Chief Delphi
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 345 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   [FRC Blog]2017 Updates (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150174)

jajabinx124 17-08-2016 18:00
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboChair (Post 1601513)
My major question in regards to the Wild Card changes is this. Does this mean that the rules will be changed to help prevent Wild Cards form being burned? I really hope this is the case, otherwise I could see this being even more of a loss at some events that already have several pre-qualified teams attending.
I hope that is the case as well. For the past 2-3 years for the 10,000 lakes regional and North Star regional in MN, their have been a crap ton of wildcards and with this new rule in effect, I see 1 or 2 wildcards being burned because of it. North Star in 2015 burned at least 1 wildcard because there were so many championship qualifying teams attending that regional. Just an example that wildcards get wasted at certain regionals even without the rule change.

Doug Frisk 17-08-2016 18:01
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoboChair (Post 1601513)
My major question in regards to the Wild Card changes is this. Does this mean that the rules will be changed to help prevent Wild Cards form being burned? I really hope this is the case, otherwise I could see this being even more of a loss at some events that already have several pre-qualified teams attending.
They said no other changes, so no. It does at least mean that the captain of the finalist alliance will be guaranteed an invite to Championships though.

jajabinx124 17-08-2016 18:02
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdangelo (Post 1601515)
As of last year's rules, this means the finalist alliance captain for every regional will be going to World. I think this is going to have huge implications on strategy.

Imaginary scenario: first 4 teams at an event really are the best 4 teams, in that order. 1 picks 2. 3 asks 4. Does 4 accept? Do they have a better chance at beating out 3 with their own alliance than taking down 1 & 2 with 3?

Someone mentioned intentionally considering this in the "(Seemingly) Irrational alliance selection decisions" thread, but now it will be happening with every pick at every regional. I can't wait to see how this plays out.
Yeah the wild card rule does make alliance selections a bit more exciting as to what strategies a team is gonna try out to get their team to champs. I'm excited as well.

Koko Ed 17-08-2016 18:07
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1601496)
Good change to add wild cards to every regional, but if the spots don't trickle down past the Finalist alliance, I think most of those "extra" wildcards in week 3 - 6 regionals are just going to vanish. I really hope they allow these slots to trickle down to the semifinalists in some vaguely fair way - especially considering a single elimination tournament does not ensure that the Finalist alliance is the second best alliance.

I'm curious to see how the round robin playoffs will work for 6 division eliminations. The more predictable number of matches on Einstein should be a big plus! Last year there could have been anywhere from 14 to 21 matches.
Perhaps FIRST intends to use something like this.

Cory 17-08-2016 18:07
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
It's mind boggling to me that FIRST doubled their need for volunteers and then went and further caused a need for 50% more volunteers per event by making 6 divisions.

Not to mention the fact that the level of competition in the southern half Champs is going to be just atrocious.

I'd gladly trade 2 matches for 25% deeper divisions.

Rangel(kf7fdb) 17-08-2016 18:08
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdangelo (Post 1601515)
As of last year's rules, this means the finalist alliance captain for every regional will be going to World. I think this is going to have huge implications on strategy.

Imaginary scenario: first 4 teams at an event really are the best 4 teams, in that order. 1 picks 2. 3 asks 4. Does 4 accept? Do they have a better chance at beating out 3 with their own alliance than taking down 1 & 2 with 3?

Someone mentioned intentionally considering this in the "(Seemingly) Irrational alliance selection decisions" thread, but now it will be happening with every pick at every regional. I can't wait to see how this plays out.
This is and the other scenario where teams try to not be on alliance 4,5, or 8(alliances that have to face alliance 1 to get to the finals) are why I would like to see wildcards distributed based on the district ranking system.

Koko Ed 17-08-2016 18:12
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cory (Post 1601522)
It's mind boggling to me that FIRST doubled their need for volunteers and then went and further caused a need for 50% more volunteers per event by making 6 divisions.

Not to mention the fact that the level of competition in the southern half Champs is going to be just atrocious.

I'd gladly trade 2 matches for 25% deeper divisions.
Atrocious? That's a little extreme.
Perhaps FIRST will choose to move some teams from the North down South. That may help a little.

Michael Corsetto 17-08-2016 18:21
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 1601524)
Atrocious? That's a little extreme.
Perhaps FIRST will choose to move some teams from the North down South. That may help a little.
Based on this thread, it looks like this wildcard slot change might put NSR slightly over-capacity?

It looks like SSR will still have ~100 waitlist spots?

Some in the community do expect NSR to have a deeper competitive field than SSR.

-Mike

jajabinx124 17-08-2016 18:21
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rangel(kf7fdb) (Post 1601523)
This is and the other scenario where teams try to not be on alliance 4,5, or 8(alliances that have to face alliance 1 to get to the finals) are why I would like to see wildcards distributed based on the district ranking system.
Agreed, but that's assuming the seeding bracket is the same as it has been the past couple of years. (excluding recycle rush that is)

Rangel(kf7fdb) 17-08-2016 18:23
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jajabinx124 (Post 1601526)
Agreed, but that's assuming the seeding bracket is the same as it has been the past couple of years. (excluding recycle rush that is)
That's true. It could even very well be 6 alliances for each division/event. In this case the best* 2 alliances would generally find themselves in the finals.

Big Ideas 17-08-2016 18:23
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
6 divisions -good.

Round Robin --OK. May make it harder for a lower seed to upset a higher seed by fluke or exceptional 2 match effort.

Division pairs--NO. Should judge each of the 6 divisions separately. "Spread the wealth" a bit. Compatible with the round robin playoff structure. I believe it will be EASIER on the judges. The Pairings are very artificial and for judged awards only so they don't make any sense to me. Yes it will cost a few more medals.

Wild cards-THANKS. I wonder if there would be a positive effect by spreading wildcards down the Alliance captains in order after the Finalist teams.

Drakxii 17-08-2016 18:45
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Subdivisons - Wish they would do the reverse, matching up subdivisions for alliance section but having awards based on subdivisions.

Wildcards - So... less wait-list slots available for mid-level teams now and more 23rd/24th ranked teams getting to worlds?

Sperkowsky 17-08-2016 18:53
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
It really stinks that they are getting rid of a lot of north Champs wait list spots. As a team who has 8 waitlist 'tokens' next year our shot at Champs through the waitlist is much much smaller now.

If the goal is really to have more new teams come to Champs shouldn't waitlist slots be prioritized over wild cards?

SenorZ 17-08-2016 19:01
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Ideas (Post 1601528)
Division pairs--NO. Should judge each of the 6 divisions separately. "Spread the wealth" a bit.
I honestly can't remember who won awards in my division at champs this year. I think the idea of some of these awards is a little silly.
If my team couldn't impress the judges enough to win a particular award at a regional, why should we bother at championships?
Perhaps with the judges spread around a bit more, they'll target regional/district winners rather than trying to visit all 150 teams in their area.

Cory 17-08-2016 19:01
Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sperkowsky (Post 1601532)
It really stinks that they are getting rid of a lot of north Champs wait list spots. As a team who has 8 waitlist 'tokens' next year our shot at Champs through the waitlist is much much smaller now.

If the goal is really to have more new teams come to Champs shouldn't waitlist slots be prioritized over wild cards?
No, because they're choosing to stop punishing teams in areas who aren't part of districts but are under represented at Championships due to fewer qualifications available at regional events than they'd get through a district championship.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:39.
Page 2 of 5 < 1 2 345 >
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi