Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Hey guys. I was think about regionals and I started questioning the wild card system at regionals. A little background on me is I've never been to a regional or participated in a regional but I felt like the current wild card rules aren't the best. Honestly, playoff advancement doesn't define the best robots. Many good robots don't win. In the district system, we seem to honor those that don't do well in playoffs to an extent by doing a district point system that gives teams points based on qualification performance, alliance selection, playoff performance, and awards.

Why don't we do this for the regional system? Say there is a regional where there are 3 wild card spots (I'm assuming this is very rare). Is it reasonable for the 2nd pick on the finalist alliance to get that 3rd wild card spot when the third alliance captain that's been shooting 5 high goals all day doesn't qualify because they were knocked out in semis? (Just an example. I'm not basing this off of a real life situation)

Now using the current district point system wouldn't work perfectly for regionals but we could reform it. Obviously, the district point system tracks point throughout the whole season. This regional point system would be for only that regional. I'm suggesting we come up with a regional point system only for wild card spots. Not any other qualifying spot. So some regionals, it would be useless since there are no wild card spots. It would be most beneficial for later regionals.

So what are your thoughts? Any ideas to add onto this? Anything that you'd change? Has this been discussed before? I'm not sure and I'm eager to see responses. Thanks.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

At Montreal, there was 4 wilcards. My team was captain in the finalist alliance, we got one. Our 1st pick got RAS, and our 2nd seed got the 2nd wildcard. The 2 remaining wildcards were thrown away. The wildcard system is weird, but i don't see how they can make it fair. From your point, the 2nd seed on the winning alliance is less deserving to qualify than the finalist captain, so should they also change that?

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I agree with that but I don't think that should change. I think it stinks that essentially, the 24th best team has a better chance at qualifying than the third best team but winning is important. Keeping the 6 spots to qualify as they are is fine. Now with the current district system points, playoff performance can be about 40-50% of total points at an event. So the second pick on the finalist alliance will be high ranked in the wild card list but I think that we should design a system that allows like the third alliance captain who ranked 4th and was a semi finalist to rank higher than the second pick who ranked 23rd and was a finalist. Does that make sense? So I think the 6 current spots are fine. Reforming wild card spots would hopefully make the quality of robots at worlds better without changing the current qualification system too much.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

You ever hear what happens when you assume?

(BTW, I'm a really big fan of "If you don't know the system, you need to learn it before you can change it." So don't be afraid to come on out and experience a regional--SoCal in March/April is pretty nice, if you can find space in one of the events out here.)

2-3 wildcards is pretty common in late-season regionals. I can think of two offhand that saw the entire finals field heading for Championship. (OC had a winner with a previous RCA, a double EI, and a double RAS, sending all three finalists. Arizona West had two winners with previous wins, and one of the finalists was HoF so they passed the slot on to their partners).

Now, if you go past finalist... Which semifinalist do you give it to, the one that lost to the winner, or the one that lost to the finalist? What about the RI team, or a consensus team that should go because the audience/teams want them to go?

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

All members of the winning alliance should quality, in order to add incentive to be on a stronger alliance (preserve the power protect). However, I think that wildcards should be based on seeding beyond that. The seeding system isn't perfect, but IME the top few seeds generally deserve to be there.
At SVR, for example, the top 6 seeds all definitely deserved their spots. I didn't keep track beyond that.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Thanks for the information. I'd love to go to a regional in the near future (now plausible with my license and my car). Basically, I'm thinking there is a better way to do this system. It's like reading a game manual and saying "that rule is dumb. Wouldn't it be better if they changed to rule to do this instead". I think you might have me misunderstood on what I meant by a regional point system. I'm not a fan of going down the alliances based on playoff performance for wild card spots (Captain, First Pick, Second Pick, Back-up). I want to create a system that is based more on qualification rank and alliance selection rather than strictly on playoff performance alone. Did I answer your questions at all? I basically just want a system that focuses on 4 variables like the district system rather than 1-2 variables like te current system for regionals.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

At all three regionals we went to, Central Valley, Sacramento, and Silicon Valley, the entire Finalist alliance also qualified for world's, so it does happen, at least in CA, somewhat frequently.

I think that this is a slippery slope. When you tell the third robot of the Finalist alliance that they won't be receiving a wild card, and someone who didn't make it to finals will, you're basically telling that team that they didn't really contribute to the alliance much. Imagine being that 3rd robot, and you played amazing defense, you even cheesecaked your robot for the alliance, but FIRST says you don't qualify because you weren't as good as some other captain who lost to your alliance in semi's. I just don't think that's fair to that team.

I'm not saying that the current system is flawless, and there are amazing robots at every competition who don't qualify for world's, but I don't think taking away the wildcard from a Finalist robot is the right thing to do.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

This honestly isn't a bad idea.

Using a district points-like structure to determine wildcards instead of the current system rewards teams that fall in the semis, but performed well in qualifications.

This would likely still include the finalist alliance captain and first selection, but may then fall to the semifinalist alliance captain who performed best.

This could help teams like 2791, who lost close sets in the semifinals at two different events.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Just gonna throw out this crazy idea perhaps we could bring teams into champs based on something similar to the district ranking system instead of the waitlist....

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

With what you said, should we then change the current district system? It's very plausible for a third alliance captain who lost in semis to beat out the 2nd pick of the finalist alliance for one of the "next-in" spots based on district points. The third alliance captain that lost in semis will probably beat out that finalist 2nd pick most of the time.

5th rank: 19 points (based on 55 teams)
Third captain: 14
Semi finalist: 10
Total: 42

23 rank: 14 (based on 55 teams)
15 pick: 2
Finalist: 20
Total: 36

Assuming alliance selection goes based on rank (which never happens), the third alliance captain who lost in semis wins by 6 points over the finalist 2nd pick.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Would this the ban district teams from qualifying in this new waitlist system or would you figure out a way to make a mesh district regionional ranking system for wildcard spots? Sounds like a cool (and complicated) idea.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I kinda like this idea as well....

I think the goal you're trying to achieve is to send the best teams to worlds, which I agree with. Clearly the winning alliance gets their ticket punched, but I do think the opposing alliance should be first to get their ticket punched with wildcard slots.

At NY Tech Valley Regional the entire finalist alliance got wildcard slots (or pre-qualified). Now if there were wildcards left unused, I think there needs to be a way to disseminate them to other teams. For the cost/expense of a regional, to leave golden tickets behind is reprehensible, IMHO.

The other idea worth floating is, to let the judges determine who gets the extra wildcards. FIRST is not all about the robot, and perhaps this would allow them the opportunity to reward a team for their off-field performance as well (eg, RAS, etc).

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I get what you're saying, and I agree with you in spirit. A problem, however, is that you are missing the entire point of the wildcard system as FRC implements it.
The point is that teams that are not the annual juggernauts are still able to go eventually. Remember, Worlds is a lot more than just the robots.
Like it or not, this is why it is like it is.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I personally would not bar district teams from getting in under this sort of system, I feel like the championship should have the best teams so if a team has more points then others throughout the world they should get in despite not qualifying through their own district. Obviously there would have to be some way to level the field between regional and district events and then the issue of teams that compete at multiple events. I personally think that you should use a teams best event, but others may very reasonably say use the average of all events or only a teams first event.

I personally have never been a fan of the waitlist system and have talked to teams who got in based on the waitlist and say they don't think they deserve to be competing at the championship.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I'm not sure if I made this clear or not so I'm going to clarify. I'm not trying to get rid of the current 6 qualifying spots. Those are fine. I'm not trying to eliminate qualifying based on Chairman's, EI, or Rookie AS. The current wild card system is based on robots. I'm trying to keep it that way with this "new" system. Going beyond robots is very important. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was trying to eliminate that ;)

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Is this why the wild cards never extend past the finalist? A solution could be disregarding eliminations and giving it to the team that ranked the highest during qualifications, and is still unqualified for Championships.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

As a student on a team who got in on waitlist last year, I have to disagree. Had we not gotten in on the waitlist, I doubt my team would even have gotten the chance to make it to champs. For me personally, it was touched me deeply to be in such a huge stadium with other kids interested in STEM like me, and for many students I think experience is very valuable. Without the waitlist (or the future double champs) many teams wouldn't get that chance.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

As a district-to-regional transplant, I've been compiling my thoughts on the matter into a proposal for using District Points to award wildcards. I have attached it, feel free to give it a read and tell me what you think.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I like that a lot. It basically says exactly what I want and adds some more. I'm glad to said something about district teams qualifying at a regional. I feel like 6 spots should be given to regional teams no matter what. It seems to be a lose lose situation when a district team wins a regional. The district loses one of its "next-in" spots and regionals get to send 1 less regional team.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I'd personally like if district teams could not qualify for championships through regionals and would automatically generate wildcard spots at regionals if they are on the winning alliance or won a qualifying award.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Remember a few years ago there were no "wildcards".

If the entire winning alliance had already qualified, then it was possible that no one from a regional would get the invite to the CHPs based on the robot competition. The wildcard system extended those invites to the finalist alliance to address this.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Sure, but incremental improvement upon the existing system can only be a good thing, right?

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

The answer to this problem is switching to the district system, in my mind... the qualification system works exceptionally well.

When was the last time you heard about a particularly deserving team from Michigan, PNW, New England or MAR not qualifying for Championships?

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Yep, and that's good. But it doesn't address the issue that at a 64 team event, in a normal best case fewer than 10% of the teams can be invited to Championships. (I'm going to ignore the edge case where the winning alliance used a backup coupon making the potential 7)

Last year after the North star regional where only 4 out of 60 teams were invited to Championships I suggested that the wildcards extend into the seeds after using the whole finalist alliance based on the regional size.

My equation was something like Ceiling(count of teams /10) would be the guaranteed number of Championship invites. So if only 4 new teams were invited to champs at a 40 team event, that would be the end of it. But if only 4 new teams were invited at a 61 team event, that would generate 3 wildcards which would go first to the finalist alliance, then through the uninvited top (regional) seeds in order.

That wouldn't punish large regional events simply for being large the way the current system works.

Additionally, since regional teams cannot enter district events, any district based team that wins a slot at a regional should automatically generate a wildcard at that regional for one of the teams under the regional system. The way the system is now, a district based team can come into a regional event and eliminate championship opportunities for a regional based team. Because regional based teams are not allowed to enter district events, the reverse cannot happen.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

100% agreed. Champs isn't just about bringing the best robots together to compete. Sure, that's part of it, but the biggest draw of championships is the ability to see the great things that other teams have done, get inspired, and then take and apply them to your own team.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Definitely this. I'd like to remind everyone in the thread that the reason FIRST is moving to two Champs is because HQ wants to get more teams to a Champs experience. Specifically, they want every team to have a reasonable chance of getting to Champs every four years or so, whether through qualifying or waitlisting. You're not going to turn every avenue to Champs absolutely merit-based without first changing that mindset. Which first means you're going to have to convince a lot of people that Champs is only for truly worthy robots.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

With going to two champs and adding 200 teams, where will those 200 teams come from? Are all 200 from waitlist? Will we have 7 spot regionals? Idk. We can still make the wildcard spots more competitive. I don't think any of us are trying to eliminate the wait list. That's is a really cool and good thing. What if they had 100 mandatory waitlist spots out of the 800 spots in 2017? I'm not sure if people would be for that but I'm curious to see where the other 200 teams will qualify in 2017.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

As FIRST keeps growing, doesn't this become more and more unsustainable?

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Not if they keep adding more Championships.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Fixed that for you.


Headquarters might call them Championships, but lets be real they are super regionals.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

How about:

1) the two alliances that lost to the finalists have a one match playoff for the wild card slots.
2) the 6 finalists vote for teams to get the wildcard slots.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

2 is a terrible idea, sorry. Involving teams in the process of selecting what teams wildcard to Champs is asking for hurt feelings, complaints about favoritism, etc. You'd be better off with a poll of judges instead.

1 seems reasonable, except you're adding another match or more to the playoff schedule, which could ruffle feathers by making things take even longer. Maybe the bronze medal sudden death match happens in the field timeout between F1 and F2? That keeps delay to a minimum, as long as there's no alliance timeouts called or anything.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

FIRST should find a solution to the inequity of being a finalist to an eventual multi-win team in an early regional vs in a late regional.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

As W.S. Gilbert said, "If everybody's somebody, then no-one's anybody." It's all good -- let us have more inspiration by creating more Champions. Those who wish can go to IRI and sort it all out.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

You have to consider that before 2013, the alternative to wildcards was absolutely nothing. It was win or go home. Wildcards are an immense improvement over those days - just ask anyone in Canada.

That said, it's pretty clear that in the next several years, we just need to make every region a "district", and advance teams by points regardless of whether or not that region has district-style events and a DCMP, or regional style events with no DCMP. The "dream" for me is that teams get points at their first two events regardless of where they are (or 2x the first event if they are a 1 event team), they then qualify for particular regional championships assigned to them if available.

Wildcards are a stopgap.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

What you propose, could be done today. If FIRST wants 15% of teams to go to Championships, then at the end of the season, the regional teams with the highest points based on the district formula could be invited.

The logistical issue with that is that the invites would have to go out no earlier than Saturday night after the week six events finish which is kind of late for finding accommodations for a lot of teams.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

We've been dealing with that logistical challenge for a few season's now. Week 7 DCMP teams will find out if they qualify for CMP late Saturday afternoon.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Here's an idea for thought: Should we even try to make sure more "good robots" make it to champs? If that were our primary concern, we could turn regionals into a show-dog style demonstration, and have judges and pick from there. Most of us could walk around a pit area and point out which robots are "good", so let's just skip the formalities (/sarcasm).

I would counter that the serpentine draft, strength of schedule, and the crazy things that happen during competitive matches, open up the opportunity for surprises. Teams that don't usually qualify could catch a lucky break and upset a powerhouse. That's a great narrative, and it's part of why sports are so compelling.

Don't get me wrong, I like the district point system, and I'm OK with the idea of regional wildcards extending beyond the finalist alliance. But I also don't think we should be too worried about who "deserves" to go to champs or not. The excitement is in the uncertainty!

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Good discussion. That system is called "districts..." They need to be everywhere so teams can resume crossing over to other areas to play around the country. This will be even more important with Champsplit where certain areas will no longer see teams from other areas in one location.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

To add some more on Tyler's post, the current regional system is one way for a robot drafted 24th to make Champs. Extending the wildcard through the Finalist alliance is a natural step in this logic. This gives teams in the middle a stronger incentive to be competitive. At least the districts system preserves an intermediate championship event for those teams to aim for. We shouldn't undermine that incentive.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

Really the open question to me is should the wildcards generated at a regional go to teams at that regional or should they be returned to the waitlist pool.

At 10K over last weekend there were 4 wildcards generated and there was not a Rookie All Star award. 3 of those wildcards went to the finalist alliance. The 4th one is going to a waitlist team. The rookie all star berth is also going to a waitlist team.

My personnel opinion is I would rather the wildcards stayed at the regional. To be honest, I really thought the 4th wildcard would go to the highest ranked team after qualifiers and was really let down when I learned it was returned to the waitlist.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I highly doubt that FIRST intends to do any more changes to the wild card system and I don't really think that they should. The first year it was pretty limited and that limit was needed as the space at CMP meant that if every Regional generated a full 6 teams there would have been more than 400 teams spaces needed and no room for wait list teams. With the additional number that can be given out now and the change to Districts getting a corresponding percentage of spots there is still some room for the new lottery system.

The fact is that FIRST wanted most of the US in the District System by now. It does address the concerns that may have cited for reasons to expand the wild card and who it should go to.

The system originally created by FiM was designed to significantly help those teams caught in the "valley of doom" where that second pick of the #1 or #2 alliance that more often than not went on to win it all and get a spot at CMP was a much lower performing robot than the ones in the alliance that ended up as a finalist. Much of the robot performance side of the current unified points system is taken from that original FiM system.

So in the current system here are the points earned assuming that we have a fairly common occurrence of the #1 and #2 Alliance meeting in the finals, based on robot performance only.

Wining

Captain 68
1st pick 65-67 (assuming a robot that seeded pretty well)
2nd pick 40 ish (assuming a middle of the road seeding)

Finalist

Captain 54-55
1st pick 50 ish
2nd pick 30 ish

So it is common for the two top robots on the Finalist alliance if they are the 2nd or 3rd seed to get more points than the coat tail pick of the #1 Alliance.

If of course also addresses a proportional number of teams from a given area going to CMP. So you don't have the case where a lower percentage of teams get to go from an area just because they attend a larger event. A District just goes down the teams in order in case a team declines so that there are no unused spots.

As we move to more and more Districts and the .5CMPsl that are coming I do expect FIRST to reserve a number of spots for the lottery.

FIRST has repeatedly indicated that they want every team to make it to CMP at least occasionally. That is one of the stated reasons for the .5CMPs

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I really believe that split champs is a means to an end to get to super regionals (and thus an additional level of play). I could be wrong, but that's honestly what I believe. The program does not yet have the scale to support that, however the current system was unsustainable as well. Something had to be done, and split champs was the "least bad" option.

Re: Wild Card Spot Reform?
 

I like the current wild card setup. Keep it until regionals dissolve and districts take their place.