Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

I would like to see more teams participate in the Divisional Elimination rounds and on Einstein. Here's how I think that it could work:

It starts with allowing teams to arrive at the Championship event ready to compete instead of in desperate need of repair. So, after the final regional, teams would be able to ship their robots home for repairs and modifications until a second ship date prior to the Championships.

At the Championships, teams could begin the inspection process on Wednesday evening, with completion on Thursday morning.

Qualification matches would begin on Thursday afternoon and finish on Friday. The selection process would begin on Saturday morning and be expanded to 16 teams per division. Both Divisional Finalists would move on to Einstein and compete through two brackets (winners and losers) with the two bracket winners competing for the Championship.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Good idea but it will never happen due to these reason:

1. Alot of teams don't uncrate their robot on Wed. Alot of teams uncrate on Thurs.

2. Thursday is a pratice day and every team needs to practice for the competition. Also some teams change items on their robot around or test new items out.

3. Also take into consideration that FRC is not the only competition that is at the Championship Event. You got FLL and FVC.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Well I'd like to see them add two more playing fields - With six fields more mathces - downside quicker turnarounds.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Then you would also have to have enough volunteer to work those two additional fields. There are many key positions that require certain key people and it's already strained finding enough quality volunteers as it is...

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

With six fields you would have a hard time doing the eliminations as they are now.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Keep 4 divisions - use six fields would speed up the elims, haven't thought it out all the way but it could work quite well - the limiting factor would be the staff to run six fields. I agree with the above post about being hard enough to get volunteers for four - but if FIRST posted early enough maybe just maybe it could be done. Just think instead of 7 matches you might get in ten - maybe have a couple of interdivisional mathces - be creative.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

It's been some years since I've volunteered at an event, admittedly, but my recollection and my experience with the last several seasons makes me believe that such pivotal positions are filled by the same small group of people again and again, from event to event and year to year. As such, it's no small surprise that finding additional qualified people to fill those roles at new events or on new fields is challenging. The VIMS is a great tool for making the information and availability of these positions accessible, but it is not useful for overcoming what appears to be prevalent, though understandable, 'nepotism' in the volunteer selection process.

Perhaps FIRST might consider offering one or more off- or mid-season orientation sessions for people interested in filling these vital positions so as to increase the number of qualified candidates available to their volunteer coordinators.

I'm curious how many others would be interested in volunteering as a score keeper or referee or event assistant, for example, but don't bother because of the perception that they're not among the existing pool of preferred candidates and that FIRST doesn't want to risk derailing an event because of an inexperienced volunteer.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

I have figures for the FLL World Festival. How many referees did they need? 4 or 8? Scorekeepers - 1 or 2? You know how many total volunteers there were? 165+. 42 judges. The majority of volunteers are doing "grunt" work, gophers. Without them there would be no elite positions to fill. Like everything else, you put your time in to get your experience and qualify you for the top jobs. I was incredibly fortunate to be selected as a judge for my first time volunteering in Atlanta, but I'm sure it was based on my long experience with FLL as a parent, and my working for two years in local and state events.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

The constraint limiting expansion of the Championship from four active fields to six is not the availability of the volunteer staff. It is based on the frequency allocations utilized by the radio systems, and the interstitial spacing required to ensure that there is no cross-talk or signal degradation between the fields when they are all active simultaneously. This may change in the future if a new radio system is implemented, but for the time being there is a technical limit that will keep us to four active fields.

-dave

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

That would be an interesting feature: Whose robot are you controlling?

My main suggestion is the same one I have for the season overall: keep all prices as low as possible, the economy's flat, and money's tough to come by

But yay for earlier Championships!

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Dang! Can't use that one now...
</me wads up and throws out really good idea for 2007 game>

-dave

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

*Predicts the huge grin on Dave's face as he dreams up an even better & more challenging idea.*

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...7&postcount=37

What's this? Dave saying radio links keep us to 4 fields, and JVN says that next year we get an updated radio? hhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmm... interesting. :D John also said they tested it (albeit an early version) at IRI last year, any IRI field people remember more than 40 channels?

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

It was only tested after competition rounds on Friday, I believe they were just trying to see if it worked. I don't recall any significant messing with channels or anything like that.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Last year after competition on Friday the host teams 234, 45, and 393 were asked to try the new radio system out. We changed the radio on the robot and then 5 or 6 mock matches before packing up for the night. I am not sure what data they were looking at.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

We don't need to put more teams in the playoffs. We need to give teams more qualification matches so that the teams that actually belong in the eliminations are alliance captains.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

I agree with Cory. Too many times, I've seen deserving teams not get to play in the eliminations because they had bad alliance partners, or just plain bad luck in a match or two, and that hurt their ranking. On the same note, I've also seen some teams that may not have belonged there that were seeded or picked because they had a couple of high-scoring matches with awesome alliance partners. Playing more qualifying matches would reduce the "random luck factor" in determining seeding.

How to do this is anyone's guess, but I do know in 2001, they increased the number of matches played by running additional ones on Einstein. Perhaps with a new radio system, FIRST could bring this setup, which could potentially increase qualifying matches by 25%. Of course, this poses a problem with FLL and Vex also being present, but I'm sure things could be shuffled around to allow for a 5th field somewhere.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Just as a note, the field issue is just with FLL. FVC has had their own field (DaVinci) since its inception.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

I know. However, the FVC field takes up space, of which there is a limited amount on the stadium floor. Adding another FRC field, or moving FLL off of Einstein would require rethinking the layout for FLL, FVC, and FRC.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Dave- thanks for the info - that makes sense.
Adding another field, if you could eliminate the crosstalk would not be too difficult - and actually you may be able to have eight fields in the space on the floor of da dome. But now I am dreaming. With 80 teams per division you are just limited on how many matches you can have. Regardless of good or bad it would be nice to let each team be able to participate in more matches. The orginal idea posted is not bad either - have a four hour work period Wed. night and a 4 hour period Thursday morning then start the matches. One thing I really like though is the unpacking the night before with less congestion - this has been one of the best things done to date, (I still remember the fiasco of the first year at Atlanta). Maybe a 6 person crew to unpack and have a 4 hour work period. 6 until 10. Maybe add two extra practice fields in the pits and eliminate the practice rounds on Thursday, although they use those to troubleshoot the fields also.
Oh well everyone have a great day!

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

Perhaps I am just dreaming, but I seem to remember in 1999 or 2002 we played one qualifying match on Thurdsay night, after 5:30 or 6:00...then 4 on Friday, then one on Saturday morning. How that was done, I have no idea. We needed until Friday morning this year to get reinspected due to a misunderstanding, and I know there was a line on Friday morning too.

One thing about the layout - if the fields are rotated a bit so that they face the corners of the dome instead of the long seating areas, that would free up more space in the middle of the dome. I bet you could have FVC and FLL next to each other on one side and Einstein still on the other side. You don't lose any seating by facing the corner, except a little bit where the entraces to the floor are, but you get almost a seating in the round effect as well.

Kev

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

The only problem with that idea is that FVC and FLL are ran simultaneously on Thursday and Friday. It would be quite confusing to have two different games being played in the same area, especially when you have different announcers for the different competitions. That is why they are played on fields on fields opposite on another.

Rather than people finding ways to try to cram another field into an ever crowded (in an electronic "noise" sense) GA Dome, why not just extend the Championships by a day? Travel costs would surely rise, but if you really want more matches, without additional fields, this is what you would need. But at some point we will realize that because of the nature of the games we play, we will reach the limits of how many matches can be crammed into the Championship Event.

What FIRST should really do is to find a way to use the excitement and energy of the Championshiops to their advantage. If the Georgia Dome can hold 70,000 people, and if only 30,000 people attended the Championships each year, why not open the other 40,000 seats up to the general public? And while they are at it, what if FIRST charged only a dollar for admission for everyone in the general public to help cover some of the costs of the event? (FIRST teams would recieve free, unlimited admisison vouchers for their team members, have special entrances to avoid lines, and be reserved priority seating sections in the arena.)

Although it might be a little costly, a few 30-second TV commercials in the greater Atlanta region in the weeks prior to the Championships with all kinds of action-packed video clips from FIRST advertising the event would help bring people in. If 20,000 spectators from the general public attend the Championships, and if 1 in 20 guests from the general public goes out and starts a team, (FRC, FVC, or FLL) voila! You now have 1,000 new FIRST teams! :yikes:

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

I think the competition is already open to the general public, but the interest doesn't exist. Part of the problem is, as you said, lack of interest. I think it would be cool if schools took field trips to go see the competition.

I think to an extent part of the problem is that spectating can be kind of tedious. I get bored at other regionals I go to, and often get up to walk around and find people I know to talk to. It would be cool if there were other things to do than simply watch the competition. At Boston, there were tables set up from several sponsor companies, and the tables set up at nationals were good too. That way, people going have something to do besides simply sit and watch.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

I remember seeing quite a few school buses filled with middle school aged students at Palmetto. They actually didn't seem really interested sitting in the stands just watching the matches though. I'm not sure if they even knew the purpose of the game, or what was going on there. But the resources are there to educate the general public, just no one knows about them.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

I've never been to the Toronto regional, so I'm not sure how it works but I was under the impression that only one of the two fields was in use at a time. The other was being reset while one was running a match.

I don't know if there's enough room on the dome floor, or if FIRST even has enough fields, but could each division be allocated two fields right next to each other?

Teams would get more matches because reset time would be reduced, and no radio upgrades would be required. Also, it wouldn't require as many volunteers as eight seperate fields (though more than four single I suppose).

~Allison

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

So your trying to tell us that IFI is adding the bluetooth radios ehh? Sounds like it will work with the additional fields good.

Re: Suggestion for 2007 Championships
 

AFAIK, FIRST does not have enough entire fields to provide each division with two fields.

Since FIRST only has eight fields to work with, there are the Archimedes, Curie, Einstein, Galileo, and Newton fields, in addition to the two practice fields in the pits. That totals seven fields, which leaves one field to cannibalize backup parts off of. Providing two fields for each division would mean FIRST would have to build four additional fields, and with each additional field costing in the five-digit range, that would be an expensive endeavor.