![]() |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
When Indiana first started to have a state championships they used the following metric for who got in.
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
As I stated earlier, Becker is not a well-funded team. We are by no means a poor team either. Yet within our budget we have to make really difficult decisions each and every year. If any team would like, we have an open door policy. We will share any and every bit of knowledge to anyone who asks. As one of my own professors used to state: "Knowledge is free, you just have to bring your own bucket." I think I am going bat crap crazy right now. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Similarly high school football teams that recruit players from all over the country play teams who can barely recruit from their own school. We don't change the way football games are scored, or the way the tournament is set up to balance everything out, and make things fair. The good teams qualify for State, the bad teams don't. It's the way competition works. There isn't anything wrong with that. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
FIRST Team 3293 is ranked 33rd, 'just a bit outside'...but in very good company (2169 and 3130...and 2977 - Hey Sir Lancer bots!). Just want to say thanks to all those in MN who volunteer and work to make the Regional a great experience. Best of luck to all Teams who will attend the MSHSL States!
And just a point of view from a Team who missed it by "that much". I think the qualification ranking is "fair enough". No reason to change. We'll work harder and take another shot next year, or we won't...that's life. The only real fair in this world comes to town but once a year. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
I am curious if the fact that no one qualified based on their performance at the Iowa Regional is going to factor into anybody's scheduling plans for next year.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Plus, we were one ramparts cross away from the semifinals, which would have given us a much higher chance of qualifying. It would be very rewarding to qualify there next year, and I think we're capable of it. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
I do suspect that you'd see a drop in chairman's if you take the 10 points away. I know we were submitting before we knew about the 10 points, because our former coach was good that way. But I know I watch it much more carefully, and make sure of the deadline, because of those 10 points. I'd vote to reduce it. Maybe 1 or 2 points. That could make it a nice tie breaker; if you had two teams that were otherwise pretty equal, give the nod to the one that submitted Chairman's. That feels more fair. Or, and here's crazy talk: it'd be nice if you got a score on your chairman's submission. You could use that to gain points, and might be a nice way to encourage students to continue submitting. It's pretty hard to submit it year over year, knowing full well that some other amazing and well deserving team is going to win it. But if you had a score that was yours, that you could strive to improve year over year, I could see that being a valuable incentive. Cheers, Jeremy |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
*The scoring of individual submissions is alright in theory, but I feel this could be subject to judge inconsistency. I don't feel bad enough about the idea to fig against it, but I see this as a possible point of complaint. Someone will find fault with it, whether it be them not wanted the fact their team scored a 1/10 on a chairmans submission public for everyone to see or for some other reason. *am I misinterpreting your last paragraph? Edit: high scores is not highest priority tie-breaker. But my support still stands that I do like RCA submissions as a tiebreaker more than points |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
While one could say that this provides an incentive to the best teams to have a dominant robot right off the bat, this still doesn't translate well to other teams that either cannot afford multiple regionals or must go to a later one. This brings me back to the high score tiebreaker. Long story short, it shouldn't exist. There are plenty of other team-specific factors such as penalties or even to a certain extent OPR. Overall, the high score tiebreaker is probably not the best decision, even if it is the fourth and last one. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
I threw some (really quick) data together on how the rankings would change if we removed the 10 point Chairman's bonus. It doesn't change much (in my opinion). Red teams are no longer advancing, green teams are new advancing teams.
![]() |
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