Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

lets do it ... or make our own multi billion dollar facility specially designed for FIRST and championships :D

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.

Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.

So what do we do? A year or two ago I had a long discussion with my father about this, and basically what came up with as a solution was similar to the Michigan district model, but without the "walled off enclave" of not allowing teams to travel around. So here's our idea:

The new model of FRC competition structuring would have three tiers, Tier 1 events are "District" level events with maximum of 30-40 teams, Tier 2 events are "Regional" events with 50-70 teams, and the Tier 3 event is the Championship.

Your initial registration of $5000 can be used to apply to two Tier 1 events or one Tier 2 event. Tier 1 events are held in Weeks 0-4, and are all Bag-N-Tag. Tier 2 events are held in Weeks 3-6. Using a points-based system similar to Michigan, winning various awards at the Tier 1 events qualifies you for a spot at a Tier 2 event. Additional Tier 1 events cost $2500 to register, and additional Tier 2 events cost $4000 to register.

Eligibility to play at Championships is only available to those who win one of the six traditional spots at Tier 2 events (or have automatic entry, or won a lottery spot back in open registration in the fall).

What this allows is for:

• The "one regional and out" teams can now attend two smaller events for the price of one.
• Teams who like "traditional" regionals have the option to only register for Tier 2 events.
• This reduces the number of events giving berths to the Championship.
• This eliminates all the problems that would arise would a "let's draw an arbitrary invisible line on a map to decide what events you can and can't attend" if the Michigan district model was exactly cloned elsewhere. There are always going to be teams near the border who get screwed, and I've never liked the "no outsiders" rule.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Would you have to pay to attend the Tier 2 event after qualifying for it via Tier 1 events? If so, whats the benefit to attempting this way vs just paying your way into Tier 2 events?

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

You could do a reduced registration scheme--if you attend 2x Tier 1 events and qualify for your local Tier 2 event, you only have to pay half of the cost, or something like that. But if you don't attend 2 Tier 1 events, then you pay full cost for the Tier 2. Tier 3 would always be full cost.

I like the idea; I think it could work out at least as well as the MI district system.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

There would likely be a reduced registration cost if you win your way into a Tier 2 event; as for why a team would choose to compete in Tier 1 events to win their way into a Tier 2 event, they a) would have more driving experience, and b) based on the regional, there would perhaps only be about 30 available slots for any team to apply to a Tier 2 event without winning, the rest would have to be kept aside for point winners of Tier 1 events.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

I think it's interesting the way the numbers come out when you look at the odds of getting to CMP.

FRC had 2075 active teams this year and 352 get to go. That's about 6:1
FTC had 1500 active teams and 128 get to go. That's about 12:1
FLL had 17100 active teams and 81 get to go. That's about 211:1

So, it's odd that the further you go up the chain, the more likely it is you earn a spot to CMP. One in six FRC teams get to go....

Maybe it's getting too easy... or maybe we're all feeling just a little bit too "entitled".

I agree that it's a great learning experience etc. to go to CMP, but if that's the reason we go, let's call it a FIRST Convention and let everyone go. If it really is a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP... let's make it a bit harder to qualify.

JMHO. Not looking to change anyone's mind.

Facts from http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=160

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

How about EI winners get financial grants for their team by whoever's sponsoring the award instead of championship spots?

Just a suggestion, not my personal opinion at all. I just want to see what people think.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

No problem with it this year right?
For every new regional they add, reduce at large bids by 6.

St. Louis is only for two more years. After that, find another larger venue. The bigger the world tournament and with FIRST growing, it just has to get bigger!

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Give FTC and FLL their own events.

Problem solved. :)

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

For the first time, open registration ran out before teams that had attended the Championship the previous year won.

I think the Championship qualification system needs some work. If 177 won WPI, 40 would not have attended Championships. If some other team won Smoky Mountain, we wouldn't have seen 71. If 973 won a regional in 2010, they wouldn't have been at the Championship this year. If you can look at Einstein and find that lots of major players wouldn't have gotten there, you have to take issue with the qualification system.

Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

I don't have any suggestions for HOW to make it better because a lot of ideas have been covered already. I can only imagine how difficult these decisions must be for FIRST. However, I just want to echo this sentiment.

Especially the awards. The Chairman's Award is the reason we're here. If you take away the award about changing the culture, you lose what makes FIRST unique. FIRST wasn't started because we needed to whack a bunch of robots around. FIRST was created because America (at the time, we were USFIRST) was falling behind in STEM education and it needed a way to celebrate engineers as the rockstars of our generation.

This stuff seems to be beaten into us at every turn by FIRST and its media, but from this thread, it looks like nobody's listening.

If you remove qualification for the teams that are doing what we're really here for? You've lost the point. Those teams that are getting it right need to be celebrated on a Championship stage just as much as the ones who produce a winning robot.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

That would let us go back to a 3 day event, instead of a 3.5 day event.

edit: Oh yeah....great idea Art!

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

I think NASA is going to do just that for US Regionals; that will be in addition for EI teams going to Champs.

I think Art's idea has a lot of merit. The best part of it will be the greater driving experience teams will have, leading to improved performance.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

I mean, I remember seeing someone in this thread or another saying that we didnt even use all of the space that the pit area was in. We could put 7 fields in the Dome(6 FRC + Einstein/FLL) and 2 fields in the pits(2 FRC + all FTC). Of course I also did like the idea of having the FLL and FTC events on their own. You could do those events on Monday-Wednesday and have theirs ending right when FRC comes to begin. Of course if they do separate FTC/FLL from FRC, then you could do entirely 7 in the Dome and 2 in the Pits or 6 in the Dome + concert stage, then after Friday, build Einstein where the stage was.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

As great as those teams are, and the results we got this year, everyone is in the same boat. Every team regardless of their history, should be given the same opportunity to attend. If at large bids decrease or go away entirely, as a result to FIRST growing, then you just need to be 1 of those 6 ways to qualify (non-MSC).
Art has a great idea, but I have just one concern. What about teams that cant drive to an event or isn't financially feasible to be a part of a district type event?
If FRC is a world championships, and it expects teams to grow outside the US, then what?
How many of you will be able to participate in the Australia tournament if it indeed happens as planned in 2014? :rolleyes: