![]() |
2016 Einstein
Einstein is upon us!
Newton Champs: 7.) 217 3476 4678 188 Galileo Champs: 1.) 195 987 1197 1065 Archimedes Champs: 1.) 1501 1986 5050 4828 Curie Champs: 8.) 694 3339 379 1511 Carver Champs: 2.) 330 2481 120 1086 Tesla Champs: 1.) 2056 1690 3015 1405 Carson Champs: 4.) 2122 2052 3538 41 Hopper Champs: 1.) 148 1678 364 2990 Newton vs. Hopper vs. Curie vs. Carver vs. Galileo vs. Carson vs. Archimedes vs. Tesla EDIT: Bolded teams have previous championships. Underlined teams have previously gone to Einstein. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
8th alliance Curie and 7th alliance Newton. This will be interesting to see how they perform against 1st (and potentially 2nd) seeded teams.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Carver champs should have 120, not 910....
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Go Taters
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
MAR's Einstein representation streak lives on through 41 the RoboWarriors! Good luck to them and every other team. This is going to be a really good final set of matches.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Team Breakdown:
New York: 694 1511 3015 1405 California: 330 1197 1678 3476 Michigan: 217 3538 5050 Ontario: 188 2056 4678 Israel: 1690 3339 Ohio: 120 379 Connecticut (and NEFIRST): 195 Florida: 1065 Idaho: 2122 Illinois: 2481 Indiana: 1501 Minnesota: 2052 Mississippi: 364 Missouri: 1986 Nevada: 987 New Jersey (and MAR): 41 North Carolina: 4828 Oregon (and PNW): 2990 Texas: 148 Virginia: 1086 Bolded teams have previous championships. Underlined teams have previously gone to Einstein. Bolded states/provinces/countries are sending their first teams to Einstein. I am not sure about this, but it seems that 1986 is the first team from Missouri to make it to Einstein! |
Re: 2016 Einstein
For those that are at CMP, does anyone have an actual approximate starting time for Einstein matches? I'm getting my timezones all confused.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
http://www.firstchampionship.org/championship-schedule |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
http://itsalmo.st/#einsteinfield2016 |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
congrats to 2990 on being the second PNW team to win their field, and the first team from oregon!
if y'all play a match, you'll also be the first PNW team on the Einstein carpet |
Re: 2016 Einstein
My predictions - this could really go any way though, I'm in no way confident.
Code:
QF Newton 217 3476 4678 188 |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Districts represented on Einstein this year:
Every district is represented except Georgia. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
Carver over Curie in 2 Galileo over Carson in 2 Tesla over Archimedes in 2 Hopper over Carver in 3 Tesla over Galileo in 3 Hopper over Tesla in 3 1678 and 148 get their second World Championships each, with 1678 becoming only the third (and last) team to win back-to-back Championships. 364 and 2990 get their first World Championships. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Einstein Predictions
Newton Champs: 7.) 217 3476 4678 188 F Galileo Champs: 1.) 195 987 1197 1065 W Archimedes Champs: 1.) 1501 1986 5050 4828 QF Curie Champs: 8.) 694 3339 379 1511 QF Carver Champs: 2.) 330 2481 120 1086 SF Tesla Champs: 1.) 2056 1690 3015 1405 SF Carson Champs: 4.) 2122 2052 3538 41 QF Hopper Champs: 1.) 148 1678 364 2990 QF |
Re: 2016 Einstein
INSIGHTS
217 and 148 are each going for their third championship, though this time they'll be on opposite sides of the glass in quarterfinals. 330, 987, and 1678 are all going for their second championship. 1678 has been on Einstein 4 years in a row. 148, 330, 987, 2056, 3339, and 3476 have been on Einstein 2 years in a row. 987 has been on Einstein a total of 5 times. This year, some fantastic teams made Einstein for the first time. 1986 has been a Missouri powerhouse for a long time, and 2122 has been excelling for years. 1501 and 2052 have also been great, and they finally get a chance on the big stage. This is a big year for the state of New York, sending four teams to Einstein. It's also a great year for Israel - they sent two of their regional champions to Einstein - and for Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, and Oregon. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
Also Curie was a perfect reverse bracket. 5-8 won quarters, 7 and 8 won semis, and 8 won. Has that ever happened before? |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Last chance for almost certainly wrong predictions?
Win probabilities: QF - Newton vs Hopper (Newton 0.599) QF - Galileo vs Carson (Galileo 0.691) QF - Curie vs Carver (Carver 0.886) QF - Archimedes vs. Tesla (Tesla 0.566) SF - Newton vs Galileo (Newton 0.609) SF - Carver vs Tesla (50/50, Tesla?) F - Newton vs Tesla (Newton 0.709) Let's see what happens! |
Re: 2016 Einstein
I hope this no live scoring thing isn't a regular occurrence for the afternoon.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
Edit: There we go :D |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Who won WFA? I heard Eric from 316.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Webcast? Don't see it on TBA
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
First match on Mass of Hopper v Newton would have gone very differently if there had been sounds and score displays.
Edit: oh thank goodness |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
You can do it Kelly!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
So far I am liking the interviews on Einstein better this year so far
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
What's with the lack of defense? These matches are so boring to watch.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
Additionally, many of these teams have largely undefendable shots or shoot from protected locations, so conventional courtyard defense would be fairly ineffective. An argument could be made for neutral zone delay tactics, but I'm not sure how effective it would be. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
On a more serious note, I have been loving the Einstein presentation so far. Having all of the teams walk onto the floor with their standards was brilliant and despite the field issues, they have done a good job filling time thus far. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
987 was the #8 seed in 2007 when they won the World Championships, if I remember they called the Maroon alliance since that whole alliance had the same color |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
2016 Einstein
Even with 2990 dead, Hopper still wins. Crazy!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
5th QF was amazing. What happened to 2990 though? Seemed like they lost comms.
Also congrats 2990, its great to see a PNW team on Einstein! |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Holy cow! 330 with the match for ages!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Semi 3 is one to watch, that was intense!
|
2016 Einstein
Oh man. 330 just righted themselves twice, the second time in the last few seconds of the match to get on the bater. Unbelievable!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
330 actually just pulled off the play of the season to trump 254's play earlier. Down on its side, moves to get on its back, cranes itself up and then does it AGAIN and wins an EINSTEIN SEMI-FINAL MATCH by 5 which, if they hadn't clutched twice, would've been a loss.
Unreal. I've never seen something this unreal in FRC before. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
That semifinals match number three was absolutely insane! Team 330 clearly worked hard and deserved that win.
|
They did the same thing in LA when they got bowled over by 5012 in the finals. We love how amazing their drive team is!!! They are an amazing team. Glad we got to play with them..
Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk |
2016 Einstein
Woah, 1678 just slipped off the batter in the last 5 seconds! That match was crazy!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
RIP the PNW dream. Congrats to Carver, was intense and great to watch.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
So close right to the end. Pretty heartbreaking to see the one red robot not hang at the top and slide off (I don't think it mattered with the score difference), but at the same time 330's crazy play in the second match is justified since they won it. If 330 doesn't win in the finals, that play will be the highlight of the year. If they do win, it'll be the one of the best plays in FRC history.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
2016 Einstein
Here we go, winner of the third finals match takes all! This is going to be a good one.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Yes, will.i.am said that.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
That Will.i.am interview though. LOL
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Thank you Disney for helping FIRST make a great game. Debate the merits of other years, but this is one of the best.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Anyone get the feeling will.i.am is excited about FIRST??
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
I'm ready for the tiebreaker thread :^)
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Tied Match Einstein Winner Decided By Foul lol
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Congrats to 330, 2481, 120, and 1086. One of the greatest Einstein finals ever played (2010, 2013, 2014, and the list goes on...).
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Einstein matches never fail to disappoint, and this year is no different. Congratulations to the teams who left it all on the field! Great job 330, 2481, 120, and 1086, and to everyone who worked hard this year to field some dope robots!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Congratulations to 330, 120, 2481, and 1086 but a Championship match tie break should not be decided on a penalty point.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
CONGRATS to everyone on all of the divisions! This was one of the most exciting FRC games in history for me! Hope to see you all again at CHAMPS next year (whichever one we're at #2champs)
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
was pinning, upper right side of the field. Cant remember the time though.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Best match on Einstein has to be semi 3. 330's amazing performance to pull out the win was spectacular to watch and it made it fun to then watch their alliance win it all. Congrats!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
I think the foul was because the blue alliance rolled a boulder out of their human player station, over the ramparts, and into the enemy courtyard.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
The pinning by 1405 appeared to be in error. They did not prevent the other robot from moving. They were just in their line of sight to the goals. She would start the count almost immediately when 1405 hit the driver station wall. The foul may have been an inadvertent hit of a robot when it was still over the outer works. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Best Einstein finals I've ever seen, except for one thing: I wish we could've had a fourth match!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
I couldn't watch via twitch... Reading the score it was 220 to 225……, 5 point penalty in favor of red which made it tied. Since it was tied then the penalty made by blue triggered the win for red?
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Congrats to 987 on the Chairman's award win!
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Did anyone catch the Make It Loud Award winner?
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
As someone who was rooting for 3015 and 2056's alliance (3015 because I'm close with them and 2056 because who didn't want to see them win champs after losing their first regional) it was crushing to see the match be won despite the score saying there was a tie.
In almost any other competition, a tie would be decided by extra play time. FIRST is becoming, for sure, a spectator sport. I know many people came to watch my team's events, with only a shallow knowledge of how the game works, because it is easy to understand on a general level. The team with the most points was considered the winner of the match. The teams that did the best overall, had the advantage going into eliminations. If the number eight seed scored higher than the number one seed, it was considered an upset, and was quite exciting. So, in interest of FIRST being more appetizing to the general public, I feel like the situation should be addressed. Anyone not familiar with the rules would be honestly confused as to why there was the word "winner" under the red alliance despite each alliance earning 225 points, a confusion which I saw first hand as I was watching from home with a small group. The idea of a champion is already muddled enough, with a fourth team that may or may not contribute to an alliance winning, and with championship splitting into two events next year. Now, when you are calling four teams the "best in the world" based off one line located in 100+ pages of game manual, this definition becomes even more confusing. The score says we have two evenly matched teams. It would be satisfying to know that one is truly better than the other based off more than just a technicality. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Please please please remove the tiebreaker rule for finals at all events, or at least finals on Einstein in 2017. I get the rule was instituted to save time during playoffs (5+ matches due to ties is never fun), but ending the world championship on a would-be-tie (especially for outside spectators) doesn't make sense.
I don't mean to take anything away from the winning alliance this year. It's just doesn't make sense from a spectator point of view, especially when sharing videos of what is supposed to be the pinnacle match of FRC to outsiders. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Really, the tiebreaker was put in place after 2010's tendency to result in ties. Ties are rather rare, and do warrant a replay in eliminations.
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
I don't think ties merit a re-play. if the rules have been the same all season with the ties, why should it change at Einstein?
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Some Einstein statistics for anyone who may be interested:
Now that I've updated my Einstein team database/spreadsheet, there have been some interesting developments in it this year. I've kept this spreadsheet for the past few years to have a record of every team that's played on Einstein since the beginning of divisions in 2001, and I also have a ranking metric to determine the "Einstein influence" of different teams. The main teams I look at are teams with multiple Einstein appearances. Three more teams were added to this list today - 2481, 195, and 3339. Similarly, I look for teams with Einstein streaks. FIVE teams (with a streak higher than 1) were added today - 2056, 148, 330, 3476, and 3339. 1678 has officially taken the unique second place position on this list with 4 consecutive appearances (pulling ahead of 175 and 67). 987 also has now pulled off a second 2-appearance streak (only 469, 217, and 67 have had two streaks before). 987 jumped up significantly in my influence ranking, as a semifinalist and with the Chairman's win. They are now tied in influence with 1114 for fourth. 217 jumped up to tie with 469 for sixth. 330 went up to 11th with their second championship win. 1678 is in 12th now and 148 is in 15th. 2056 is in 18th. 2481, 195, 3476, and 3339 are in 29th, 35th, 36th, and 38th respectfully (only multiple Einstein appearances are in this list). It's crazy how many Einstein repeats there were this year, despite some of the classic big-name Einstein teams not being there. Maybe there are just getting to be a lot of good teams getting to Einstein multiple times (with twice as many spots, it's relatively easier to make it). Final remark: every alliance on Einstein had at least one Einstein veteran on it except for the Archimedes and Carson alliances. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
I think your data may be off regarding 2 appearance streaks.
217 had a 2 appearance streak in 2005-2006 and in 2008-2009. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
1676's full-field footage of the 2016 Einstein Finals can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...FuMKI-pN-1gaSn. The rest of our Newton and Einstein footage has been a bit delayed due to hotel wifi, but should be up by tonight. Enjoy!
The Einstein Semifinals and World Championship Chairman's Presentation footage have now been added to the playlist. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
At the very least, the winner should be given one additional tiebreaker point so that it is clear to the audience who won. |
Re: 2016 Einstein
I rewatched the final match several times watching all the referees. Not once was a flag waved to call a penalty. Likewise, I did not see a penalty either. It looks like fair play from each alliance. I'm sure there was something I missed but I have not come across anything that says what the penalty was for. Does anyone know what foul was called?
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
|
Re: 2016 Einstein
Quote:
It looks to me that when we returned, 120 was clearly able to move, as they moved forward and then preceeded to turn and move out of the courtyard. Without interference from our robot, as we went to move to another robot. I've never been trained as a referee, is there some kind of "intent to pin" that referees are supposed to look for? It looks even though we did return to pin 120, we never completed her process as they were clearly able to begin moving. Any thoughts from someone with more referee knowledge than I? I'm extremely happy with this season, and our run at world's. I'm more so asking because if our driver was not entirely at fault, I don't want him to think he is. And I want to be able to tell him what to do better next year. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:33. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi