that would benefit from attending a second event are those who are successful enough to be winners or finalists at their second event. 2175 and 3130 would have made it this year, and 2502 would have made it last year. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Congrats to the 30 teams that made it in! While many great teams unfortunately didn't qualify for this event, I'm sure it'll still be a great event. It'll be my last FRC competition as a student on 2052 and I'm excited for it already.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
I am surprised that no one has mentioned expanding the size of the field and the length of the tournament.
A lot of the current MSHSL tournaments (football, basketball, etc) starts out with every team in them. They play elimination games eventually getting to the "state" tournament. Usually they are single elimination games, you win you move on. The sport's state tournament will be a three or four day event. Right now in robotics you play one event and only the top few from each event are going on to the next play. What is the restriction on making the Robotics tournament a two day event or even a three day event? People and schools have no qualms about pulling their kids out of school for 3 days for a basketball tournament. Would it hurt to expand the tournament to two days? We could even play Saturday/Sunday if people are concerned about volunteers missing work. Idea for the future: Right now the MSHSL tournament results do not determine who goes to champs, so we could afford to have an elongated tournament season after Championships (would actually be good practice to see what a district model would look like). You could do 4 geographically-oriented regional tournaments with 52 teams in each. Top 60 teams with the highest OPR go on to the State finals for two or three days of robot nirvana. I think there are options on how we work to get truly the best robots in attendance at the state tournament, and ultimately get more playing time for all of the teams. One of the problems the RPC has in expanding to districts and more playing time for teams is the lack of volunteers. We need more trained volunteers so the same people aren't doing every tournament every weekend. Also, I don't think CA teams should qualify for a state tournament that emphasizes robot performance. They are targeting a different award. Some teams do both well (eg. 2052) but I feel the State tournament should be about robot performance. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Or to put it more simply, at the first regional the robot is the one the team built. At the second regional the robot has had bits grafted on based on what they saw worked for others. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
To be honest, I'm just extremely happy that 2169 has a chance to continue our season. While we didn't qualify, I'm still going to try to get to the world championships to see what goes down. The fact that there's still a chance that we can make it to state is a heartwarming thought. However, much like everyone else is saying, just wish that other teams far more deserving had a chance too. Can't wait for the Minne Mini and Gitchi Gummi though!
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Using the first regional puts everyone on a level playing field. If a team decides to not build a functional robot before bag and tag then that's their problem, they shouldn't be rewarded for it. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
QUOTE=youngace89;1571741]What if we counted extra events, but team's events after their first one didn't give teams as many points? So being a semifinalist at your second event would be the same number as points as being a quarterfinalist at your first event.
We couldn't take the average of the two events here, because going to a second event could hurt a team's chances, so the team's score for state would be the better of their two scores. This way the only teams that would benefit from attending a second event are those who are successful enough to be winners or finalists at their second event. 2175 and 3130 would have made it this year, and 2502 would have made it last year.[/quote] "A team winning a Chairman’s Award at any Regional competition automatically goes to the State Championship. " from the MSHSL We currently allow teams 2nd regional to qualify them for the Mn State Tournament. If a team win CA at their second regional, they have earned an automatic bid to the state tournament. If we only count a teams first regional event, why in this case to we count the 2nd regional for team which can afford a second try? |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
This is an engineering competition. Engineering isn't necessarily building "unique", and "fancy". Engineering is systematically determining the best way to approach a problem, and then doing so in a scientific way. Engineering within FIRST certainly isn't contained within a 6 week week period. The most significant improvement in performance for most teams happens at competitions. The idea that this would looked upon in a negative way by some is mind-blowing. My team may have competed in 2 events this year, but it'll be tough to do so every year. I'm not making these arguments out of self interest. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Iteration is a key part of engineering and it should be praised, not condemned. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Right now, during the official tournament, teams that have the money to extend their build season ARE given an advantage. I was trying to suggest that there are scenarios where these teams could be put in a position where they have to make decisions that could make them less likely to qualify for the world championship but more likley to qualify for the MSHSL tournament, or vice versa. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
If a team wants to rank highly to qualify for the Minnesota championships, then they should make deliver a quality robot to their first event. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 23:31. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi