[FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Posted on the FRC Blog, 8/17/16: http://www.firstinspires.org/robotic...g/2017-updates

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Personally, I'm super excited to see this wild card change. As someone whose team has never been to champs, this gives me some hope for the future. :)

EDIT: I am curious though. If all 3 winning teams generate wild cards, who does the fourth wild card go to?

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Ugh, this means that horrific deconflict step will still be there at CMP judging. Giving out more awards would spread the inspiration, pretty please? I promise to only complain a LITTLE more about 2Champz [1]

If not, Frank - please add boxing gloves in the judge box for CMP.


[1] Publicly... [2]

[2] In writing [3]

[3] This week.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Not a huge fan of 6 divisions, I find the round robin finals in vex makes it less exciting so I'm not super pumped to see it come to FRC.

Huge fan of the extra wildcard at regionals. Should definitely balance out the regional spots at champs with quality teams that often miss out.

hopefully the scheduling issues with regionals in NY/southeast US get addressed in someway, but I'll take this as a win for today.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I feel obligated to state that I suggested the 6-division round robin here a while ago (although not two of them...), and I still think it'll be a really fun format.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Seem like great changes to me, very happy with 6 subdivisions at each championship and a round robin Einstein.

Anyone want to do the math on how the extra wildcard will effect the North-Champs, they should be getting even fewer wait list slots now.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I like the extra wildcards and 6 divisions/champs.
I'd love a little more wildcard reform (wildcards given out via district points structure), and districts/regional reform (let regional teams attend districts the same way district teams from other areas do), but we take every little victory.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I probably screwed something up

but


20ish Regionals x 7 is 140 Regional slots

Using last season's numbers
Ontario - 137 teams
Michigan - 411
Indiana - 54
New England - 182
Mid Atlantic - 122
Chesapeake - 132

1038 total, or about 33% of all teams. Of the 800 total CMP spots they'll get about 265.

That brings us to 405.

So Halfchamps North has around -5 spots to split between original teams and the wait list. Hmmm.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I'll reserve judgement on the round-robin tournament structure for Einstein until I see it. There's potential for it to be boring, if two alliances clearly dominate after the first couple of matches... but there's also potential for it to be very exciting if the alliances are mostly evenly matched, or there's a question of alliances changing strategy depending on who they're facing. One thing's for sure - scouting other divisions is going to be somewhat important. Previously, you could scout the finals for the division you knew your division would be up against in the first round on Einstein, and then use the other Einstein matches to scout future opponents. Now, it's everyone!

Going to 6 divisions is probably good overall. If they did 4, there would be 100 teams per division, which would lead to fewer matches played and more complaints from everyone (who remembers the complaints the last time that happened?), and going to 8 would mean only 50 teams per division, which I don't think is deep enough for Champs.

For the wildcard spot... if a regional generates 4 wildcards, why not have a "3rd place" match? Make it a single match, winner take all. I've seen "3rd place" matches happen a lot at off-season events...

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I'm very happy with the change to Wildcards, though I have one comment.

I see a perfect solution to this problem, that I've been advocating for a while now: awarding Wildcards using district points rankings. This way, teams are ranked by an all-encompassing metric endorsed by FIRST that allows recognition of teams based on qual rankings, alliance selection, playoffs, and awards. This system addresses both issues Chris listed: Wildcards won't ever disappear and it is capable of recognizing semifinalists.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I too am not a fan of the 6 sub-divisions and the round robin format coming back to FRC.

I'm happy about the extra wildcard. Hopefully it should help a bit for under-represented regions at champs.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I agree... the subdivision stuff is not so good... would love to see awards per subdivision and then we can just go back to calling them divisions...

But Frank... how will 900 get our second robot to a regional now?!?!?! We were counting on FedEx to pull through for us! ;)

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Perhaps FIRST intends to use something like this.

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Atrocious? That's a little extreme.
Perhaps FIRST will choose to move some teams from the North down South. That may help a little.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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)

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

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.

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?

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?

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

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.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

In 2013, 96 teams made the elimination rounds at the Championship (4 divisions, 8 alliances per division, 3 teams per alliance).
In 2017, 384 teams will make the elimination rounds at the Championships (2 Championships, 6 divisions per championship, 8 alliances per division, 4 teams per alliance).

In essence, this is the approximate equivalent (384/400) of every team from the 2013 Championship making the elimination rounds. Some people will really like this change, some will really dislike this change. An interesting decision to say the least.

(All this assumes that the alliance format stays the same for 2017)

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

12 divisions... Sheesh.

We thought finding enough volunteers for 8 was gunna be rough. Now cut the volunteer pool in half and only take away 2 divisions. Then do it again.

Have fun, Jess.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I really like the Round Robin. It's a great show at Vex worlds (although a good deal shorter with only 5 alliances).

I also like the +1 wildcard.

Good decision!

I mean maybe atrocious isn't the right word, but his point of the event being watered down is valid.

A huge increase in the number of teams divided into even more subdivisions, without a large increase in total # of FRC teams or the competitiveness of existing teams.

Whether this is a good or bad thing is certainly an opinion, but it's factually true that the divisions will be weaker.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

How has nobody yet commented that 400 ISN'T EVEN DIVISIBLE BY 6!!!

Furthermore, with 6 divisions, each division having 400/6=66.7 teams, 48% of all teams will participate in a division playoffs. Maybe that's what FIRST HQ wants (more inspiration for everyone!!!), but there are going to be some pretty mediocre picks at the tail end of selections.

Not that anyone in FIRST HQ really cares about my opinion, but I would propose if they want to increase divisions,
only run 5 divisions/championship.

A) 400/5= 80 teams/division (very similar to the current 75, AND there shouldn't be as extensive of a field reset)

B) increase of 2 divisions is a much more reasonable expectation to staff.

The one setback of 5 vs 6 would be having less Einstein matches:
Current QF/SF = 12-18 matches
6 Alliance Round Robin = 15
5 Alliance Round Robin = 10

More talking between each match -> longer intervals of not playing.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

This really doesn't matter. They will let in 396/402/408 teams. 400 isn't a hard cap.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

One advantage to more smaller divisions is that there will be fewer teams fighting for limited seating in the new pit fields we get to play in all weekend! The Dome is only for Einstein teams in the 2Champs era of FRC, so having fewer teams in a division makes supplying adequate field seating much easier.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Ok, so I decided to quantify this a bit....

Google Spreadsheet

Pulling data from TBA and the FRC Pre-Qual list (methods listed on the 2nd tab), and ignoring Ontario (going districts), here's what I get:

Under 2016 rules 57 teams were awarded wildcards. Under the 2017 rule that would jump to 88, an increase of 31 teams.

Another interesting point... 17 regionals would not have gained a wildcard under the 2017 rules because they either ran out of finalists, or they were pre-qualified otherwise. Some of those regionals (I've yet to dig deep enough to quantify it, yet) surely have "burned" wildcards under the 2016 rules as well.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

That's only a problem if you assume that divisions will have a natural number of teams, a team will only play in one division, and will play a natural number of games. None of these is necessarily the case. For example, there could be 75 matches in each division, two alliances consisting of 3.6 teams each, each team playing 13.5 matches (9 in their "main" division, 4.5 in their "alternate" division). :ahh:

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Nice, my favorite part of the Championship event is watching sub-par teams competing in uneventful matches for most of the week.

This is a great change for people who love this same aspect of the CMP as me!

:)

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I don't even mind having few matches at the Championship. More time to get around and see cool robots/people!

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I personally like the idea of the new round robin format at World's because I think it allows you to find the best alliance at that championship. My problem with the normal tournament format is that you only have to prove that you are better than some of the teams versus all of the teams.

Let me explain while using this year's champs as an example. With the old tournament format, you have to prove that you are better than 3 other subdivision champions to become the championship winner. In other words, there could be an alliance in a different section of the bracket that could potentially beat you, but you would never know if another team took them out. If you beat that team in the old tournament format, you aren't necessarily better than the rest of the subdivision champions. You're just better than that team (along with 2 others).

Because you have to face every other subdivision champion in the round robin format, you can find the best alliance in there. Obviously, It's extremely unlikely that we're going to have an alliance that goes 6-0 in the round-robin tournament. But, the alliance that has the best record in the round robin playoff and wins the final playoff series is the best at that championship.

I'm glad to see that FIRST is going to try this new method for champs. Who knows, if FIRST goes back to one championship event, maybe they'll bring this round-robin format with them.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

This exactly. Definitely a more complicated system and not that spectator friendly compared to a nice simple bracket.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Just a quick thing here - field staff size depends on the game, not the divisions. Divisions are merely the multiplier.

It's difficult to come to the correct amount of volunteers for the Champs fields during the season - different regions run leaner than others, and the decision for the field staff size comes early, usually in week 1 or 2, so we can give food counts to HQ.

Although I personally prefer to run leaner events (back in the early 00s I was challenged - and succeeded - to run entire regionals with double digit volunteers), the final number tends to skew to the higher side to give comfort to the regions who run larger and to cover drop outs.

Stronghold was the first year we had more than 100 volunteer slots on reset alone (14 reset slots / field, if you're curious). This doesn't count DCs, or any one else on the field. Additionally, a volunteer slot does not equal a person, as we have many partial-weekend volunteers, so we're probably closer to the 150 range in terms of actual people needed for the entire event.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Can someone please explain to me how the Einstein division will be played out? I've heard round robin but I don't understand how that works. Thanks.

Edit: Also, will round robin only be for Einstein or will it be like that at each regional / district event?

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

The round robin will only be for einstein. Basically there will be 6 division winners moving on to Einstein, and 6 doesn't make a single elimination bracket. So each alliance will play a match against every other alliance (so 5 matches each) and the best two records (with some sort of tiebreaker because ties are common with round robins) will move on to a best of three final round.

VEX has done it this way at their "Einstein" for years with 5 alliances, so check out videos on YouTube to see what it's like.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Tbh I kinda like the round robin.

Every alliance has to play eachother, so it will likely bring more strategic depth to play. I would have loved to see more of this year's Einstein alliances play each other. The two (four) deepest and best alliances will likely be duking it out on (both:mad:) Saturday(s).

Also, not only will we have a better idea of when the day will be over, the afternoon will also be shorter than Einstein has been in the past. We all know that's a blessing.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

The length of the Saturday will most likely depend on how many speakers FIRST rolls out than how many matches they play.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I wouldn't say it'll be shorter.

A 6-team round-robin tournament is 15 matches in total. Add in the 2-3 match finals, and you'll have 17-18 matches in total. (average of 17.5 matches)

Compare that to last year, where you had 8-12 matches in the quarters, 4-6 in the semi's, and 2-3 in the finals. That gives you a range of 14-21 (Average of 17.5 matches).

So, on average, we'll have the same number of matches on Einstein with 6 divisions as we did with 8 divisions. The variance is just less, which hopefully makes for a more predictable day, even if the match schedule doesn't make it any shorter. As Koko Ed pointed out, though, there's more time spent between matches on Einstein than in matches. If we really want a shorter day, we need to tackle that time block, not the matches themselves.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

FIRST likes to make Einstein a big production, often at the expense of Einstein itself.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Could someone please explain what Round-Robin is, and how the two "best" alliances are selected out of that?

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

But they only play each other once, leaving no room to adjust your strategy if you lose to an alliance.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin_tournament
A six team round robin tournament schedule would look like this:

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

This is an interesting take. I'd put myself in the first group of 'some people' for the simple reason that in 2017, almost 400 teams get to come home to their schools/communities and brag that they were (at least) quarterfinalists at the world championship. This can lead to great press, great community support, great feelings back home in general.

I understand the traditionalist argument of this making the event watered down, and I don't disagree with that. But for the larger goal of changing the culture through grass roots, getting people back home excited about a local's team success goes a long way toward celebrating STEM.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Yup, my letting more teams go to Champs and more teams into the elimination rounds (and more teams with a reasonable shot of making the elimination rounds, you're definitely going to have more happy customers. Of course you'll have those who don't like the further dilution of the product, but numerically that looks to be a minority, albeit a vocal one. (I'm a member if this minority, however I totally understand why FIRST would cater to what I perceive to be the majority here)

--

As a few people have mentioned, VEX has been running a Round Robin since 2013. Here's a link to an archive of the 2016 Round Robin.

http://livestream.com/vrctv1/2016-wo...osing-ceremony (Starts at 17:30)

You'll probably get a better idea of how it flows from watching the full Livestream archive instead individual matches on YouTube. It's taken a couple of years for us to educate the community on exactly how it works and to get them into the action. It is definitely not the most intuitive format, especially when you factor in tiebreakers, to an audience who is used to a standard best 2 out of 3 bracket. When done well, it's the most exciting hour (would take much longer in FRC) of robotics; match after match of the best teams in the world facing off. However to someone who's not robotics junkie, it could drag on, especially if lots of delays/speakers are introduced between matches.

In general I'm a big fan of this format, especially for the strategy that it introduces. I'm sure teams on Einstein will enjoy the opportunity to play against every other alliance. Many time when 1114 was on Einstein, we almost forgot about the alliances we never had a chance to play. In 2010, both us and 2056 were on Einstein, a fact that I forget regularly since we never played them, and were busy strategizing while they were playing.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Just exactly what do you see as "the product"?

Me, I see the product as a generation inspired in STEM by participation. More participation is more inspiration not dilution.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

It depends on how you look at FRC. Some look at FRC as merely robotics competition. Some look at it as a change agent. Others look at it as both with various weights on the two sides.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I would say that FIRST sells a product (the competition) designed for inspiration. In this sense, diluting the product means diluting the competition. The inspiration derived from the competition, on the other hand, may well increase. It's like the supply/demand curves in economics - supply, demand, and price are all intertwined, to define your profit. Here, it's competitiveness, number of teams, and inspiration per team that defines overall inspiration. Increase the number of teams and you decrease the competitiveness, but you may be able to increase the inspiration... but there might be a "break even" point where increasing the number of teams decreases the competitiveness to a point where overall inspiration actually decreases. I won't even pretend to know where that point is, or if it actually exists!

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

The gap between a district Championship and a division grows again.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I don't see it, but why assume we'll have the traditional 8 alliance bracket (for 32 / 67 teams), instead of 6 or fewer alliances in division elimination rounds (and perhaps a round robin?)

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I'm guessing there's nothing too special about the order of each round?

If not, by switching 3v4 and 6v1 within Round 2 and switching 6v2 and 4v1 within Round 4, you could avoid having a team ever play a match back-to-back.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I was thinking about that earlier, but as some people have pointed out, there are plenty of speeches that can fill time between matches.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I think that Koko Ed was just showing an example of a Round Robin, devil is always in the details.

I like the Round Robin as the finals, it does let every team play against each other.

The only thing would be the "disaster the robot broke" matches, you'd then need to win the others to stay in contention.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

So we can have division octofinals?

(Just kidding, I know this will never happen due to the skill gap at Worlds. The alliances would probably end up weaker than at regionals)

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

Correct. The above schedule could be optimized as you describe. There's actually some cool math behind optimal scheduling of round robin tournaments. Take a look:

http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54715.html

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I'm willing to bet that at least one division at South Championships will be weaker than at least some regionals or District Qualifying Events.

Re: [FRC Blog]2017 Updates
 

I was guessing most will at least be the same as some of the large regionals we attend, most likely a bit stronger. However, with lower depth across the South Champs it will only take a few top robots to skew the difference between the six divisions.

David