Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Could it be that FIRST put the events on their site as a placeholder, and the details are not firmed up?

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Yes. We have not heard any news confirming the number of divisions.

That being said, why not remove the remaining information? They set the capacity to zero and other fields report not available.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Especially if you're in a District. Going from one of the larger DCMPs to a 50 team division at a half champs would be a step down in level of play. Based on OPR, that already happened a few times, but pulling 50 out of 800 teams would virtually guarantee that every half champs division is weaker than every DCMP.

Obviously FIRST's goal with half champs isn't to find the best robot, it's to get a lot more teams involved. But if we're stuck with this, I'd at least like 4 divisions at each to give roughly the same level of play as we've had for the last 2 years in St Louis.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

This is already the case as it stood today. The average robot at the CMP is of lower quality than the average robot at a DCMP.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Here's what I was referring to:

https://www.chiefdelphi.com/media/im...d53a1ba3_l.jpg

So some DCMPs are better or roughly in line with CMP divisions, but others are worse, especially where depth is concerned. Assuming we're getting the crème de la crème at champs now, which is obviously not quite true, halfchamps divisions would each drop off twice as fast and have 15 additional worse teams. They'd actually be a bit better than that, but it's really not an attractive idea either way.

Plz no 50/800 team divisions

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

You know, it bugs me a bit when people talk about "quality of robot/competition", like it's a bad thing that not everyone at champs has a perfect robot. I think it really misses the point of the whole competition - rookies, smaller teams, worse performing robots can all gain inspiration from being at an event with better teams. Teams of all flavors can gain experience, friendships, and show and receive recognition from teams from across the country and the world. It's one thing to play at your local even with pretty much the same teams every year. It's something completely different to play in an environment where you don't know everyone.

Is Champs all about the robot, or is it about Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology? Those teams that only get to go to champs rarely, if ever, can find it a transformational experience. Those teams that are always in contention for Einstein may not see the event as inspirational when they look around at glorified kit bots... but maybe that's because they're supposed to be the inspiration.

Instead of bemoaning how "watered down" champs is becoming, we should be trying to figure out how to make the event great for every team there.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I believe the individual links under both Saint Louis and Houston (I.E. Match Results - Einstein) direct to the same URL. My guess would be they just posted both events as their dates have been locked in but the underlying links showing 8 divisions have only been marginally updated

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

What if FIRST did something absolutely crazy and had two Qualification Rounds? The first Quals round has 8 divisions of 50 in which everyone plays a set number of matches. The top 25 ranked teams from each division are then put into their presorted 2nd Quals division, where the 4 new divisions of 50 play on the 8 fields (each division gets two fields). Then, the Elimination rounds proceed as usual. This has the drawbacks of being hopelessly complex from a logistics standpoint, requiring a huge amount of volunteers, and knocking out the lower performing teams even sooner. Also, since both of the Quals rounds have less matches each, this lowers the quality of the ranking itself, meaning that better teams might get koncked out far too early.
I doubt this could ever be implemented, but it may take a really interesting solution to solve the issue of a weakened CMP.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

+1

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

When a team puts in hundreds hours of work to build an inspiring robot and then goes to a "championship" event where they regularly play with robots that lose wheels... it's uninspiring for competitors and it's pretty crappy for spectators. Championships is supposed to be the Super Bowl of smarts, with a few notable exceptions [1] I don't think I've ever seen the football equivalent of losing a wheel at the Super Bowl level.

Why do these underperforming teams need to attend a "World Championship" event? It seems like a lot of expense and hassle to play 8 matches and then sit around on Saturday. What do they get out of it? Is it just playing with new teams? Is it exposure to the conferences? Is it merely being around? Are there cheaper ways we can simulate this experience either at a local level (cut down travel costs) or with not bringing robot (cut down CMP competition size but increase conference count, make it more of an experience for spectators)?



[1] Cough Seahawks. Cough Cough. [2]


[2] Also, for the record, I think this is the first football comparison I've actually named a real team.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I agree that having more teams get a champs experience is better. I just think that if we're going the halfchamps route, having fewer divisions with higher levels of play, like by having 8 total divisions of 100 teams each or 12 of 75 each, is more inspirational and can provide something higher to aspire to through the higher levels of play.

Watching Newton eliminations and Einstein this year were amazing experiences even as a veteran, so seeing that as a rookie or member of a team that doesn't regularly make champs must have been mind blowing. I'd prefer to keep as much of that experience alive as possible.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

While I agree with what you've said, I do hope that FIRST comes up with a way to maximize the competitiveness of the event. And I am speaking from the viewpoint of the teams that are to be inspired by this change. My team probably never would have qualified for Championships at our current level of dedication/expertise/performance, but we've always been on the cusp at our Regional. We've always made the Elimination rounds, but never the Finals. But now, with the increase of teams to 800, my team will have the best shot they've had at making it to St. Louis (now Houston). But even though my team is one of the targets for FIRST's change, I still want to see the best of the best playing on Einstein. I want to see the most intense, most competitive matches decide the "World Champions." And I think that others would agree.
The teams in the middle have to see what the top level of competition really looks like to be able to strive for it.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I think you might consider Einsteins the equivalent of the Super Bowl... Champs itself is more like the play offs that lead up to it. And lets be completely honest, even a team as horrible as the Browns [1] makes it to the playoffs occasionally.

[1] I grew up in Ohio and am, unfortunately, a Browns fan :(

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

The Super Bowl of Smarts isn't my comparison. So my interpretation is kinda moot. You'd have to ask the Denim guy.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

The stated reason to going to two championships was to give more teams the championship experience and to accommodate growth. The experience is being emphasized over competition. Many dislike that fact but it is the direction FIRST is going. Eventually with team grow the quality of completion will improve, but it will be a different experience for all involved.

1) I fail to see the gracious professionalism in cheating your way through the playoffs with altered balls. Cough. Cough.

2) No team name needed.