Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

Last year, 222, 179, 45, 148, and 70 got play time, tying this year.

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

What I'm about to suggest is either brilliant or horrible - Take your pick.

Anyone at any event can voluntarily decide to assess some aspect of the teams and machines, and recognize the people/person/team responsible for it.

Teams can vote. A panel of distinguished judges can roam around. Light meters can be used to determine which machine is the shiniest. ...

Maybe someone needs to start a tradition of awarding a "Peoples' Choice Engineering Award" that is given out informally; but is awarded through a process that is rigorous enough to make the award worth bragging about.

This could be done off-the-books so that the IRI folks don't have to add it to their list of chores.

Blake

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

I thought the trophy ceremony at the end didn't really work. Since there were no awards, everyone just left. It was at the point where I was at the top of the stands and made it down in time (after everyone) to be right next to the field when 1114 got called. I would have liked there to be something after those trophies to make people stick around in the stands, maybe a scholarship or smething.

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

Thanks Andy, that makes sense. Thanks to the human counters for playing backup, that must have been a heck of a job!

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

Well, if you were scoring for 469, it was rather interesting ;) I didn't think that it was too hard, but it was really easy to become distracted slightly. You kind of have to watch the entire field as well as your particular goal, to make sure that you wouldn't be hit by a stray ball (Michelle was standing two feet away from me when she got a ball to the chest from 1114, and I was also almost hit a few times), and to also know where the balls may be coming from (balls randomly appearing in the goal from across the field are rather shocking). The task itself - keeping a tally on a little sheet of paper - isn't hard, but staying focused and attentive is a bit harder when there are 6 amazing robots moving on the field and doing things that robots should not necessarily be doing (i.e. entanglement, fast blinks, and battery death).

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

Some general comments and suggestions for the event.

- A huge thank you to the IRI organizing committee for putting on such an amazing event. The amount of work it takes to pull off an event of this scope is overwhelming, yet the people at IRI make it look easy.
- Don't bring back the judged awards. I for one didn't miss them at all, and actually found myself being thankful that we didn't have to sit through them this year.
- Move the mentor matches to Friday night. This way they if a team damages their robot during the course of these matches, they'll have some time to fix the problem. Also, these matches disrupt the flow of intensity between alliance selection and the elimination rounds. I'd have no problem with this even disappearing completely, but I know many people really enjoy them. Friday evening during dinner sounds like a decent compromise

Finally, the elephant in the room. I waited until now to post this in hopes that someone else would make the point first. Frankly I'm surprised that no one has brought this up yet, considering I talked to at least 10 different teams who felt just as strongly as I do about this. This year's IRI felt too big. The level of play during the qualification rounds really seemed diluted compared to past IRIs. The feel was very similar to what you get at the Championships with many people asking "wait, how did this team get here?". Sure the elimination rounds were amazing as usual, but this was only after the field shrunk to 32 teams. In past years when IRI was smaller, the majority of qualification matches felt like IRI elimination matches. The atmosphere in the building was constantly electric.

I'd love to see IRI go down to about 50 teams and use a qualifying point system similar to what's used in Michigan based on regional and Championship performances. At 50 teams there could be more qualifying matches per team, and the event could regain the intimate feel that it used to have which made the event so magical. I know many teams would even be willing to pay a higher entry fee to make up the budgetary difference.

I know this is a bit of a controversial take, hence the silence about it on these forums despite plenty of this chatter at the event. IRI is was an amazing event at 78 teams this year, but a smaller event with more rigid qualifying rules could make IRI an even more exciting and rewarding competition.

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

There was an elephant in the room? I had no idea!

Actually, 10 teams doesn't sound all that much but maybe there are more teams who feel the same way and will provide that information to the planning committee.

If judged awards are gone permanently, that puts the emphasis on the robot and the robot competition and that impact will increase as time passes - which is fine if that is what it is all about. It would make it harder for someone like me to travel to an event like IRI when I see more than the robot and look at the spirit of the team and like to recognize that.

Jane

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

While the issue is far from a simple matter, I agree with Karthik. Rejecting a team from the IRI is something I'm very glad the selection committee has not taken lightly, and I also see the positives to allowing loyal and friendly teams to return year after year. However, I think the balance between maintaining a deep, competitive field and including so many teams that contribute to the IRI year after year may be tilted a bit farther away from the competitive side than I'd prefer. Schedules determine seeding at IRI more than any event I've been to, at least in the past two years that I've attended. Basically, the team that lucks out and gets a schedule full of teams that had world class robots gets the number one seed. Not to take anything away from those teams (330 is one of the top 10-20 robots of 2010 and earned their #1 seed), but I really think a field needs to be both deep and even to make an event like this as competitive as possible.

On the flip side, allowing less teams means more rejections, obviously, and that sucks for those teams. I wish there was a way for those teams to be included in some way. I know members of my team opted to volunteer, and in my case, fielded a Vex robot. Perhaps side events or other similar opportunities could be presented for the IRI loyalists out there? It's not a simple problem with a simple solution by any means, and if a more competitive field is called for I don't envy the people that have to make the tough decisions.

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

On the planning committee for IRI, there are now 2 WFAs and there is AndyMark to consider. If an event makes the decision to cater only to the elite in the robotic competition - then that decision has to be weighed very carefully because it sends a very clear message. Eventually, it could evolve into only the elite of the elite. That may take a few years but it would evolve to that. When that happens then things change, including the scope of FRC as applied to an off-season.

What happens to the invited teams that are developing and maturing and have the opportunity to be mentored by the teams who have garnered more experience and awards? Those who have had that opportunity, return to their area or region with that experience, bringing the possibility of helping to strengthen their area or region along with them. They have also established some networking opportunities just as the elite teams have.

On the other hand, if an area decided to implement an off-season that was strictly for the elite at the outset - then the purpose of the event would be known up front and center without the history to clutter its intent. IRI has evolved to this point. They did in recent past, but have continued to be more open to the different levels of experience when extending an invitation.

Jane

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

Since it is an invitational event, and the term "elite" could be interpreted many ways, making the event smaller would really put pressure on the folks issuing the invitation to invite the right mix of teams to keep IRI an amazing event. If the only criteria is robot performance or competition wins, then you are going to have pure robot competition on the field. But then that is only one aspect of what makes a great competition.

The trick is to come up with an objective formula that makes an exciting competition.

Maybe this is the formula:

10% is reserved for CCA winners
All Einstein teams are invited
30% reserved for other championship teams
30% reserved for regional finalist and winners
10% for team award winners
10% for machine award winners
10% for RCA winners

Then the number of teams to choose is set, maybe 50 team, maybe 75 and then the formula above is applied.


I also think judged awards could work if the number of the awards is kept small; 2 team, 2 machine awards, possibly award multiples of the small number of awards; 2 quality awards, 2 innovation awards, 2 team spirit, 2 entrepreneur awards. Set the number of judges at 20% of the number of teams, and have the judges work with the teams for the interviews. With the right combination of awards/judges/teams it should be possible to make the impact on the teams minimal. Also streamline the award process, teams send 2 representatives to pick up the awards, get the presentation of each award under 5 minutes and less than an hour is needed for 8 awards.

Food for thought

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

You forgot the Indiana teams.
I've heard and seen (not pointing fingers) that Indiana teams literally get the first picks.

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

I'm from one of the teams that went to IRI this year but I'm pretty sure that if the event were to be downsized we wouldn't have made the cut. Yes we did win the Xerox Creativity Award for DEWBOT VI's innovative 4-wheel independent pivot drive-train at Philadelphia and were part of the 5th alliance and made it to the semis. But we are not 469 (but we aspire to be!)

When we got the invite the team discussion revolved around "We are going to a knife fight armed with a spoon, what are we going to do about that?" So we spent the 4 weeks before IRI doing upgrades to our kicker, possessor and to our programming code.

At IRI we ended up 31st (34th in Ed Laws rankings). I'm pretty pleased with that result when I factor in the teams that were there. So we must of had one of the sharpest spoons there. :)

The win for me was being able to see teams like 148, 1114, 33, etc. operate both on the field and in the pits. Both Clem (Head Mentor) and I came home with notebooks and cameras full of things to try/build/investigate. Most of our roboteers were inspired by things they saw and want to try to expand on. I think this was the point that Jane was trying to make. We are not all big dawgs, but we are learning.

From an event size view I was stunned. It was hard to imagine that there were almost 80 teams there. There was a ton of space we never felt crowded. Match queues were good with Ed doing his world class robot wrangling. I've said it before, it's the best run FRC event I've ever been to. And I thought the qualification matches were better than the finals at FLR and Philadelphia. I've never been on Einstein, so that may be a whole different world.

I like that it's an Invitational and I'm glad that our team squeaked in the door. I'm good that the Indiana teams get first crack at slots. It would seem silly to deny a team in IRI's back yard a chance to play. Granted it may seem like being forced to take your little sister to play with your friends, but I've found that little sisters grow up and become cool people.

So I'm happy to have gotten a chance to go and if offered will accept a chance to take our team in 2011. It was one of those must do robot experiences. But I also understand that it's an Invitational and a smaller tighter team list may improve the experience and matches for the roboteers there.

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

The year I saw the details of the actual selection process, it seemed to be more of an "Indiana bonus" than an absolute guarantee, but the bonus can certainly be sized to have the effect of a guarantee in practice. The committee worked very hard to weight various factors and let an algorithm rank teams rather than rely on subjective opinions.

There has been a repeated call for more Indiana offseason competitions. One effect would be to take the "local" pressure off the IRI and let it be more fully elite.

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

Thanks for all the input.

All of the comments are good, and will be considered and discussed by the planning team at an August event review.

To clarify a few things, just so people understand.

The only teams that are "automatic" are the previous years IRI champions, and the three host teams. Everyone else is subject to the same ranking criteria for the selection.

The event is not to invite the "elite" and I don't even know how to define that. The intent is to invite the teams that best fit our selection criteria. That includes season performance on the field, some awards, loyalty, special considerations and many other factors. And, teams have to apply, and they have to be able to attend (many teams struggle to travel in the summer.)

And, we are smart enough people to not publish the criteria, because there would be multiple "IRI prediction algorithms" running as soon as the CHP was done. :D

Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards
 

While we're still posting suggestions, and on a slightly less serious note...is there any reason why Cotton-Eye Joe hasn't been on the music playlist for two years? There weren't any huge field errors, and I'm sure that you guys are trying to keep everyone focused on the event, but it would have been nice to be able to do some dancing between the elimination matches and during the time outs. One can only do the Chicken Dance, YMCA and the Cha-Cha Slide so many times :/ (also...Cupid Shuffle?)