![]() |
2016 Minnesota State Champs
The 2016 MSHSL rankings are in and here are the 30 teams qualified to go to MSHSL Champs:
Code:
2052* |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
No team that attended Iowa for their first event qualified...
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Congrats to 2823 and 2855 for making it, and I wish you good luck representing St. Paul.
Despite the unfortunate absences of 2175 and defending state champion 3130, who won North Star together last weekend and certainly are two of the top teams in the state, I'll be making the short trip over to Minneapolis to watch, as this competition is still full of great robots and should be very competitive. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
No, you're right Caleb. 1816's first event was Lake Superior...
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
The list seems incomplete without 2175 and 3130. :(
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Also, 3130 is ranked #32, so they probably will make it in replacing a team that is unable to attend. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
While it is great that we will be attending this for the first time, it is a shame that our alliance partners 2175 and 3130 from North Star will not be there as they both built some of the best robots in the state this year and clearly deserve to be there.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Bogus and way too early predictions anyone? (Assuming all invited teams attend)
1. 5172-2052-2220 2. 5434-2502-4539 3. 2512-2883-4778 4. 4009-3102-2823 |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
I feel like I may have jinxed my team when i posted this during build season...
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
2169 congratulates all the teams that qualified for the state championship! Minnesota had some great bots this year, some of which are sadly unrepresented (especially 3130 and 2175).
I actually found it quite comical seeing our placing. "KING TeC close" |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
The teams invited are invited using the same formula that districts use to select who's invited to district championships. The formula applies to the first event only. Giving teams the best of multiple events is prima facie unfair to teams that can only afford one event. As it is, winning Chairman's at any event is an automatic in. I'd love to see 2175 and 3130 at the state championships but that's not the way the rules are written. You want heartbreaking, 2169 is the first team not selected and they lost on the 4th tiebreaker. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
I would also say teams should be rewarded for the time they spend iterating and improving their robots between events. Diagnosing problems, fixing them and having a better performance and the field as a result is an amazing thing. These teams put in a lot of time and work and money into this improvement, not to mention blood, sweat, and tears. If you're worried about not all teams being able to do 2 events, then take the teams single event and double the score while taking others teams' 2 events. Or simply take an average of 2 events that teams do, same thing. This system rewards hard work without eliminating teams that can only do 1 regional from being able to compete. The top robots need to be there if we're going to call it a championship event, and this will correct for that without over-correcting. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Counting a second event simply gives an unfair advantage to those teams that can afford more events. And for the record, that's 42 teams out of 208 this year - 20%. Allowing those 20% to count their second event gives them a benefit over the other 80% of teams in the state. This is the same decision that was made in districts - there, they count a team's first two events, because every team gets two events. If you sign up for a third? Well, that's some more practice and experience for you, but it doesn't count towards your ranking. 2175 and 3130 did really well at North Star, it was fun watching them play. But that was their second event. It's tough, but that's the only fair way we've found to make it work. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Another interesting question relating to the state qualification system is should Chairman's team qualify automatically? The fact that my team qualified via CA and wouldn't have otherwise doesn't change my opinion on this topic, because I haven't formed an opinion as of yet. I've heard good arguments from people on both sides. Those arguments always boil down to:
If you qualify CA winners, you have to have some kind of overall CA award or recognition, something. It wouldn't necessarily have to be MSHSL sponsored which would obviously be ideal. If you have no such award/recognition, why qualify the teams? Obviously the Chairman's Award is the most significant in FIRST, but should that mean they qualify to compete in a competition designed to determine the best robots? It does for champs, but they compete to become Hall of Fame teams there. I'd love to see something done with CA at the state championship, even if it isn't MSHSL sponsored. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
One of the arguments for counting a second regional is that it rewards teams that took the time to improve their bot. But doesn't that still inherintely and indirectly hurt teams that can only afford one event? This improvement ideology still hinges on the fact that teams with more money are given an advantage. We'd be fooling ourselves if we thought teams that can't currently afford two regionals do not want to improve their robot. Factoring in a second regional rewards the opportunity to improve the bot, not the actual action of doing so. Every team would strive to improve their robot for their second regional if they could afford it. Sometimes the opposite happens (our first day at North Star this year for example, and us in 2008), but regardless, factoring in a second regional is more of a reward for the opportunity to improve the robot rather than a reward for the drive and motivation of doing so. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Sorry for all the posts, I'm very opinionated on this topic... actually I'm very opinionated in general:D
Using only 1 event for state qualification rankings also provides incentive for teams to avoid early events. It is unfair to those teams located in the Duluth area that can't afford to travel. They only get 1 week after build season ends to make improvements (with no reference) while teams in the Twin Cities area that can't afford to travel, get over 6 weeks and the opportunity to see 254 and 1114 play, as well as many of their competitors who go to Duluth. It's not fair no matter how you do it. I just think we should reward hard work rather than worry about being fair in a single aspect. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
We appreciate the sentiment and regret missing the event. It's always fun to compete up close and personal with MN friends again. The qualification rules have been the same since the event was established in 2012. The 30 teams that performed best at their first events, according to district points, compete at state champs. We all know this, and try our best to make the cut. (Indeed, district teams still only count two events for points, any additional plays don't help ranking.) Both 2175 and 3130 have been lucky to attend in the past, and wish the best of luck to the very worthy competitors this year. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
That said, It's certainly open for debate at this point - has that benefit served its purpose enough that we can take it away? Have we created a sufficiently focused culture in the state around the Chairman's award that teams will continue to strive for it in the levels they did this past year, and not just make it "all about the robot"? Tough questions to answer. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
And a large majority of those teams that qualified had their first regional in Duluth, so the results actually seem in favor of early competitions. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Honestly, it's a crap shoot when picking a regional to attend as your first event. Some years, you'll be in a regional where the winning alliance is made up of all team's from out of state - that's a LOT of potential points that aren't awarded to anyone. Other times, there's practically no one from out of state. Sometimes a team that wins Chairman's earns a boatload of points that don't really matter anymore, taking them out of the equation for other teams. And, of course, sometimes it's second-play teams that eat up the available points. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
another way too early prediction
1. 5172, 2052, and 4009 (W) 2. 2502, 2512, and 1816 (F) 3. 5434, 2883, and 4539 (SF) 4. 4778, 2823, and 2220 (SF) |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Yes, this current system is now flawed. However, if you look back to pre-2012 when the formula was put into place, MN FIRST and the MSHSL had to come up with something - and it worked for a while. I do think it needs to be revisited.
I have an interesting vantage point. My team has made many contacts the last 4 years throughout greater Minnesota and I have been hearing of the problems with the current system. 4607 has been fortunate enough to qualify for the State tournament 3 of our 4 years - but not without help. As a rookie team in 2013 we won the North Star Regional outright as the 2nd pick on the alliance (thank you 2175 and 967). We ended up winning the State Tournament with 2175 and 2052. In 2014, the 5 points awarded to us as being a 'Second year team' helped us to edge out other VERY deserving teams (again at NS we were allied with 967 and 2175 - I still cannot watch that Semifinal match). However, at State we did lead the alliance (with 2530 and 3018) that ended up as Finalists - so that kind of validated our being there. In a weird turn of events we had to face off against 2175 and 2052 (and 4778) - our alliance partners the previous year. As much as I would have liked to win the State Tournament - we took the fact we had to face off against 2175 and 2052 as a major bookmark in our team's history. This year we qualified based on RCA (I am still trying to come to grips with this). We will see how it ends up. Now to my thoughts... As a coach of many sports for more than a decade, I can attest to the fact that the greatest improvement for ANY team happens between the first and second event/match/game. No matter the competitive sport, there is a significant advancement following a team's first event. I am all in favor of having each team's last regional event as the qualifier for the State Tournament. I do understand the situation of low-budget teams, because my team is one. Becker does not have a large industrial/commercial base and even though our school provides the space, they do not provide any funding. Contrary to popular belief, Xcel does not provide any unusual tax base to Becker - Xcel Sherco tax base is spread out among all school districts in MN (Thank you Jesse Ventura). This last year we lost funding from our founding sponsor and it has been a great struggle as we attended two regionals. We are now in a situation where we face a negative balance and we face a $25,000 bill for worlds. We will most likely go back to 1 regional for the foreseeable future. And contrary to most stats, we actually finished lower at our second event than we did at our first. I am also very opposed to the gratuity points allotted to Rookie and Second year teams (even though my team benefited in the past). If we run a state tournament without Judges Awards, there should be no reason that these bonus points are allowed. Even if there were judges, there should not be bonus points based on years. As for Chairman's Awards submissions, MN FIRST had a reason for this and I believe Jon Stratis laid this out effectively in his post. Many of the teams that I have talked to have expressed great disdain for the 10 points that are attached to CA submission. Now that MN FIRST has seen a significant rise in CA submissions, I think that their goal has been realized. However, since CA is the top award in FRC, I do believe that a team that wins this at ANY regional should be granted a spot in the MSHSL Tournament. I know that many of my colleagues disagree - but this must still be a part of the qualifications for state. Man this is a long post. I will wrap it up with this: In my opinion, qualifications for the MN State Tournament should go as such: 1. RCA's automatically qualify (no matter the regional) 2. MN Regional (Duluth or MPLS) Winners automatically qualify 3. The rest of the field is based upon a system where the LAST regional is the qualifying regional. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
I really like Chief Hedgehog's suggestions, and I agree with CA winners qualifying automatically. Taking the last event or taking an average of 2 events, I don't think it matters, we can figure that part out. I do think something needs to be done. |
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:
|
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:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
FIRST is more than robots, that much is clear in the Vision and Mission Statement of FIRST. The extra points given to teams that submit for the award shows that we, as a State, support this Vision and Mission. If we want solely a robot competition, why don't we take away all points from non-technical awards and not auto-advance when a team wins Chairman's? One other personal note about Chairman's being apart of the qualification for the MSHSL State Championship. The FTC State Championship was hosted in Bloomington this past year for a charge of $800 in custodial overtime fees. At the end of the year, the FRC team was contacted and told that they would need to pay $7000+ if they ever ran the FTC State Championship in the school again because the FRC team didn't participate. The FRC team was told that fundraising was not a valid way of participating, nor was volunteering. They were required to compete as a FRC team and host the event (which doesn't make any sense but I digress) I sent multiple emails on behalf of the team to support them in their outreach. I've quoted a portion of one of my emails below; Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Now that champs are over (and I'm on a 14 hour drive back to Fargo) let's start talking about states! We have some world champion quality teams in attendance in 2052, 5172, 2502, and 2512.
2052: Nearly unblockable outerworks shooter that has been playing at a very high level of late. Just watch their Einstein film... oh yeah they made Einstein. 5172: Been the best MN robot all year. Probably top 3 robot in the world. The drive team is dissipointed when they score just 8 boulders in the high goal if that tells you anything :yikes: 2502: Incredible batter shooter that averages 6-7 high goals per match. They also have an away from the wall climb which makes a triple climb feasible. 2512: Despite unfortunately not qualifying for champs, 2512 has a fantastic robot and drive team. Knowing them they've been working with their practice robot and will be just as prepared as any champs team for states. There is also a really high quality 2nd tier of robots including: 2987, 2823, 2883, and 4009 Each of these robots was chosen to to play a key role (usually scoring) on a playoff alliance at world's. All of them are high goal efficient and will add value to a playoff alliance as a scorer. We also have a couple of robots that were drafted at world's to play defense and do it really well: 4607 and 3042. 4607: 9th overall pick on the Einstein winning Carver field. Played defense throughout quals and racked up a total of 4 penalties through 12 matches. 54" arm that can reach 15" outside their frame perimeter with and 8-12 second climb. 3042: Cobalt was picked to play defense on the famous all Minnesota alliance. They added a large blocker and have a powerful drivetrain. They can also accurately hit high goals if called upon. There are also a few wildcards out there that are either making some major changes or have the potential to make some changes that will make them valuable in the playoffs: 1816, 3102, 4539, and 6175 3102 and 6175 are both incredible low goal scorers with great driving. Low goals may or may not be a factor (more on that later) so these teams would do well to contribute in other ways such as feeding high goal shooters or playing defense. Both have high quality machines and drive teams. 1816 and 4539 are making major changes to their robots but that's all I'll say. They can reveal details if they want. The changes could help them find themselves in the playoffs. Strategy Stuff: We still don't know what the tower strength will be for states (8 or 10) so that will play a large factor in teams' strategies. Although it really shouldn't affect elimination strategies. With all the high goal scorers in the field, the only way to win will be to score more high goals. There will be no preventing the capture in the finals, just slowing teams down. Low goal robots will only be able to contribute as defenders or breacher/feeders. Low goals are more or less worthless. There is still a lot of debate between the 2 offense and 1 defense (2-1) and 3 offense 0 defense (3-0) strategies. Both were effectively used in the finals of Einstein and they literally resulted in the same score. It completely depends on the depth of the scorers in the field. In my opinion it'll work out like this: the 1st and 2nd alliance will have capture ability with no offensive help from a third partner, while the 3rd and 4th alliances will need offensive contribution from all 3 alliance members to capture. This leaves the door open for both 3-0 and 2-1 strategies in the playoffs. Predictions: To be added later. I'll probably edit this post when I'm not coming off of the greatest championship in the history of FIRST. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Dont forget 5434.
They earned the control award at 10k for having an incredibly consistent autonomous high goal shot and a very solid robot. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Looks like a great event, can't wait to watch it.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Team 5232 is extremely excited to get to compete in the Minnesota State Championships for a second year! We are looking forward to see many teams again from Northern Lights!
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Another great low goal shooter and all around excellent bot to add to the list is 4778. If not for a serious of unfortunate events for them, North Star may have had a different result.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Alliance 2: 2502, 2512, 4607 Alliance 3: 4009, 2823, 4778 Alliance 4: 2883, 2987, 1816 1 vs. 4: Match 1: 223-146 Match 2: 180-123 2 vs. 3: Match 1: 167-117 Match 2: 122-131 (Alliance 2 fails to capture from fallen climber) Match 3: 155-97 3rd Place 3 vs. 4 Match 1: 136-148 1st Place 1 vs. 2 Match 1: 156-154 Match 2: 161-185 (First triple climb of tournament) Match 3: 155-146 The State Playoffs will become incredibly interesting if a robot other than: 2052, 5172, or 2502 seeds first. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
I don't know too much about Minnesota this year, but if you're planning on playing heavy high goal offense at this event, watch out for 4607. They can absolutely shut down almost any high goal shooter with the right strategy. Watch QF1-3 on Carver when you get the chance; they prevent something like six high goals between blocking and pushing defense. They are a team good enough at defense that I would consider drafting them in round 1 at an event like this just to avoid playing against them.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Team #4539 is excited for next week's MSHSL State Championship! We have been brainstorming like crazy over the past few months and think we have made the proper improvements to be extremely competitive. The shooter is improved as well as the climber and we worked very hard on improving the ability to cross all defenses, as that was one of our major weaknesses in Duluth. If shooting doesn't pan out, we can always implement our blocker mechanism!
We have made it to the State Championship each of the past four years we have been a part of FIRST and have just missed the cut multiple times (2013 finished quals ranked 5th and did not get selected, 2015 finished quals ranked 6th and missed the cut as well). This year we have a major goal of becoming a captain or getting selected so we can show how beneficial our team can be to an alliance. Good luck to all teams that will be attending and we will see you in 7 days! |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
I'll be flying I'm from the Kennedy Space Center (college robotics competition) for load-in day at states. I don't know what I'm more excited for, going to Florida for free, or the State Championship! Both are going to be insane. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
This tournament will be a little bittersweet for me as it is the last tournament with our last team member from our rookie season - Kyle. He has seen quite a bit in the last four years on this squad and I couldn't think of a better place to end his career - at a tournament we know well in a venue we know even better.
As always, CIS will be ready for the State Tournament. We do have a few surprises to unleash. I will say, it is humbling to read some of these posts. We know how hard we work to be a good team - but sometimes it feels as if we are in our own world out here in the potato fields of Central MN. And yes, defense is our thing - it has been since 2013. We like to joke that we were the best defensive team of 2015. For those that don't know - we were over 84" long and didn't move for most of our first 8 matches at North Star in 2015. We heard the groan from other teams that were allied with us. For 8 rounds our drive team would hear the FTA announce to his radio "bypass 4607". We returned 3 of the 4 members of that drive team and it is now a running joke for CIS. Good luck to all - see you on Friday night! |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Team 2823 is looking forward to our first trip to state. We're still a little bit tired from our crazy run at champs (we finally shimmed our shooter properly), but we're also looking for our first blue banner. Can't wait to see everybody on the field!
Quote:
|
Quote:
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Is there going to be a live stream? I have out of state relatives asking me for information.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
According to Mark Lawrence the webcast must be done by www.prep45.com as it is a Minnesota State Championship. I'm not sure if you will need to pay to watch it because of that or not...?
Mark provided this link in one of his recent emails: http://mnfirst.us13.list-manage.com/...e= 5d103023fc |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Thank you for the information, I will pass it along.
Does that imply that the tournament may get some coverage during "MN Prep Spotlight" on Sunday at 9:30? |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Any idea if the match videos will be archived in any way? Also, does anyone know if the FMS reports will be available (after or even during) for review and/or upload (e.g. to TBA)?
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
The MSHSL has a contract with prep45 to webcast events, and the State Tournament is a MSHSL event. I don't know if you'll have to pay to view or not, I do know it's a subject that has come up before.
When you think about it, having that deal in place for most of the MSHSL activities completely makes sense. FIRST is probably the only one to have the sort of in-house experience live streaming events that we do. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Prep45 has in the past (and I suspect will this year) also made available a DVD of at least the playoff rounds available, with their commentary. However it is not free.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
You need a log-in account on the prep45 website to get access to the stream, and (unlike HBOGo) you can only have one device at a time streaming a paid feed. So grandparents in one city and aunt/uncles in another will have to pay separately. The long-term deal between prep45 and the state high school league does bring in revenue to the organization, and it guarantees television/web streaming of certain state tournament events, regardless of whether there'd be enough paying customers to justify the production costs (the 2016 girls basketball Class A quarterfinal game between Sleepy Eye and Mountain Iron is available on-demand, in case anyone is interested). But the deal has its fair share of detractors. Robotics is far from the first sport in Minnesota to have experience live-streaming games/events (our high school's hockey games have been streamed for several years now). And there's been more than a few conflicts (for example, when a hockey team is barred from streaming their section final game because the wrestling tournament is being streamed at the same time :mad: ). The prep45 deal is really comprehensive, and they are very aggressive in legally protecting the broadcast/streaming rights that they've paid for.::safety:: |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
We demo'd robots at the Minneapolis Maker Faire last Saturday. I took the liberty of printing up 150 'free admission' coupons (good for two) to the state tournament which all the teams demo'ing handed out to those who we spoke to. Many people were very pleased to get free tickets. I think it will actually make people more likely to come than if we just suggested "Come to the tournament, its free admission for everyone!"
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Friday night is over and it was nice to get a peek at what teams worked on for their 6 hours for state. Tomorrow should be fun! Can't wait.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Here are some predictions for state.
Alliance 1: 5172 2052 2220 (W) Alliance 2: 2502 2512 5232 (F) Alliance 3: 2883 4009 4607 (SF) (3rd Place Tie Breaker Match Winner) Alliance 4: 2987 5434 2823 (SF) |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Quote:
Quote:
I probably should have posted in this thread earlier, but if the people behind the scoring table want to input live data to TBA, PM me and I'll get you set up with write keys. |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
This is ridiculously fun!
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Congratulations to 5172, 2052, and 3276 for winning the state championships. I wish I could have been there, but unfortunately I had something else going on today. 4536 will be working hard to qualify next year.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
I just wanted to give a big thank you to 2052 and 3276. So happy we won this year after finishing 4th and 3rd before. Also congrats to 2883 for being a finalist and representing northwest Minnesota well.
|
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
Congrats to the Champs: 5172, 2052, and 3276 - I would consider all three to be strong teams in MN for the last number of years. When we faced them in the Semi's it was like running into a buzz-saw.
To all the teams that competed today - great job! The MSHSL State Tournament is not a marathon event - it is a dead on sprint to the finals. It takes a lot out of each team and the robots. Thank you to 2502 and 2512 - it looked as we had a chance (a team built on 3 previous state champs) - but the day got away from us. However, it was an honor for 4607 to be allied with both of these strong teams. Good luck next season! To the MSHSL and Amy Doherty - your hard work and dedication to MNFIRST and the students is impeccable. Amy works her arse off for this event and the partnership between MNFIRST and the MSHSL is very unique and very successful! Finally - the volunteers, the VC, and the rest of MNFIRST - incredible job, thank you. The event was spectacular and is getting better every year! |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
This was a fun competition for sure! Big thanks to our alliance partners Team 5172 The Gators and Team 3276 the Toolcats. It was an honor playing with 5172.. seriously these guys are beasts and are FRC veterans and their drive team was a blast to work with. Ever since I saw their bot at Northern lights and their performances throughout the season I've been waiting to get an opportunity to work with the gators and I am super glad we did. We'll see you guys at IRI then! As for Team 3276, great defense from you guys. You guys did everything we asked of you guys.
Big shout out to the Finalist alliance as well consisting of Teams 4009, 2883, and 3042. Especially to Team 2883 FRED (who we've enjoyed working with at the past at regional's and state competitions)- also we are sorry for tipping you guys over during Finals 1.. we are heavily sorry for any damage we caused to your robot. These are 3 teams that are heavily underrated in MN, can't wait to see what you guys build next year. Congrats to the third place alliance consisting of Team 2987, Team 5434, and Team 3102 as well. All 3 teams had bots that played the game well this year, another pair of MN teams that are underrated in terms of what they build. Also to the 4th seeded alliance consisting of Team 2502, 4607, and 2512.. just wanted to say that the alliance was well built & great job this season.. after alliance selection we definitely knew semis would be a challenge against 4607's defense and 2502 and 2512's boulder cycling. Thanks to the volunteers, referees, etc. that helped put up this great event, I'll be back next year as a volunteer :) |
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs
It was a great event. Next year I'd love to do 60 teams and 10 qual matches per team over 2 days. I'm not sure how anyone with any actual authority feels about that, but I'm up for it.
I did my best to keep TBA updated with match results as each finished. Hopefully that was useful to someone and perhaps next year we can automate it more or convince FIRST to let offseason events into the official FIRST API. Oh, I'm still not entirely convinced that the Cheval de Frise won out over the Killer Rabbit, but we have to accept the calls the refs give us. Congratulations to the winners, that would be all 30 competing teams, as well as the new State Champions! |
| 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