How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I wonder if F.I.R.S.T. has considered or would consider eight divisions at the Championship event by creating two subdivisions on each of the four fields? Each subdivision would play qualifying and elimination rounds to a subdivision champion who would play an additional round to determine the division champion that goes on to Einstein.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Just curious why? Do you think the divisions are too big? What is the basis behind your reasoning that this would be better.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

No to mention how would you run qual matches and elim matches? How can you have 2 separate comps on 1 field, it would really screw with the software.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I kind of fail to see how this is any different than now. You'd still get the same number of matches, but you'd just have half the opportunity to play a variety of teams.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

FIRST doesn't need another reason to go longer than scheduled.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Really, the only main difference is that you'd have 2 Top 8's and therefore 16 alliances that'd play in eliminations from any one field.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Effectively making the championship alliances weaker. We dont need any of that.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I'd have to disagree with this statement. Usually, most divisions field at least two or three alliances that are Einstein Worthy. (2008 Galileo Finals Come To Mind). If anything, this would just make the dominant teams more dominate because there's less of them.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Yes, but if Galileo in 2008 had been split in half, there's a 50% chance that both alliances that played in the finals would have not been able to be formed in the first place.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I guess this is also true, I was just trying to say that having less teams doesn't always mean that they're going to be of a lesser quality.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

The average quality of a division would not decrease, you're correct. However, the average quality of the top 24 in a 40-team division will be lower than the average quality of the top 24 in an 80-team division, because you're talking about a much larger fraction of the teams.

Basically, you'd be making 192 teams go into eliminations rather than 96 like it is now. The 96 additional teams would not have gotten picked with a 4x80 system. They wouldn't have gotten picked because they were perceived as weaker than the teams that did get picked. Because of the draft system, these 96 weaker teams would be spread more or less evenly over all the alliances, thus making the alliances that get to Einstein weaker, especially in their third picks.

Essentially, an Einstein-winning alliance from a 4x80 division setup could probably demolish an Einstein-winning alliance from a 8x40 division setup.

Note: When I say quality in this post, I mean quality as perceived by teams when they go to pick, not the FRC ranking system.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I like it when someone comes up with a new idea. It makes us think outside of the box and possibly, makes things better at the Championship event.

I personlly don't like this idea... don't get me wrong, i like what the OP is trying to do, it's just this idea doesn't really seem to wrok... maybe if it was the other way around (4 Divisions, 8 Fields)

I also think 12 alliance captions with 4 wild cards, or something similar to this (paragraph three) might make the alliances in Atlanta a little more intresting

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

As someone posted, the objective would be to get more teams involved in the Elimination Rounds.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

The question is whether that is an objective that would help or hurt the level of competition. I personally think more qualification rounds are a better way to go because most likely (not defintely) the more qualification rounds an event has, the better chance the luck element is a reduced factor in the rankings. Therefore the allaince captains should be the stonger teams.

The question that should be asked is what is the purpose and value of the alliance selection and elimination rounds? Does having more teams participate raise or lower the value? I contend that in more division with fewer teams (or more alliance captains) lowers the value. At Championship teams need to make a significant effort to make themselves known, to scout effectively, and to be that team that everyone wants because of what they can do and who they are. Are those skills going to be as important when you go from an elimination round with less then 1/3 of the teams to an elimination involving 60% of the teams?

Everyone wants to participate in the elimination, but I think that there is value in keeping the number of teams particpating down.

(This is all independent of the fact that Sat at Championship seems to drag on fairly well as it is...)

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Regardless of whether or not you do this as two "sub-divisions" or just add another round of elimination matches (and 8 more alliances), you're adding eight more sets of 2-3 matches that need to be played per field. Minimally that's 1.6 hours of more playtime, and it could potentially add as much as 3.3 hours to the schedule.
Simply put, no way.

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.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Minimum of 8, could be up to 12 (or more with ties).

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I don't think that's quite it. Imagine that you're playing your seventh and final qualifying match at the championship. Your current record is 3-3, so you are mathematically eliminated from becoming an alliance captain. You're facing the legendary team 46, and your best hope to win the match is to pin them against the wall while your partners try to score. You'd be surprised to find that many teams in that situation would sacrifice the good of the alliance to take advantage of their last opportunity to demonstrate their own offensive capabilities, in the hopes of being noticed by another team doing last-minute scouting. I can't say I'd fault them.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I would rather see 4 divisions and 8 fields (9 with Einstein). Each division could have a "double field", two fields right next to each other. Matches wouldn't be played on both at the same time, but you could have one field getting ready while the other plays. Thus even matches are played on field "A" while odd matches are on field "B". The wait between matches could be reduced to a minute or two and we could actually get more than 6 or 7 matches per team.

FIRST definitely has the fields, but I don't know if (a) the wifi will play well or (b) there would be too much of a strain on the announcers and referees with such a hectic pace.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I'm not sure if there would be space for 8 fields in the Georgia Dome. Sure it's a large area, but keep in mind you need to try to keep all of the fields visible to the stands, while leaving room for all of the extra materials they have (spare balls, etc), paths for travel, space for queues. It would be a very difficult fit. And think about how much trouble it would cause in the stands if you had to move seats to get a good angle to see your team play for the next match

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Well after reading through all of the interesting discussions here I wanted to just add a couple of observations.

The main floor of the Dome is already pretty “busy” with the 4 division fields, the FTC field, the Einstein field along with the support equipment for each one. ( as Scott points out above)

I would love to see more divisions added as it would be great to give more teams the opportunity to be in elimination rounds. However I think realistically you need to look at the logistics of the whole operation.

The current capacity of approximately 400 FRC teams gives us a pit area that is already a very busy place. More teams may be accommodated by using more of the Georgia Convention Centers facility such as where the auto show usually is. However the trade off would be a much longer walk to the Dome floor for teams.

8 championships divisions would likely lead to less teams per division, let’s say approximately 60 teams just for arguments sake. This would lead to less time between matches for teams coupled with the “commute” back and forth to the fields makes it difficult for teams to perform necessary maintenance/repairs.

Now as far as 2 fields per division that sounds a lot like Double Trouble in 1999 where we had 2 smaller fields next to each other allowing for a quick turnaround between matches. While this would certainly allow for matches to cycle quicker you’re still going to be limited by wireless connectivity, scoring system limitations and items to that effect.

At the Long Island Regional we were down to 5 minutes cycle time between matches. 46 teams played 11 qualifying rounds each. I can tell you that we were VERY busy and worked hard to get the matches cycled through as quickly as possible. If it’s possible to move things along more quickly and maintain accuracy we’re always looking for ideas.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I thought about this too, and agree that the pace would be substantially higher than a normal field. Particularly, the head ref could become overwhelmed and accidentally make a bad judgment call. The reset crew would never be bored, and for games like this year (where there's 30 seconds of utter mayhem in resetting the field...) extra reset time could perhaps alleviate some of the more dangerous collisions that have happened when getting 6 bots on, 6 bots off, and 6 trailers back into place (I still have a scar from DC :ahh: ).

All it would cost is twice the price of the field. Why have only one when you can have 2 at twice the price?

But rather than having more qualification matches, I'd just rather the durn thing finish on time. Last year we had to duck out at 7pm to just barely make an 8:40 flight back home, missing both Einstein finals matches. This year, like last year, is scheduled to end at 6pm -- let's hope it's at least remotely close!

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Or they could change Thursday to half practice then start the qualifications. I mean everyone has been to at least one regional at that point do we really need more practice? More qualifiers would eliminate the luck factor and allow all the teams to play more matches at the championship.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

We had that discussion in 2006.


http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...003#post499003

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Ok here is an actual viable question, Why doesn't first have a third and fourth place match? I mean while they are allowing cool down and everyone one is chilling in the stands bored and waiting, why don't they just allow the semifinalists a chance to face off? At Einstein, especially but why not at any regional/district event?

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I think that would put too much value on the robot competition. We don't necessarily want to celebrate yet more teams being incrementally better than others.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I believe that Alan has hit on one of the main concepts that FIRST is all about and that all of us sometimes have a tendency to forget.

As much as we all get tied up in the competitive aspect of the program, competition is not the primary focus. It's more along the liines of ;

"have fun competing and helping each other and if you're not careful, you might learn something!"

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

At Championship they give out awards in between matches on Einstein. There are very few "cooldown" periods where there isn't something going on right next to the field.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

For those of you who haven't really paid attention the cycle time on Einstein is more than 15 minutes per match because of the speeches, longer if Dean speaks...

It is a painfully long match cycle and is already pretty nerve racking for the students participating. It's easy to forget that 12 teams are sitting on or by the field through all those speeches trying to remember to charge ther pnuematics and make sure everything is set and ready to go. The longer you wait the more you doubt yourself as ready to go. It's also physically taxing because you are out there from lunch until about 7pm on Saturday. I have found myself providing water and snacks for our team and alliance partners just to keep them going because they are stuck out on the Dome floor for so long.

Also as it comes to time over run, if you make Einstein as it is now you are lucky to have a chance to have your pit packed up by 8pm on Saturday. When you go back over to the pits and the only teams left are the Einstein and ready alternates packing up it's a kind of eiry experience because everyone else is long gone.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I for one would really like to have that experience sometime.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Seconded. :)

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

An interesting idea that I was thinking about the other day:

Assuming that FIRST has extra fields available, and assuming (yes, I know what happens when you assume...) that they could make some room in the convention center pit area for those extra fields (fields ONLY, not bleachers or anything), how about this: each division has a 2nd field in the pit area. Broadcast video of each division's pit field to the screen at the division's main field. Run a match on the main field, then while that's being reset, run a match on the pit field. Audience watches remotely from the dome. Set up the schedule so that each team alternates between the main field and the pit field. This helps address the concern of more matches causing issues with the round-trip-time to the dome, as every other match would be a much shorter walk from the team's pit.

While it would be suboptimal watching half our matches over a video feed rather than in person, you'd presumably still get just as many matches in the Dome as you do now, so the "remote" matches would basically just be an added bonus.

As a variation on the above idea, use the same idea but run the remote matches on the pit practice field starting mid afternoon on Friday (or even just on Saturday). This way no extra fields are required (though the practice fields would need all the electronics and gear that they don't otherwise have) and very little extra space would be needed. I'd be willing to sacrifice practice field availability after Friday morning to get more matches in...

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Some of you need to think of the WPI protection. Every field generates a code for each robot it sees, unless you can sync the fields or change the codes between matches, you will have a problem. I am waiting to hear how it turns out for the teams on Einstein.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

For anyone that has participated or worked the FTC field at Championship, this will seem somewhat obvious... Space is not the major driver for keeping the fields separated. The space is not acoustically configured to place fields such close proximity to support more fields. In other words, The 4 divisions provide decent air insolation to keep the noise of the other divisions to a minimum. Add that third field on each side and you get a lot of noise bleeding across. On FTC we have a number of issues because of the loud FRC divisions on each side (not faulting that, I'm just saying). Einstien doesn't have that issue because the divisions are then silent.

Another issue I'd like to raise is that if you did 8 division of say 60 (I saw this in another post), The finals would be very hard to view for a large number of people. I've, at times, been with teams that are in the last division to finish and end up almost on the ends of the dome with very bad angles to see the fields. Adding more teams would make it even harder.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

However, this gives teams less cool down in between matches. Which means it's harder for a team to make any needed repairs and still get to their match on time. So they have to choose between trying to get something repaired, and showing up at their next match. It also provides an extra drain on batteries for any team that uses batteries heavily. I know my team (1771) burns through a battery a match, and with the increased turnaround time, we would run out before the day was through.

And fans don't like not being able to watch their teams, even if they see the same amount in the dome. They'll also see the bunch that isn't on the field, and be upset about that (at least some will).

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

They already change the WPA encryption on the field between matches. The part that would probably need some real work would be updating the division match results database from two different fields.

I suspect that a field breakdown could do some serious schedule scrambling.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Having two fields per division would effectively have the same effect on the number of matches as cutting the division size in half (but without losing the depth of team diversity). Right now there are 87 teams in each division, and adding a second field onto each would increase the number of playable matches from 7-8 (as it has been in previous years) to probably around 10-12 matches.

There are a lot of smaller regionals who run 12 match qualifications without problems, and as long as you have at least four battery chargers it's easy to keep up with changing a battery every match. I'd very much be in favor of having two fields per division, with the second field in the pits. It would be like the days of Epcot all over again. ;)

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I too loved the way the Epcot fields were setup. However, being a realist the combination of almost 400 FRC teams coupled with the FTC and FLL Festival teams really cuts your options as far as facilities able to handle the influx of people/equipment.

By the time teams get to Atlanta it's going to come down to experience and most of all, even though we don't want to admit it - luck. That's just the way it is.

As far as being able to run 12 matches in qualifying, there were NO regionals this year that ran 12. Here's some interesting figures from the LI Regional Thread.

Venue Matches each x Teams = Good Crew Number
LV 9 48 432
Colorado 7 48 336
Seattle 7 64 448 !!
Sac 9 44 396
Haw 11 34 374
Toronto 8 59 472
Palm 9 44 396
Long Is 11 46 506 Wow
Tex 7 63 441
Boil 11 35 380
Chesap 7 55 385
Sil Val 8 47 376
Portland 7 54 378

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

You are correct, no regional did 12 matches. That doesn't mean the district events didn't.:D

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Good point! I see some of the district events with almost 40 teams doing 12 matches. Very Impressive!

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

I don't think the issue here is having two fields. The issue is needing 2x the volunteers for each field (a total of four times as many volunteers for the entire event). There's just no possible way you're going to find that many qualified, competent people.

Re: How about eight divisions on four fields
 

Cory makes an excelent point. however, it should be noted that the Field Reset/Queing possisions are usually hot pickings on the Volunteer list. (unlike saftey glass advisor). I signed up for Queing/Field Reset, and was assigned as needed. Most likely i will end up helping the NASA crew with the webcast/archive.

I think 6 fields can be done, (this includes getting volunteers for these six fields) using the practice fields as playing fields starting friday afternoon...

ie: the practice field that Galileo and Newton would share would go something like this

1:03pm Galileo QM 29
1:09pm Newton QM 30
1:15pm Galileo QM 32
1:21pm Newton QM 33

where Galileo Field in GA dome runs 2x as many matches as the split field in the pits

1:00pm Galileo QM 28 (GA Dome)
1:03pm Galileo QM 29 (Pits)
1:06pm Galileo QM 30 (GA Dome)
1:12pm Galileo QM 31 (GA Dome)
1:15pm Galileo QM 32 (Pits)
1:18pm Galileo QM 33 (GA Dome)
1:24pm Galileo QM 34 (GA Dome) ... etc.

the only issues with this would be the robot WAP Key's and the Scoring software. I think if it could be done, it woudl be worth it