Qualification Points for Nationals- Give away?
 

I was a little concerned that the Qualification System was not even on the agenda at the recent First Forums but we did bring it up at the very end in Pa.

One suggestion made was that teams with an excess of QP's be allowed to donate them to friend teams to allow them to qualify for the Nationals. I guess the mechanism would need to be a formal letter or through the TIMS system. In theory FIRST should have enough slots available in case each team "just qualifies" to attend so in essence teams with 10 or 15 QPs are taking 2-3 team slots.

What is your opinion on this?

WC

(PS- personally I want ALL the teams to attend)

I don't mean to impose on anyone's future opportunities but some teams don't have friend teams with points to give away.

Thus, to be fair to everyone, I would have to say that this is a bad idea.

However, although not practical, I think nationals for everyone is a good idea. It would have to be longer than three days though.

Personally, I think a good system would be that you have to win something at the regional level to go to nationals. Anything from Team Spirit to Regional Champions to Chairmans award qualifies you for Nats. No more even or odd stuff.

I think getting as many teams to attend the Championship Event, while downplaying the importance of qualification, performance, or winning is a goal of prime important.

I think it's a great idea.

The real issue that needs to be addressed (From a pure competition point of view Krass) is the multiple regional participation. Some teams can afford to go to one while others can afford to go to several. This is fine if teams want to go to more than one, BUT, to make it fair to teams who can't... the National Qualifying points should only be counted from your most successful regional.

As for passing of points, I am 100% against it. It's just not fair to team's who aren't surrounded by a lot of successful teams... to name one good reason.

I don't believe this is a good idea at all.

As stated before, not all teams have 'friend teams' that they can borrow points from. Also, how do you know that you aren't going to be starting hard feelings from this? Let's say there are two teams that need a boost in points to go to the Championship. One is fairly successful, but unfortunately isn't able to go because of the point situation; the other is only mildly successful but great friends with the team that has to decide. Who is to say that a team will make the 'right' decision when it comes down to it?

Also, we have had some dynamite rookies come through in the past. Some of these rookies don't have friendships through teams yet, and so their great teamwork/spirit/robot might get them only so far, and then they'd have to beg some other team to give them the rest of the points (and what if it were still to no avail?)

A good idea, but it just sounds like a troublemaker and too much paperwork for FIRST to handle. I think I would almost approve of a different form of gameplay before I'd agree to this. Nobody's to say that a team's decision would be correct, and other teams could hold grudges against them for doing so.

In a gracious, professional world, none of that would happen. But we are just working towards a gracious, professional world - we've still got a long way to go.

A brief Rant on "winning"
 

I disagree.
Winning is still an important aspect of this competition. When it comes down to it (in theory) the best design, the best strategy, the best alliance wins, right? I believe it is a good thing to show our HS students these elegant designs, to further inspire them.

229 did not win nationals this year (we're all shocked!) One of the first things I did when I got back from Houston, was email my team a link to the Wildstang Inventor Award Submission. I wanted to show my kids "this is what it took to win nationals this year" (plus some amazing driving, and a great alliance...) By doing so, I've inspired some of my kids even more to be a part of the team next year. I've made everyone want to "step it up" again.

Let's see:
Bristol Meyer Squibb 2000
CHAOS 2000
Beatty 2001
WildStang 2001
Beatty 2002
RAGE 2002
WildStang 2003

These are all "winning" or at least finalist robots from nationals. They are all elegant, amazing, unique designs in their own right. When my students see them fight to the end, and see that they are "the best" it sparks a flame in them to try harder for next year. Without the competition, without the "winning" I do not believe this would be possible.

Guys... my kids are not as impressed by the:
-amazing business plan,
-the great way you pulled your team together,
-the way you overcame adversity,
-the way you helped to change our culture

my kids are impressed by the cool robots, and innovative designs.
(you should have heard them when they found out I drove 45's ball drive). Yeah yeah... you can say all day long about how the goal of FIRST is changing culture, and how we should all be equal, etc... but I still believe the best way to change the culture is to effect these HS students one at a time, and on 229, that means showing them that engineering makes you a winner. Engineers are heros.


John

PS - It's not just my HS kids, this whole post applies to ME when I was a HSer. Seeing Beatty 2001 sold me on engineering for life. "How can I do something like that next year?"

Any and all qualification for the championship event should be based solely on team merit and not patronage.



Tim Tedrow

Re: A brief Rant on "winning"
 

However, there has easily been an equal or greater amount of unique designs, strategies, and mechanisms that were not on winning robots. I know you're not suggesting otherwise, but I think it's important that it gets mentioned.

FIRST can't really show us which of the 800+ teams that compete is truly the best because there's just no way for every match between all teams to take place. It's entirely possible, though, that a combination of a unique strategy, or singular unique design on another robot not competing at an event could've beat any one of those robots.

My point, I guess, is that there are other circumstances that affect a team's potential and ability to perform well at an event. This season, there could very well have been a robot or three that could've beat the winning alliance, but they were all sitting at home in a crate.

Furthermore, by getting as many teams into the Championship Event as we possibly can, we're exposing more kids to those great designs. In FIRST, everyone learns from everyone, and the more people there are hanging around, the more learning is taking place.

I think that a system of goodwill as Wayne's suggested could go a long way toward curtailing the increasing emphasis on winning. Winning is the result of a great design, yes, but it shouldn't be a prominant piece of criteria in determining if you and your work should be allowed to inspire, nor if you should have another opportunity to be inspired.

Re: Qualification Points for Nationals- Give away?
 

I agree with you... I think all teams should be able to go... But as for sharing or giving points to other teams I don't know...


As for the other posts about winning a Regional and qualifying, I think winning a regional should be worth less than its worth now...

Well said. Short and to the point. I'd like to put on the table a system that would accomplish this in a fair manner. To be fair, we need a system that recognizes every way a team can excel in this competition. I think these criteria do that:

1). Any team who played on an alliance that went to the Semifinals at any event. (This way you can't qualify just by being picked. You have to earn it with success in the elimination matches.)

2). Any team who finishes in the top XX% during the qualification rounds. (This number can be tweaked according to how many teams have registered in FIRST, how many regionals there are, and how much room there is at the Championship event.)

3.) Any team who wins a Regional Award. (This helps to emphasize the parts of FIRST that aren't about competition.)

4.) Any previous champions or Chairman's Award winners.

A team can prove they can win in the elims (1), they can prove they are good in the qualification rounds (2), they can prove that they are good at some other aspect of FIRST (3), or they already have proven themselves (4).

This may look familiar to you. I had posted this elsewhere, but I feel it's appropriate to repost it here as well.

I also think we should have as many teams at Nationals as possible. If it were up to me and FIRST had the resources every team would be there. There are so many great teams which we do not get to see. Unfortunatly this is not the case.

I do not think lending or sharing points is the answer though. An alternative could be allowing semi-finalists and maybe even quarter finalists to attend and if this still does not fill nationals then open it up to teams with the highest # points under the amount needed to qualify (I think this was done last year, but I'm not sure).

Winning is not everything and FIRST has always pushed the fact that it is the experience you get out of the time spent working on the project and the people you interact with that makes it all worth while. Even though this is how I feel I think the competition/win aspect still plays a role and is important to many teams if only for the "prestige" factor.

In a rebuttal to your point, this still leaves an unfairness to teams who are not around a lot of successful teams. Think about it, if Team A is surrounded by 10 teams with Pt's to spare, and Team B is surrounded by only 1... Team A has 9 more chances to get to Nationals then Team B. Assuming Gracious Professionalism works in this situation, lets say 10 teams not in the area have Pt's to spare... that gives Team A 20 chances, and Team B with only 11. In other words, its still unfair.

I see a lot of discussion about varying systems being "fair" or "unfair." I think a lot of this is misguided. Think about it -- just what is fair? Can you quantify it in some mathematical equation? Can you possibly control every variable -- or even a fraction of a per cent of them? NO!

No matter how elegant an idea is, someone can say -- and rightly so -- that it is not fair. There might always be circumstances stacked against a particular team or group of teams. As an alternative question, is it fair to those teams that one of these systems could hlep to deny them that help because someone else might not get it equally?

Seriously, I think people need to think about "fairness." It's not a concrete, easily defined, easily quantifiable idea. Its broad and its abstract and it AIN'T EVER GOIN' TO HAPPEN, to put it eloquently.

This has been particularly discouraging. Did no one listen to Dean this year when he said that this game was NOT going to be fair? Personally, I thought that was one of the best statements he made. Some teams WILL have more money. Some teams more resouces. Some better mentors. Some more students. Some more involvment. Some will just be left behind. These things happen; we are not perfect. But the challenge of FIRST is not complaining about these things, but rather trying to overcome them despite your circumstances. Rather than criticize something because it is not fair, try making it better. But remember, life is never, despite our hardest and most sincere efforts, going to be the least bit fair (I'm not trying to be cynical here in case it came off that way).

Think about it. What if there are extra spaces to send teams to nationals? What would be fair? A random lottery. No, for then the teams that deserve to go would be disadvantaged. But how do we figure out those teams? And how do we weigh them against each other? There is no completely fair way. BUT, is it not better to give teams the wonderful opportunity of competing at nationals if it can be done than not doing so. Look, if we want FIRST to be the great thing that it can be, we just might have to risk like Dean did, the slight chance that it's not going to be fair.

That logic is flawed, though.

If you're considering all teams that have extra points and all teams that need points, each team that needs points has an equal chance of receiving them.

If you operate under the assumption that teams are more likely to give their points to local teams, which may be true, then there may be a bias toward teams that are located in more populated areas. But, similarly, it's a lot easier for a team here on Long Island to attend 2, 3, or 4 regionals due to their proximity then it might be for a team in, say, Seattle. For those teams, they must travel much further to attend a second event, let alone 3 or 4.

Besides, I think this might encourage teams to form relationships with one another off the field. This happens a bit already, but encouraging that isn't really a bad thing, in my mind.

I agree that not all teams should be allowed to go. One idea that i;ve been throwing around is that for nats you have to be a current or previous year regional winner, or regional technology awayrd winner (Delphi, Motorola, Xerox, GM). This would make the competition much more fun and intense. The odd/even qualification is very unfair to teams with amazing robots such as 176 this year. Thier robot was great and even brought thier alliance to become finalists at BC4, but since they did not win in the 2002 season or win a regional this year they could not go to nationals. Just some of my thoughts.... Giving away points would be very unfair to teams who do not have a close team, or a 'sister' team. Say team 'A' won two regionals, and team 'B' who has the same sponsor made a robot that worked about twice in competition and seeded last or close to last. Naturally team 'A' would give thier extra points to team 'B' allowing a non-award winning team to go and could possibly prevent a last weekend regional winner from getting a spot for nationals.

Oops! left out regional chairman award and the engineering inspriation award

Hey what about regional chairmans winner??

what about the Egnineering Ispiration award winners... it is FIRST's second highest team award, only second to the chairmans award, shouldnt they qualify for nationals?

~Mike

What I believe should be done, for the teams that attend multiple regionals and build up excess points, is to have the points given to the 2nd place team or runner up, in whatever they may have won their points in. My idea would get complicated tho when deciding which runner up would get the points, and when you're team has earned enough points to indeed go to nationals.

It would be so great if all of the teams were able to attend nationals, but unfortunately, that doesnt appear to be able to happen. Therefore, the only way for a team to get to nationals seems to be the current system of proving themselves worthy. I dont like the point trading system, because that would let teams who have no proven reason to attend to go to nationals. I'm not trying to be mean, but I think that the fairest way of determining which teams attend nationals is by which teams earn it, all by themselves.

I think its a bad idea. Some teams dont exactly have a brother or sister team, but have they have many good friends. If you have 2 friends, one is from across town and the other is a team that you always work together with at regionals helping them out and they help you out, that need 2 points each to qualify for the championships, while you have 2 extra who do you give it to?

You could:

A. Give both to one team
B. Give both to the other team
C. Give One to Each team (that would do nothing at all)
D. Dont give any points


So with that scenario, you have 2 teams that are on the verge of qualifying, and your team is put in a tough situation. No matter what, at least one team is going to be mad because you can't please them both. The sharing system would cause way too much trouble, and should just be avoided all together. If you can't qualify the most reasonable and fair thing to do is say you are SOL like it is right now.


Edit: You talk about elimination favoritism from the qualification process, but the problem with this sharing idea is that it is favoritism to your buddy team anyway.
--------------------------------
Oh and yes Mike, I believe that Engineering Inspiration award deserves to be an auto-qualifier award. FIRST even says its the 2nd highest award that they give out at the regional. Why shouldn't it be an auto qualifier? Beats me.

Some one said something about that there would be hard feelings to teams who gave points away to one team and not another, that is a lesson in life that people must learn, you don't always get what you want and what you need, Yes it is a hard lesson to learn but it is something will happen in life to basically everyone.

Also someone mentioned some teams don't have friends to give the points away to, I think that if they just gave the points away to a team that would be a way to start making friends. or they could just keep them.


I think it is a good idea if it is handled the right way. It should be a teams decision to give and even accept the points




just my 2 cents.

LA Team Forum Discussion
 

The topic of Nationals (I prefer this word and will continue to use it over the word "Championship") and who should go was brought up at the LA Team Forum.

1. The fact that the Engineering Inspiration Award did not bring an automatic bid to Nationals was brought up. This should be rectified for the coming year.

2. Two possibilities that would work together came up:

(1) Winners of any award at their *home* competition would get an automatic bid to Nationals. My one concern here is that teams that travel to another regional might take away the possibility of a team winning an award and a chance to go. On the other hand, you can't tell a team that they are ineligible to win an award simply because they are not at their home regional. This is a bit of a catch-22 and I've yet to figure out a possible solution in my own mind.

(2) The teams that have not been to Nationals over the greatest amount of time would have a priority deadline for registration. Then the next bracket of teams would get to register for any available spots, and so on. (Think of it like registering for college. Incoming freshmen and graduating seniors have priority.) The benefit to this is that the teams that haven't been in over NN number of years would know that they would be eligible and can start trying to raise the money early. This would also alleviate the difficulties surrounding the even/odd structure since FIRST is growing at such a rapid rate.

3. The possibility of allowing award winners to carry their bids to Nationals to the following year was discussed. This idea was raised since, as it was already mentioned, it is very difficult to raise the amount of money required to attend Nationals in a matter of weeks.

Again, these are just the ideas that were brought up at the LA Team Forum. It does *not* mean that they will be the rule.

indieFan

In the current system, however, I doubt enough teams would qualify to go to nationals, especially with many teams having way more points than necessary. In the near future they will have to get rid of the odd/even system because too many teams will qualify, but the current system won’t let enough teams qualify. Personally I think George’s system is the best. It judges based on merit, but its restrictions aren’t too strict. If this doesn’t work out, giving away points could be the next best thing. I trust that teams in that situation would at least make an attempt to choose based on merit. For example, Team A has extra points, some of which they gain by winning a regional. In the qualifying rounds they beat a team they’re really impressed with, so they give their points to that team. Not everyone would do it quite that systematically, but I’m sure most people wouldn’t want give away their hard earned points to a team they think is undeserving.

Well Rob Colatutto I guess you forgot that FIRST is not about winning... Everyone works really hard to get a good robot and just because your robot can win doesn't mean you should be going to nationals... Its true the competition would be more intense but thats not the point in FIRST... I guess you forgot that...

FIRST is still about winning more than it ever was. Do you design your robot to win every year or to play nice and give everyone a chance to beat you in competition? Like John has said, look at the robots that win, they are great engineered robots with amazing designs. Most of them do win technology awards for these designs. FIRST is as much about winning as it is about getting the experiance. Competing against other companies or workers to have your design win is a real world problem that many people will encounter after they get out of college (or even beofre that).
Just my thoughts on the topic..

How ever... if you are on a losing alliance then you should not be angry that you lost, but rather build on the experiance.

On the topic of qualifying for next years Championship, does anyone know if the odd/even rule will still be around? Was it mentioned at any of the team forums.

We do build our robot to win but winning is a very small part of FIRST to us... We won a technology award and our robot was not good at all...

Guys,
We've had this debate/discussion many times before.
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...928#post102928

There is no right answer.
I just want everyone to realize that NO ONE IS RIGHT.

We all have our different opinions on how things should be run.

We all have different opinions on the "meaning of FIRST" and whether winning is important or not.

There is no right answer. These are all just opinions. Keep that in mind.

As for qualifications...
FIRST is doing their best to accomodate everyone as best they can. We should all just trust in them to deliver a positive solution, or..... politely post our own ideas. Remember: there is NO RIGHT SOLUTION.

John

Well then that just speaks to the fact that the award process might be in need of an overhaul...

David,
Please calm down. Your philosophy on FIRST is not necessarily the "right" philosophy on FIRST. We all respect 88 and the way you guys do things, but you need to be open to the way others compete as well. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.


John

I'm sorry if I came across the wrong way... I'm not worked up at all I'm just stating my opinion... But in any case I'm sorry...

More thoughts and rebuttals
 

After reading some of your replies to my original post I'd like to make a few statements-

1. Fair or unfair- if a team wanted to give away points to friends it would be their business. If they hurt the feelings of other teams that too would be their business. Quite frankly, if I had points to give to some teams that we have had a good relationship with and we could, I would happily do so. In my mind friends support friends. I miss seeing some of my friends when they don't qualify for Nats. No teams are entitled to anything so nobody should be offended.

2. All teams should be able to go to Nationals. It is a great experience for kids no matter how well they play. By saying only the "better teams" should go misses the point of FIRST to motivate as many kids as possible. Since the National Championship is not a TRUE championship by the nature of its qualification then it should be open to all. If it were a true championship then I too would insist that only the regional winners be allowed to play in it.

3. As far as some teams not having "brother or sister teams", well maybe it is time to find one or maybe help a neighbor start a new team. Then you WOULD have one. Sharing of the points might help build relationships between teams or allow mentors to boost the rookie teams they helped start.

Look, I doubt FIRST would ever agree to this because it is too complex for them to keep track of. But the sentiment to help others is here and FIRST should be for all kids, not just the ones fortunate enough to get on highly successful, highly competitive teams.

WC

(PS- not a bad discussion for the "dead season" eh?)

I'm not sure if it has already been said, but here's some ideas for qualification...

If a team that has already qualified for Nationals qualifies again, that second spot is put in a "pool" of other open spaces ( that were earned in the same manner ). A waiting list is created, the higher an unqualified team is on the waiting list ( determined by a late nationals regrestration for teams who have not qualified ), the greater the chances for that team to get a spot at Nationals is.


Another suggestion could be, if a team has already qualified, and they earn a second spot, they may chose another team to take their second spot via a "pull a number out of a hat" raffle.

Um i have to agreee that giving points to a othre team would be to difficult but i think they should def rethink how teams make it to natationals. This year we place third in are regional over all and went far in are elmination matches. But due to us being a even number team, we didnt make it to nats. I mean we wehre all upset and just seing other teams make it over us that maybe didnt ahve a good as run as us was upsetting. The most upsetting thing is the team right across from us they built there whole robot at regionals and only played one match got to go to nationals cause of a odd number. That doesnt seem fair because we had are robot done on time. We earned are way up in the standing and then to get shafted like that was very upsetting.

Dan, Great idea, I'm liking that... But what i also want to say is on Wayne's second point. After the team i have been on now, team 250 has been grandfathered into nationals due to being here since 1992, i know what hes saying. I have been there with my team a few times now. Each year it is a whole different field, and you see what it takes to really get there. (other then the odd/even teams). Some people have it some people don't. I was surprised this year when nationals was moved, though that how much the feeling didn't change and it was as if you were in Florida or where ever.
~Mike

Dan, Thats essentially how it is done now... if one of the orginal 9 win a regional, someoen on the waiting list takes that spot, or an odd/even team. its not like that spot just dissappears

How isn't this proposal functionally equivalent to the alliance selection process we've had for three of the past four seasons?

Some teams play "the game" (read: some teams win, some teams earn awards, etc.) and earn their way into the elimination rounds. Those teams then select the remaining team who'll join them.

During alliance selection, teams sometimes pick based on performance, sometimes on friendship, sometimes on need, and sometimes they do it randomly. I've never seen anyone complain about how unfair that process is, so what makes this different?

Think of qualification for the Championship as moving on to the biggest set of Elimination Rounds there is. The who, what, why, where, and how of who's playing isn't important, nor any of our business. Giving more people a chance at playing the game, though, is something we should all be working toward.

While we're at it, can we take on a matter of nomenclature for a moment? I'd like to see that "qualification" be removed entirely from FIRST's vocabulary, replaced with "opportunity" instead. It seems far more appropriate, since teams can both earn or be given the "opportunity" to compete and learn and play at the Championship Event.

Well, a thought crossed my mind, that if you want to help another team, there are other ways to do so than trading points. You could teach them a new machining technique, or send one of your programmers to them to teach them how to run autonomous mode. It's like the old saying "If you give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime." If you give a team points, they may go to nationals, but have little or no overall improvement in their robot the following year. But, if that team has an excess of points, it means they must be doing something right. So, if they sent a few team members over to teach the team a few tricks, then that team may see a drastic improvment, and make it to nationals the next year, and continue improving with the knowledge gained. I think that most teams would be more gratefull for this type of assitance than points that get them to nationals for a year.

In response to a previous poster, you should not feel "shafted" because an odd numbered team got to go to nationals, even though they built their robot in the first regional. You will have the same oppurtunity next year. They may have picked that option as an engineering challenge for that year, or they may have been forced into that situation due to a lack of workspace, etc. Perhaps going to nationals will give them a chance to recieve help that they couldn't obtain at the regionals.

I know that makes a strong case for everyone going to nationals every year, but that is simply not possible. We would literally take over the town! :ahh: If you look at the current system another way... almost everybody is in high school for 4 years. That means, if they are on the team all 4 years, that they will go to nationals twice (assuming they win no awards, etc). That seems "fair" to me, but as was said above, there is no right answer, no definition of fair that everyone agrees on, and no way that we can achieve a perfect "fairness." When we reach the "real world" of engineering and technology, it is no longer the expierence that is important, it is the creation of a successful product. There are no prizes for second best in the real world, unfortunately. I think if we expierence just a little of that before we are sent out to design the next generation of cars, planes, spaceships, segways, etc. it will make us better engineers as a whole. Of course, this is just my belief, and there is nothing to say I am right. You can agree, and that's fine. You can disagree with me, and I'm fine with that as well, and would love to hear your point of view as well!

Are you suggesting that giving a team the opportunity to spend three or more days surrounded by the best teams in the country isn't a learning experience?

...that the students won't see new ways of doing things, learn new ways of implementing solutions, or otherwise be hugely inspired by the amazing display of humanity and machinery that comes together during that event?

I'm not sure I'd agree at all.

Re: More thoughts and rebuttals
 

Not only would it be their business, it would be quite a dilemma. There are lots of hard feelings to be had at the expense of others. Even simply saying, "I'm sorry, but we've decided not to share points this year" could really tick off the team that only needs 3 more points. No matter what, there is going to be lots of biases going around, and personally I know I would want no part of it.

I did. But I know that out of all the teams that I am friends with or started or within my state, I'd feel pretty bad having to pick and choose my 'real' friends. Nobody should be in that type of position. Instead, with the system we have now, we're competitive for three days and then we're just back to being FIRST teams: Groups of kids and their mentors learning and having a good time. I hope I can help to keep it that way.

I do agree that it is a great learning expierence, I've been there. But I also think that it would be a logistical nightmare for everyone to go every year, (we'd fill just about every hotel in any city we chose!) and I think that there is something to be learned and gained from the current situation. The fact that you have to earn points to go may seem a little biased against new teams (well, maybe not just a little...) but if you have to work to go, you are more inclined to work for it, whereas if you can get there by "mooching" points, you are less likely to work as hard as you would otherwise. Nobody wants to think that's true, but it has been proven numerous times. At the same time, you don't have to go to nationals to learn. If you don't go to nationals, it gives you that much more time to workout what went well, and what didn't, and work on changing it for the next year. In addition, just because you can't go, doesn't mean you can't watch webcasts, or the movies that numerous teams record and make available to the public. I know it's not the same, but it still offers you the chance to learn. To look at this in a slightly different light, in the light of a previous poster, how would you feel if your robot did spectacularly, and won every match it was in, and yet, you recieved no special recognition? Well, that wouldn't be "fair" to you, but it would be fair to the rookie team that had absolutely no expierence with building robots before. There are two sides to every story, and we've got to look at both. I stand by my opinion that it would be a greater benifit to a team to send people to teach, than to send points. That, of course, is just my opinion, and I appreciate you discussing your opinion with me.

Just have to add a little point here..

FIRST isnt that big. The city of Houston is the 4th largest city in the United States, and will be hosting the 2004 Super Bowl for about 60,000 fans. Im sure many larger cities wouldn't have any problem hosting about 10,000-15,000 FIRST participants, especially Houston and Atlanta. Also Atlanta hosted the 1996 Summer Olympics, where they host hundreds of thousand fans and participants.

In other words, right now size is not a problem.

A few scattered thoughts here:

1) Suppose you expanded the points system for additional qualifying - something like major points and minor points. Say 200 teams qualify for spots with major points - something similar to the existing qualifying. The remaining spots would be given to the top 100 minor point winners - giving different points for all the regional awards, past year's history, etc.

2) Along with that (or separate from it) - for teams that go to multiple regionals, they only get to use their best regional, or an average of all of them, or an average but drop the lowest.

3) Suppose we had a parallel national event where all the rest of the teams got to come and compete with each other on a lower scale. Sort of like the NIT is to the NCAA basketball championship - very few teams turn down the invitation even though they're not in the running for the national championship. They use it to build experience for future years. I think the experience of a large national event is worth it for all the teams to get excited about. Ideally it's held in conjunction with the national championship - even if it's a smaller pit and one field, they get to be involved. They get to hear Dean and Woody and join the community.

This year my team (303) Won two technical awards. Motorola Quality Award in Annapolis, and the GM Industrial Design Award at the J&J Mid-Atlantic Regional. But due to FIRST's 5 point system (this only gives us 4) We are not eligible for next years Championship. We were chosen at all three of our events (Nat's, Rutgers, Chesapeake) for the finals in addition to those two awards. So unless we win another technical award, or win a regional, or get chairmans, Nationals are a inaccessible to us.

Points don't carry over to next year....

Winning a technical award, regional, or Regional Chairman's Award is an automatic qualification to attend Nationals under the current system.

The points are irrelevant.

True...

In case you didn't realize I am referring to next years nats (2004) not this years. Points carry over to the following year
That is assuming the qualification system remains the same for next year. And Technical awards and such are for the current year only, not the next. The next year they are two points.

I can't even begin to describe the disappointment of missing Nationals this year. Unlike most teams that went, we were not granted a spot. We earned one. We didn't get that spot by impressing anybody, or winning some award. Our alliance managed to beat 40-some other teams to win that incredibly competitive regional. We had a chance to compete at Nationals, and maybe even take it all....just look how close our ally got. Money, commitment, and legalities really were not the issue. Time kept us from competing. 15 minutes were alloted to us to make a decision. That's all we got. After one of the most incredible showings our team has had in its history, we had to end it abruptly, simply due to time. This is a situation that FIRST should consider in the future. Winning at any other point would have given us or another team the opportunity to organize itself and then make a decision. We were not given this opportunity, and were forced to go home early.....That's life, I guess. At least I went out on top....thanks to 25 and 340!

Points do not carry over from one year to the next.

Your team must earn 5 points in a single season to be eligible to attend the Championship during the following season.

You cannot earn, for example, 2 pts. in 2003 and 4 pts. in 2004 and be eligible to attend either the 2004 or 2005 Championship.

I know that, but this year we earned four points, which isnt enough for the 5 point system.
I referred to the technical awards in my first post because they are automatic.

Well all this discussion of who gets what points for what is getting off the topic.

Since the point system wasn't even on the agenda at this year's FIRST forums I imagine that it is going to be the same this year and for years to come.

Sorry

Although I would love to be given QP, I must admit that it is not exactly for teams that do not have as many *wonderful* sister-teams. I do suppose it would be just like the real world, mooching the big guys:P But let us be kids for now. :) Try your hardest, have fun, and if you don't make it to Nationals- learn from your mistakes and come back even stronger to show off in Altana for the following year. :)