Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Put another way, Eighthfinals represent more matches than Quarterfinals, Semifinals, and Finals put together.

That being said, I believe GTR used to do Eighthfinals back when they had two fields. They could run these in parallel, so they were able to fit more matches faster.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

To address a few of the issues raised: (and isn't this fun? :) CD is great :D )

I agree, it adds more time. I'm not sure how much net real time is increased because there would be some time recovered as most of the wait time between matches that currently occurs after the Quarter Final round would not be required.

I understand the concern about the "quality" of the alliances formed if a higher percentage of the teams attending participate in the elimination rounds. I'm not sure where that ranks on the list of criteria used by F.I.R.S.T.; personally, I prefer to see the best teams leading the alliances and able to be paired together.

Another consideration for me is the quality of the match play. I think folks would agree that elimination rounds match play is generally more exciting than qualifying rounds match play. In part, I think it is bacause the "higher quality" teams are allied together. I also think that it is because teams are working together for a common purpose; specifically they are not trying to showcase their own robot, rather they are supporting the goal of the alliance. Which is the more valuable lesson?

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The goal of the alliance is to win the match, isn't it? That's what every team on the field ought to be working toward, in qualification matches as well as elimination matches. If a team values "showcasing" above playing to win, and thus loses a match, I would seriously question their strategic judgement.

Are you suggesting that some teams go out there just to grandstand, don't really think about the effect of that attitude on their alliance partners and the match results, and thus end up selecting themselves out of the elimination rounds?

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Assuming the standard "6-minute cycle", the MINIMUM that 16 additional matches would take 96 minutes (or 1.6 hours). This could extend as far as 24 matches (assuming no ties), and if each of the eight new alliances used a 6-minute timeout it's the equivalent of running 32 matches. 32 matches takes 192 minutes (3.2 hours). This is assuming we never run into a "cooldown" scenario where time is given to allow the robots to cool off between back-to-back matches, which could add more time.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

i think that he is trying to say that some robots may try to do something(s) during the qualification rounds that may not necessarily be to their strengths, but it helps them to be more noticed. this doesnt mean that that robot is a total detriment to an alliance in quals, but it does mean that a team MAY be more prone to look after onesself in order to be noticed by the picking alliances.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

TBH, if the FIRST championships went to 8 divisions, I'd prefer to see 8 fields (which I believe could fit on the Georgia Dome floor).

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I think the championships would be more suited to a 12 alliance selection process than adding four more feilds, imagine if there were 12 alliances and the top 4 got a bye round so 5 -12 paired up for a chance to compete against the top alliances, i think it would give a larger empasis put onto a 3rd alliance partner especially in lunacy. And more participation, drawing 36 from the feild of 70 instead of 24.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Once again, time. You have no idea how far FIRST already runs over their own time bounds. Consider: In 2007, the last year I attended, the event was scheduled, by FIRST, to end at 5:00 or so. Key words: Supposed to. If teams didn't duck out and miss the finals on Einstein, they missed a fair portion of the wrap party, which started at 6:00, as I recall. The finals weren't done until about 6:30-7:00, IIRC. And then you had the last couple awards and such like. Then, they had a video after the awards.

Before FIRST goes to extra divisions or extra teams in the eliminations, they REALLY need to make sure they can stay close to on schedule. Allowances can be made for divisions running slightly behind. But when you start late by, say, half an hour and end even later, say, by about another hour, there is a serious problem.

Bye round or no bye round, you can't add more alliances without taking more time. Sorry, it's not possible.

If FIRST does go to extra eliminations, I might suggest that alliance selection be held last thing Friday night or first thing Saturday morning, with eliminations starting in the next scheduled match slot, just to stay close to the official ending time.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

That has been my experience on occassion; especially on Saturday morning as teams are vying for a spot on an alliance. It is also true that teams are trying to accomplish what they designed their robot to do. It has been my experience that, on occassion, the agreed roles and strategy are not executed in a qualifying match and for reasons that have excaped me.

Oh, and Lil' Lavery, thanks for taking us through the math. I should have remembered to "do the math". Well done.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I think it would be easier and in my opinion much better if two alliances from each field advanced rather than just one. (That's how it's done, right?)

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I don't understand what you propose. Could you say more to help me understand?

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Right now, only one alliance advances from each division. He's suggesting sending two. This might be a workable idea, assuming that you skip divisional finals. But why would you do that?

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

You'd do that in order to give twice as many teams the opportunity to play on the Einstein field.

It would more than double the number of matches on Einstein, while saving only the [simultaneous] divisional final matches. It would also complicate the divisions' award ceremonies -- would there actually be a divisional champion, or would twice as many teams end up as divisional finalists only?

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I was thinking that the division championship would play out as normal, and one team would be crowned the champion of each division, but that match largely doesn't matter except maybe for seeding or something. Just an idea.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

And so you're practically doing the same thing as currently. You're just adding another 8 matches without subtracting any.