Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

However, many teams and school districts consider that if you're not going to go to compete, you shouldn't go at all. Not all, but many. And it's not like the Championship has been within a few hours of NYC in the last 20 years--Orlando, Houston, Atlanta, St. Louis, St. Louis/Houston... It's hard enough to convince a district that you should go when you win your way there, imagine doing it without that win.


Calm down. THIS Championship is about inspiration. If you're going to complain about non-competitive teams going, you need to start complaining to HQ. HQ has, for better or worse, determined that all teams should at least have the chance to go every 4 years on average, and has set up their systems to allow/encourage that. If it was all about the most competitive team, they'd have kept it locked down at 400 teams and tightened the selection criteria. Back before my time, all you had to do was register and go! Then once every team had a regional in reasonable range, you had to do a regional before you could do the nationals, but every team could go. And then they had to trim it down even more, so if you didn't win your way in and you were an even team, you could go in even years (and same for odd teams in odd years). Then they had to cut the qualification even more--now they want to make sure that everybody has a chance to go every 4 years. That's an HQ decision.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

That's a very good point. Looking at the data, the bottom 10% of district teams only had 3 selected out of 22 (teams 193, 3539 and 3663). That's only 13.7%, meanwhile 16.7% of waitlist teams were selected for division playoff matches.

I'm pretty surprised about that, since all waitlist teams from district areas would have fewer district points than the points teams. Either regional waitlist teams are doing well enough to pull up the average or district points aren't doing that a good a job of sending the best teams.


I don't think you're being serious, but it's important to note that nobody else is talking about how many teams are at champs, just how to pick those ones (points based or lottery). The same number of teams are getting the "championship experience" either way.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

The reality that a team that doesn't qualify for an event might find it difficult to attend an event, and the reality that admission to FRC events are free of charge are not mutually exclusive.

FIRST is not preventing 2869 from attending the event, but they are going to make the chance of the 27th best team in Chesapeake more difficult than the 41st team in the PNW, even though CHS is 85% the roster count as PNW.

I've accepted that someone has poured water all over my cereal, but they didn't have to pee in it too.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

The decision to calculate the percentage based on teams only in the geographic region of your Champ definitely helps MI logistics-wise.

Without the change, MI would send about 411/3130*804 = 105 teams to NorthCMP, or more teams than at MSC the last couple years. With that change and the 10% one, it's only 79 teams qualifying, so MSC is not irrelevant in qualifying to NorthCMP.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

Well, speaking from experience... when a team is having a bad year, it might turn down a waitlist spot. On the other hand, when a team is doing well and just misses making it to champs, they're much more willing to accept such a spot.

And then you can consider which teams would apply for waitlist spots. While there are certainly exceptions, it's going to be the better funded teams, as attending champs is a rather expensive proposition. And it'll probably be the more confident teams, those that are confident they can build a decent robot and do well enough at champs to make a trip worthwhile (even if they are realists and realize the schedule or luck in playoffs can work against them).

Now, think about all the regional teams you don't see at champs. Teams that were finalists (although there's less of that now with the wildcards), semifinalists, or quarterfinalists, all of which may be pretty decent - especially when you look at the different relative strengths of regionals. Just take a look at the 2014 Lake Superior regional playoffs for an example - every set except Semifinals 2 went to a third match, with so many close games that any alliance really could have won that event that year.

So while any team can get in off the waitlist, there are enough good teams across FIRST, and enough psychology involved in spending that type of money, to suggest that we'll get some better teams than you might expect from it.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

Note just because a team accepted a waitlist position does not mean that they had less points than the teams that qualified on points. Two seasons ago there was a team in the PNW that received and accepted a wait list spot on the first day of DCMP. By the end of DCMP they did earn enough points to qualify but since they already had a spot their points spot was passed on to the next team.

The district points system is not designed to send the top performing robots to CMP, it is designed to send the teams that earn the most points. Yes robot performance is where the bulk of the points are earned but awards earn points and there are bonuses for rookie and 2nd year teams. At the cutoff point the range of points is often quite small and winning just one award can make a difference of earning a CMP spot or not.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

While this is technically true (it happened to 303, 3637, and 5404 in MAR this year), I think that for the purposes of analyzing this proposal, Antonio's assumption should be used.
Say team A is above the points cutoff and team B is directly below it. If team A receives a waitlist spot, team B qualifies for Champs. While team A technically received a waitlist spot and team B earned a spot on district points, team B only earned their spot because team A received a waitlist spot. In this regard, I think it makes more sense to categorize team B as the waitlist team than team A because team B would not have earned a spot if it weren't for the waitlist.

My hypothesis is that districts are much better than regionals at qualifying competitive teams for Champs. I think the waitlist picks up the slack with qualifying good regional teams who missed champs because they were not on the right alliance to win/make finals and didn't win a culture award. Many of these teams, if they were in a district, could have easily qualified for champs.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

While certainly team B would not have made it if team A had not made the space available be getting a wait list spot, in the official record Team A will be shown as attending due to a wait list spot and Team B earning their spot on district points.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

In what official record? I have no knowledge of any public record of this.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

I am also not aware of any official record of how teams qualified.

Here is my recreation of how teams qualified. Note that it incorrectly includes DCMP winners as "District Points" spots.

Distinguishing waitlist teams from district points teams was tough. If a district got X points spots, then I took the top X teams from that district who did not already qualify. The rest were included as waitlist teams. There was usually a pretty clear cut off point.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

What is the predicted spots allocated for 2017 based off in the 2016 season? Because you have PNW going from 30 to 41 and then there is Indiana going from 9 to 10. Indiana has an 11% increase where PNW has about a 37% increase.

Are these increases based off of a projection of how many rookie teams will be added to the 2017 season? IN gained 0 teams last year total so is FIRST assuming IN will gain 0 teams again this year? I'm just curious how these were designated. Thanks :D

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

from the blog "if 2017 were to look like 2016 with respect to team counts"

So it's using the exact same numbers as 2016, assuming no increase anywhere.

The difference you note is the difference between norths champs and south champs. districts going to south champs are going to get bigger increases than districts going to north champs.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

Looks like a good time to move to North Carolina.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

It's hard to tell if this is sarcasm, but I don't think Sperkowski is even a Millennial. I am, and I'm at least 10 years older than he is.
Anyway, if you think the CMP has the same purpose as a little league championship, you may want to read up a bit on what FIRST's goals are. However much you might want it to be about earning your way, FIRST doesn't want that.

Re: [FRC Blog] 2017 FIRST Championships Allocations for Districts
 

So because we have so many more district teams in HalfChampsN compared to HalfChampsS, it causes less "new spots" to be distributed to each of the HalfChampsN districts?

Full Sarcasm Alert!: Can FIRST do us all a favor and send 3/4 of MI to half champs south? 201-60 = 141 and 88+60= 148. That'd make for a much better district distribution and would cause the same percentage increase of HalfChamps spots allocated to each district :D