# of Divisions at Championships
 

I read the announcement concerning the 2 Championships and that up to 400 teams per site will qualify, but has anyone seen whether or not there will be 8 divisions at each site.

Not a big fan of 2 Championships, however having 8 divisions and 400 teams means 50/division and many more qualifying matches.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

As far as I know they have not announced how many divisions there will be yet.

There seem to be 2 camps on this though:

4 divisions
Allows for more high caliber teams per division which means better alliances in eliminations

8 division
Allows for over double the qualification matches which should provide for better rankings.

I'm in the 8 division camp. I'd prefer to have more qualification matches. With 4 divisions you will see 40% of the teams on the field compared to 150% of the teams with 8 divisions.

4 divisions math
750 matches / 100 teams = ~8 matches per team
8 matches * 5 other teams per match = 40 teams

8 divisions math
750 matches / 50 teams = 15 matches per team
15 matches * 5 other teams = 75 teams

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I'm leaning more towards the 4 division camp, just from the perspective of volunteers. Doubling the number of divisions would greatly increase the number of necessary volunteers (refs, queueing, scoring, field reset, just to name a few), and I'm not sure FIRST will have enough for it with the split championships - many, if not most, volunteers that attend champs will pick one, not do both.

Personally, I'd love to find a way to split the difference and run 6 divisions. That would make playoffs a lopsided mess, but I think they could probably get enough volunteers for it.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Currently shows 8 divisions at St. Louis 2017,same for Houston.
Source, click on each of the championship events.

Why not have two fields per division and get the "best" of both worlds? More matches and more teams in a division.
Using 50 teams/division as the talking point for now, this would mean that 32 of the 50 move on to eliminations, or 64% of the teams. At what point does it take away from the "championship" experience?[size="1"]*SIZE] Most teams dream of making it champs and playing Saturday. We should continue to make it a position to strive for; versus, if we make it to champs we have a good chance of playing in eliminations. Each milestone in the season should be more challenging to accomplish. Most of this goes away of the divisions are more than 50 teams, but then it opens up a whole different story. 75 teams/ division, 600 teams per champs, 1200 teams between the combined champs; but I digress.

*Yes, I understand that the experience is already taking a hit by splitting to two locations; but there is nothing we can do about that at the moment.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

If you can double the number of matches run you would get back up to the 75% coverage we currently have. I'd be fine with that solution. 6 divisions would also work out to be about the same, but obviously a new Einstein playoff bracket will need made.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

dead link

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Not sure if the links are broken but they are giving me an error.

Honestly I think four divisions makes the most sense. 2014 proved that it is entirely possible to give every team 10 matches, and it will not water down the elimination rounds as much. However, I wouldn't mind taking an idea from the VEX playbook in doing a 5 division system, with a round-robin Einstein tournament. 80 teams per division would be okay too.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

12 divisions of about 66 would probably the best compromise for number of matches (12) and playoff representation (48%); However, a single-elimination bracket decided by 3-match series for 6 teams would be impossible without play-in matches. You would either have to do a complicated double-elimination bracket, or a round-robin with the best two records facing off in a championship series.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Regarding tournament formats and Einstein:

A 5-alliance round robin (best of 1) requires 10 matches.
A 6-alliance round robin (best of 1) requires 15 matches.
A 5-alliance round robin (best 2 of 3) requires 20-30 matches
A 6-alliance round robin (best 2 of 3) requires 30-45 matches
A 4-alliance single elimination tournament (best 2 of 3) requires 6-9 matches
A 8-alliance single elimination tournament (best 2 of 3) requires 14-21 matches
A 4-alliance single elimination tournament (2015 style "heats") requires 8-9 matches
A 8-alliance single elimination tournament (2015 style "heats") requires 16-17 matches

It's also worth noting that round robins can result in scenarios where the Champion is known prior to the last match. Did you think Einstein ending on a tie was anticlimactic? Knowing the winning before the last match would be even more so. Moreover, there will be scenarios in which teams have nothing to "play for" aside of being spoilers (they've already been eliminated, but their opponent still has a chance). Additionally, the closest to a "best of 1" format we've seen in FRC eliminations was the 2015 bracket, and even that was a hybrid formula between an elimination bracket and a round robin (at least in the semi-finals).

Granted, you can tack on an elimination tournament or finals match to the back-end of a round robin, but that increases the matches required and still doesn't solve concerns regarding "best of 1" and spoiler matches.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

8 divisions would result in truly awful "Einstein" alliances, especially at south half champs.

I pray that doesn't happen.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Those links rely on header information or a cookie (forgot which), which is set by this page: https://my.usfirst.org/myarea/index....=FRC&year=2017

Go there and click the event links from there, should work.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Thanks!

Looks like they're keeping the same division for both half championships, which doesn't make sense for me. That makes me think that this site isn't entirely accurate right now. I'd prefer to believe that there isn't 8 divisions for each championship anyways, until the announcement comes out.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I like this idea of 2 field divisions. Another thing you could add into this is to make the divisions run as Octo-Finals with 16 alliances, it won't fix the depth of field issues but I think it would help.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

It does do a subtle to not so subtle difference if you are the #1 ranked team coming out of qualifying.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

If it's really 8 divisions of 50 per event, you'd be better off saving your money on the registration fee and going to some second rate regional.

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.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Does Dean refer to Championship as the Super Bowl of Smarts? Or FRC in general?

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I'm WELL aware of FIRST's stated reason. However, having never attended championship with a team that didn't at least have a semi competitive robot I don't know what teams who aren't semi competitive (i.e. lose wheels) find fun at Championship. I've never enjoyed feeling outclassed.

1) Former Michigander here - wait, there's more than 1 playoff game?

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I think the discussion of 4@100 vs 8@50 is directly related to the quality of experience teams can have at either of the postseason expositions. Pros and cons of each of these layouts and the ones in between have been discussed (and have not yet been discussed to the length that might be merited here). Drawing from the well of "bad robots are great for FIRST" is tangential to the conversation here and comes off as bait (that some of the posts between this one and yours have unfortunately taken). Bad robots have been at the Championship Events since 1992. Teams with a volatile pool of resources usually have not been catered to in these events. There is a difference.


I really don't know where to start with or finish with this post, so I guess I'll just ask "Why?"

FIRST has trademarked "The Varsity Sport for The Mind" as the tagline for the FRC program. Considering churches have been sent cease and desist letters by the NFL in the past for hosting "Super Bowl Chili Cookoffs", I'm going to assume a multimillion dollar not-for-profit also is discouraged from referring to the AFC-NFC Championship Game's title in any official capacity.

"The Super Bowl of Smarts" has morphed into a bit of a colloquialism. I am sure Dean has referred to the Championship Event being "like a Super Bowl" in the past, and you can find articles about the Championship event being referred to as "The Super Bowl of Smarts."

I have always agreed with using the tagline "The Varsity Sport for the Mind" and we will continue to use a less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag when we pitch our program.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I would love for FIRST to keep 8 divisions in the dome but I doubt that will happen. I truly think they want to bring the other two programs back into the main building again and make them feel like they are as appreciated as FRC is.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I'm afraid to ask because I know the PayneTrain doesn't stop...but what is your less sanitized and fat-free vanilla version of that tag line?

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

#tsimfd

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

My point wasn't aimed at discussions on the number of divisions... there are a lot of reasons to prefer one number over another, and it's a worthwhile discussion. My point was the sidetrack discussion of how the "level of play" changes based on the simple number of teams at champs. That is just not a worthwhile discussion to have, especially at this point, on many levels.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I'm going to agree on this.

I'm also going to reiterate a point I made the last time this came up, that some people, who think this is a robot building contest, are in serious trouble--and that's actually from Dean or Woodie at Kickoff some years back.

This is a robot building contest, yes--but it's also a bunch of life lessons, a passel of inspiration, and hopefully some recognition. It's also a pretty severe time sink... Treating it as just a robot building contest is not accurate.


What I'd be hoping for would be 8 divisions, 50 teams each, NO MORE THAN 12 matches per team. (Wait, what?) Before you all start going crazy, I'd also say that no fewer than 10 matches would be acceptable. And the reason for that is to allow either more free time or less overall time. This would particularly benefit smaller teams, in that they could get out more and see more of the event, if the free time route was chosen, or that they might be able to cheat a little bit on travel and come in on Thursday morning with minimal loss of time in the pits. More inspiration, less time sink/burnout... interesting dilemma, I'd say.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfi...4810:ig89v.3.1

Actually, FIRST didn't trademark it - College Bowl Company Inc trademarked "The Varsity Sport of the Mind"

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

My point (and as far as I can tell, everyone else in this thread who has argued against 8 divisions at half champs) is that with 8 50 team divisions, particularly in the South half champs (which is 25% waitlist teams, from what we currently know), the quality of the average robot will be substantially worse than the quality of the average robot at the 2015/2016 championship event, which was already worse than the 2011-2014 Championships.

We're well past the point about complaining that half champs is diluting the quality of the event. What I'm saying is that with an already diluted competition it would be idiotic to run 8 divisions and cause even further dilution. Not to mention the fact that it will put an even bigger strain on your volunteer base that you're already spreading too thin by holding 2 events in the first place.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

This is pretty close. What I really mean is that calling it the Varsity Sport for the Mind is a good tagline that FIRST uses, and we use the same idea behind that tagline to form the recruitment process of our program. The long term goals set for 422 is to get strong, long-term investment of all stakeholders to ensure the longevity and alleged potential for any remotely interesting success in the far off future. :) (this is at leas half a joke)

That's fair. The splitting of the event is a forgone conclusion and a fact that is baked into the existing value proposition for teams, for better or for worse. I am of the opinion that 4 @ 100 can provide the best possible experience for everyone at each event instead of 8 @ 50. You sacrifice division intimacy for what I would call a "balanced match schedule" that allows teams a fair number of plays and a lot of time to do the things at championship that aren't just the matches, a volunteer base that will not go from strained to structurally dangerous, and a better on-field product. I think having 128 teams in those eliminations would provide a better experience for all parties instead of the 192 you would get for 8 @ 50 (assuming that we drop backups).

2015 was a robot building contest and the community very soundly rejected it. Most years however we do still have a robotics competition. It is still called the FIRST Robotics Competition. The powers-that-be have the ability to change the name of the program if they see fit. Until then, the competition should not necessarily be the end-all-be-all of every FIRST event (if only because it violates the internal logic of this argument, the name FIRST Robotics Competition does still have "FIRST" in it) but it also not something to be actively ignored.

I am pretty thankful that we usually do not have robot building contests because frankly I am very terrible at building robots but do what most would describe as a remotely passable job or at least a somewhat disguised impersonation of a coach for a competitive team.

12 matches per event in the district system is very much pushing many team's limits in terms of in-event upkeep and the time spent at the venue. I think the 12 matches per event is GREAT at the local level. For large scale travel, I think it could be considered a mistake.

FIRST has trademarked "Sport for the Mind" and describes FRC as the varsity "Sport for the Mind." While I initially found your semantics here to be grating, my frustration at the USPTO database to attempt to explain myself is currently... considerable. Guess the joke's on me. I can't find it anywhere on there, but someone had it down as a trademark in the championship program. Take it up with them.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I have a problem with the argument that ties inspiring more teams to the current and very specific Champion competitiveness situation. Claiming this as a necessary sacrifice for broader inspiration actively implies that more-competitive teams who do not qualify are actually less deserving of Champs inspiration than the less-competitive teams that do.

This isn't necessarily an argument for a powerhouse Champs (or a particular division/bracket style). It's directly about the many teams we all know in that operable-but-improvable realm who could benefit massively for years from just one Champs experience. It doesn't take much to lift them, and it doesn't take much to raise current Champs' lost-bumper competitiveness. I'm not claiming that these above-par (or any) teams are more deserving of inspiration than others, but they are certainly not less. At worst, switching should have no net effect; at best we argue that fewer lost wheels at Champs is better for everyone's inspiration quotient.

The qualification system is not perfect, and we all know that. It's iterated pretty regularly. And even in a perfect system, it's likely FiM DChamps would outperform many Divisions. But dismissing all desires to raise attendee competitiveness as inherently detrimental to inspiration is a disservice to the many above-par teams who would benefit hugely from a Champs attendance.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

Frank just said nothing is official yet, but he's "not a fan of 100 team divisions".

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

On the FUN Q&A, Frank said he isn't a fan of 100-team divisions, that they are too big, which suggests (these are now my words, not his) that there will be more than four divisions for each super regional.

Re: # of Divisions at Championships
 

I don't think anybody's a fan of 100-team divisions... except those folks that think 66-team regionals are really nice. They are, because you have more teams to meet and greet and more time between matches, but then you realize that you only get 8 matches and everybody else gets 10+.


To go with a point I was making earlier: smaller divisions, with fewer matches overall, to get into the 10+ matches/team range (for a 50-team field, 84 total matches with a couple of surrogates playing in one or two of 'em will give 10 matches each; to get 12 matches, 100 matches even will work) and more downtime or a more compressed schedule is probably the way to go over bigger divisions and fewer matches.

That underlined part is the key tradeoff. More downtime means longer lunch breaks, or more time to see the rest of the competition/festival--read, conferences, other divisions, other teams in the pits, the other three events, supplier showcase, innovation fair, you get the idea. But a more compressed schedule can mean shorter time at the event, which can maybe allow teams (or volunteers?) to redeye in and save a night's hotel.


Back when I was a student, 75-80 team divisions were the norm. Seemed about right, but then you get the challenge of sorting out who's playing for the half-trophy and half-banner for winning the half-championship if you've got 400 teams and you're capping divisions at 75-80 teams each.

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.