More teams in the elimination rounds
 

In one of the current threads, a number of teams were expressing some surprise that they weren't picked for the elimination rounds in Houston.

At the Arizona Regional, there were 37 teams so almost 2/3 of them went on to the elimination rounds. At the championships, only about 1/3 of the teams went on to the elimination rounds.

I would like to see that percentage increased. Otherwise, there is bound to be a lot of deserving teams that are wondering why they weren't picked.

Some people are worried that basing Qualifying Points on the difference in scores between winners and losers would be tough on less experienced teams. I personally think that having only a 1/3 of the teams go to the elimination rounds is far harder for teams to swallow, especially at the championships where there were many good teams who had travelled a long way to compete.

One possible solution would be to have a little less practice time and more match time. If we had 16 alliances per division (48 teams) going into the elimination rounds), we would need to have 16 more matches to get back to the 8 alliances currently in the elimination stage. (That assumes that the alliance with the highest total score moves on. Personally I think that would be fine, IF we got rid of the multiplier. In other words, the highest total score moves on, period. That would allow a team who lost by a small margin in the first match to come back and win overall by getting a better score in the second match.)

So can we fit 16 more matches into the schedule? By gosh, I think it is possible. What do you think?

If only 1/3 of the teams make it to the elim rounds, then those who don't make it aren't really singled out. But if 2/3 of the teams are chosen, and x team isn't, is part of a group that is smaller, which is worse.

I say leave it, or maybe top ten.

Why not make more qualification rounds, more chances to show who you are, be allianced with the top 8 teams, more chances to get all your bugs out, and make the qualification worth more, make the seeded place worth more. Just a thought, and it also gives more teams more rounds, not just the top 8 or 16 or whoever advances.

Just leave it.

the reason you get so little qualifying matches is all depending on how many teams go, and how long the game takes. this years game was 10 seconds longer and also took longer to reset than past years, and with bigger regionals match counts were generally lower. for example, the 73 team divisions let everyone have 7 matches, but at the 35 team long island regional each team got 10

im not complaining about the amount of matches we play, im just trying to come up for a solution to those who are. And yes, you are totally right. I see the thread going off topic perty fast.

Double Elimination!
 

So can we fit 16 more matches into the schedule?
Not to argue semantics, but I tend to think of a match as it is in the seeding rounds - 2:15.
But either way you look at it, it would take over three times as long if the current two match per contest remained in place.
On the other hand - and using my notion of a match...
The elimination rounds could contain 16 alliances , have only 14 more matches ( twice the current number ), and have a Bronze Medal winner to boot.

How's that? With a modified 16 alliance double elimination tournament. Similar to the ones we see in softball, but modified so that the alliance that emerges from the winner's bracket finishes first without having to face the alliances that emerges from the loser's bracket.
It would look like this:


EDIT- to clean up own semantics :ahh:

If you doubled the amount of teams in the elimation rounds you double the time of the elimination rounds. That means that it goes from half a day to almost a full day. If they go back to a best of 3 match like 90% of people want thats a third more time. Basically elimination would be an entire day at NATs.

This year teams played 6 qualifying rounds. 1 bad round would cripple kill a team and after a second bad round they got a death certificate. If they had to cut the time of qualifying dwon to one day that means even less of a chance to show your worth. So theres 2 solutions. Extend NATs to 4 days or cut the number of teams at NATs down even further.

This is basic economics people. FIRST can't do everything. Extending NATs to 4 days would make it more expensive because of the extra night. Not to mention missing another day of school in many cases. Less teams means more teams have to sit it out. Everything has a price. You can't have your cake to.

I think that FIRST should strive to increase the number of qualifying rounds so teams have ample time to show there worth. Bad rounds will hurt a team less. Eliminations should remain the same. Just getting into the elimination is an acomplishment and it shouldn't be extended.

Further I would feel better being 1 of 60 teams not selected rather than 1 of 30 not selected. My last thought may not be politically correct but in my view its the truth. The top 8 teams are there because they are among the best. They then select what they view are the next 16 best teams. If anything diluteing the pool with 'lesser' bots would lessen the amazing rounds that the eliminations are.

To make it to the elimination rounds is a big deal for many teams. To make it into that top 8 or know that you are good enough for a team in the top 8 to pick you makes it prestigious. By adding more teams to the elimination it lowers that prestige knowing that many teams are going to be in the finals too.

I'd really like to see more teams in the eliminations. They all make so many sacrifices - more of them should get to feel the excitement. However, I agree that we can't spend a full day, and that the top seeds should be rewarded.
Here's a scenario that puts 36 teams in the mix, rewards the top four seeds with a BYE in the first round, and would only take 20-30 minutes longer:

It would be a bit more complicated; but your local recreation softball leagues manage to make it work :)

I remember way back when we sucked (last year), ok we were a first year team, but we were 13th or so at UTC and it was my job to get us picked. Despite an hour of sucking-up nobody noticed us and nobody picked us and it was crushing to the whole team to work so hard and to get passed over.

This year we ended up 1st seeds at UTC and seeds in Newton and it was exhillerating to see teams work so hard to get us to pick them. I felt really bad for some good teams with incredibly nice people (155 at UTC and 19 at nat's come to mind) who didn't get picked.

If the scheduling issue can be worked out (and that's a BIG issue) than I would love to see more teams in the elimination rounds because it will force the high-seeds to notice more teams and it will make more teams feel wanted.

I think we should have the eight teams from each division in the finals for nationals. They also should be able to drop one member of their team and pick up a new one from a different division. I think that would make for a fun time what do you say.

Ok, why we're at it, lets give away more chairmans awards...:rolleyes:

While this may not work well for an actual FIRST event it would work great for an off season event. This will give everyone a chance in the elimination matches. Most off season events are for fun and there's no fun in sitting out. I'de be all for this if it was used at an off season event. :)

I like Jack Jones's idea, less the "Bronze" bracket. Single eliminations. That would add only a set of 4 matches into the mix, while adding 4 more alliances (12 teams) to the brackets.

I definately agree with this. The whole purpose of getting into the elimination rounds is to show that you are in the elite group of teams at that competition(different at some regionals due to small size). I know it sucks when you feel that you should have gotten picked and didn't, but hey it happens to everyone. All in all more teams in eliminations would not only take more time, but you wouldn't really be in that elite minority.

I believe this is just another issue revisiting the same old topic of "more and more teams are joining, and less and less of the increasing number of teams gets to 'win'".

It's actually quite simple, really. 16 more matches means 16 X 5 minutes per match, so, 80 minutes more to add into the finals. Plus 20 extra minutes for making that much more matches works. That's about 1.5 to 2 hours addition to the existing finals.

For qualifying rounds, it's pretty simple too.

Matches runs from 9:30pm till 12pm, then 1pm till 5pm, and then 9:30pm to 12pm again. Total of 9 hours for QM. With about 32 teams, for all the teams to play at least 1 match, it will take

32 teams X (1 match / 4 teams) X (5 mins / 1 match) = 40 mins. In 9 hours, you can fit in 13 qualifying matches.

With 44 teams, you can fit in 9 matches, and with 50 teams, you can fit in 8 matches.

The more teams cramped in a regional, the less qualifying rounds per team, and less portion of the teams will get picked, and less portion of the teams will get awards.

It's the same as having a "qualification process" for the Championship event. They simply can't fit all 800 teams in it.

With more and more teams joining, the regionals will eventually reach to a number where it can't get any bigger anymore. That's what's happening to Silicon Valley Regional, we just can't fit in anymore teams. With the current schedule, it's hard to add any more qualifying matches, and make finals even longer unless you push the award ceremony later, and teams get to stay in the pit for a longer time.

Is it fair? No, not really. A lot of teams out there deserve to play in the finals, and win more awards. But, there just aren't enough room in the events. Everyone want to see more teams getting recognition for what they do, but frankly I believe the teams got the most out of the participation and not the recognition. Dean keeps saying "it's not about winning", and I agree. The teams already won by being there. Eventually finals, and championship event will probably be used to determine who's got the best robots for the game, but that's about it.

The final solution? More regionals and fewer teams to each regional. That's exactly what should happen when FIRST get larger and larger. They just got to find more money for the regionals.

Yeah.

I don't think there is enough time to add more teams to the eliminations. Plus, if the majority of teams were in the finals - it seems like that achievement is made cheaper for the small number of teams that make it that far.

I'd prefer to have two thirds of the teams out in the stands, looking on, then have only one third out there, bitter at not being chosen.