Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Everybody got 10 matches at Championships in 2014 with 4@100.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

In one of the fastest-cycle-time games FIRST has ever put out there...

If my math is right, the difference between a 6-minute (AA) and an 8-minute (Stronghold) cycle time over a full 10-match event is roughly the difference between starting quals at 3 PM Thursday and starting quals at 9 AM on Thursday assuming ending quals at noon on Saturday--or some really long run times on Friday. Not saying it can't be done, though. For a 50-team event, it's more like the difference between ending at 5 and ending at 8 from a 9 AM start--running only on Friday! (Both schedule estimates ignore lunch, BTW--don't ever do that when you're scheduling matches, please, your volunteers really want to eat!)

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

It's gonna be REALLY hard to get enough volunteers for what amounts to 16 events! If Jess pulls this off and can fill up both events they should put her in the hall of fame!

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I think she's already in there.*

And actually, it's eight events -- and then another eight events the next weekend. So Jess might (probably will) get half the number of volunteers for some roles, but those people will be twice as crazy.



*CMP Volunteer of the Year is in the same rare stratum as Chairman's and WFA, in my book.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

There's one thing that continues to be forgotten in this thread:
Matches will be played in the pits, not the arenas.

You will not see 8 fields in the pits, plus practice fields, so the only way 8 divisions happens is if two divisions share a field. Or fields get smaller.

I suggested this in the north vs south thread but perhaps we could see the return of a 2v2 format. This would create fewer qualifiers from Regionals, thus giving more room for growth (more waitlist teams initially though). 2v2 format with 50 team divisions wouldn't be AS bad. Or they could make everyone go crazy and try a 2v2v2 format (it's been done, I personally loved it, but most people didn't) and give us that magic 75 team 6 division setup, and play Einstein with some sort of round-robin format.

Or we could do away with divisions and have top 32 and truck all 32 alliances to the dome and play all of the elim matches on Einstein.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

You do realize that going to a 2v2 format would mean teams give up 1/3 of their matches, right? events with 12 matches per team would be down to 8, 9 matches would be down to 6. Something tells me that's not how they want to go.

As for 2v2v2... that could work for a 6-division championship format, but what about regional/district events? How do you make it work with 8 playoff alliances? Or would we have to decrease that to 6 as well?

If you're going with a round-robin type format for Einstein, you can do that with a normal 3v3 and 6 divisions, no need to change the game format for it.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

To paraphrase Andy Grady, you take one alliance off the field and change everything.

In other news, I think some reading of the '98 manual might be in order. (Feel free to go for the '97 and I think a couple before that, too--TechnoKats History Project has a wealth of information.)

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Yep, of course there are tradeoffs. Like I said, with a 50 team division, its not so bad. A 60 team regional is horrible. 35 team districts actually sounds pretty good - fewer matches yes, but longer time between those matches, meaning some of those lower caliber robots might be better since they have time to repair. Not in a district, so maybe its not an issue. I dunno. I'm just spitballing here. Could also change the match length, go to a smaller field, two fields, etc. There are ways to make it work. Personally, I LOVED '99 and Double Trouble with two fields at all events with 4 robots on each. Kept things moving quite nicely.

Many options here. 6 alliances. 7 alliances with 1 getting a bye. 9 alliances and more teams get into the tournament. Change the format for the elims (at least in 97 and 98, they played 1v1v1 in quals but changed to 1v1 in elims). It's fun to think beyond the now stale 3v3 "standard".

Sounds good to me.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

You've obviously never been on one of those teams. As a team who has gone to champs many times, but has only played on Saturday twice (once going out in the quarters), I can say that we would not be the team we are today without those experiences. Our rookie year, when we had a mediocre bot, going to the championship truly changed our team and our students. We were inspired to better ourselves, and our community was inspired to get behind us (even though we got our butts kicked at the championship). I've been involved with my team since day one, and it took 7 trips to the championships before we ever got to play on Saturday. But our team and our students would definitely not be the same without those experiences.

We have also brought and seen many spectators at the event that are not involved with teams, and they love every second of it, even though not all the teams are what you would define as the best. Many of these powerhouses of today were once mediocre rookie teams that were inspired because they got to bring their robot and "play with the big kids" once.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Hence, why I ask how we can bring this type of experience to more local events cutting both the cost and the logistical headache, while increasing the level of attendance and ability to scale. I'm not trying to deny experiences to teams, I want to give even more teams the option. But I also want to keep the concept of a championship because I think having that to strive for is important.

Also, for the record - I HAVE been on one of those teams. But before then I was on another team that was competitive at that level so I figured I'm biased.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

So would you like teams to pay travel money and take off work to go to the event without their robot? Do you think anyone will actually do that? What we have IS a championship (even the split championship is still a championship). Most of the teams there made it there for some amazing things they did, whether it was winning with their robot or doing amazing things with their programs and their communities. It is a championship not only for the robots, but also for the teams themselves and what they are doing. The 600 teams (soon to be 800) that make it to championships are truly the best teams in FIRST, and the ones with the best robots will make it to the playoffs on Saturday.

Saturday always works out to be only the best robots playing on the big stage anyway, so what exactly is the problem? If you're defining "championship" as only the best robots, then you get that on Saturday. The rest of the event, we are celebrating all the teams that made it their for their achievements, but only the best make it to Saturday. Saturday is really the day you get the most spectators anyway, and that is the day that the best of the best are truly showcased for everyone to see.

As far as bringing this experience more local, this was ultimately the goal with DCMPs, but I don't think you will find a DCMP that has nearly the same kind of experience as the championship. Even if you found a way to "increase the experience" of the DCMPs without making them enormously expensive, I don't think it still wouldn't come close to what you get at worlds.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Im not sure where you're getting any of that... so I'm going to just ignore it because it's putting words in my mouth. I want to figure out WHAT teams get from the CMP to evaluate how to get it to districts, regionals, or DCMPs. Because that will let us expand the number of teams that get that experience. Maybe it's only 50% of the experience at a DCMP but I don't think anyone is going to argue that 50% is not better than 0% esp if it's relatively low cost.

My problem right now is you making a problem when I'm trying to ask an honest question and you accusing me of things.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

First off, it's kinda disappointing that any thread about anything related to 2champz derails into these discussions.

Back in 2012, 1648 went to championship without qualifying to volunteer and be a part of that experience. The experience is great, but there should be a way to get non-qualifying teams to get the same opportunity.The atmosphere, energy, and the opportunity to network with others is amazing, but part of that comes from watching very competitive play. (My controversial opinion of the day: teams who field barely functional robots shouldn't win RCA or EI, thereby making teams who qualify with those awards more competitive at CMP)

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

They could have the 2 divisions getting a bye run octofinals so the individual alliances would end up with the same number of rounds and would need to go just as far to get to Einstein. The only real problem would be that the two divisions with them would need to start early or end late. (and that they may end up as glorified qualification matches if there aren't enough good teams)

Edit: They would need to increase the number of teams to 402 per championship so divisions would be equal.