Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Thanks for helping to clarify my thinking. Limiting teams to two regionals makes more room at the regionals (and hence allows for program growth) but doesn't help at the CMP as far as team numbers. It does mean more qualified teams attend rather than those who just wait list in. The limitation does help level the playing field but that's not what we're talking about here.

I'm not sure letting Rookie All-Stars attend automatically is doing them any huge favor. Sure they'll get to go to the event and see how the big boys play but getting beat up at CMP can be pretty demoralizing. That's one nice thing about a point system, you can give RAS teams a goodly number of points but it could be set up in such a way that they would also need to get to a certain level of competence on the field to qualify for CMP.

A point system could also help with the #2 pick problem being discussed in this thread. Maybe the team captain gets a bunch of points (enough to qualify), the first pick gets enough to normally qualify, and the second pick gets fewer. You'd rig it such that a well qualified 2nd pick would qualify but a box on wheels would normally not. I don't know what all would go into the qualification formula but something like OPR would be an interesting addition.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

"Getting beat up at CMP" isn't an automatic result for rookies. Look at the rankings - yes, there are some rookies at the very bottom of the standings. But there are some others at the very top, and others scattered all in between.

Now I have no idea which of these teams got to CMP because of the RAS award and which got there by being part of a winning alliance. Your system of points to require a certain level of competence might illustrate the dividing line between those who ended up ranking high vs. low.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

I'm aware of what award(s) 33 won, thus why I labelled them as a District CA winner. I'm also aware that winning a DCA doesn't auto qualify you for CMP, but it's obvious that you can win one and still attend Championship. If you're setting up a division specifically to honor the "big picture" awards, why are we not including teams that won these awards and are at the event? Just because they already had to be vetted again?

Same for HoF teams. Why aren't they being included?

And that 6 number is actually the lower end of the spectrum if you look at previous years. Looking at LF's 2010 Top 25 we see eight teams that won a RCA/MSCCA/EI, one that won a DCA, and four members of the HoF (341 wasn't yet a member). There wasn't any Top 25 list that I know of in 2009, but LF's 2008 list yields seven teams that won RCA/EI and five HoF members.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

3539 was the 2nd seed captain this year on arch... I believe they won a rookie all star award at waterford, along with the district

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

3539 also won RA at Troy, where they were a finalist and #2 AC. They were the only rookie team to make the MSC eliminations, and ended up with the eighth highest qualifying point total in Michigan. "Getting beat up at CMP" was definitely not in the plan for 3539.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

What if the system was score based:

Winning an event is 10 points
Finalist at an event is 6
Making Elims is 2
Regional Chairmans is 15
Engineering Inspiration is 8
Rookie All-Star is 10
Woodie Flowers Finalist is 4 for the team
Judges is 4
All other design related awards are 2
All other non design awards are 1

top 300 highest scores go to world

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Compare the point system you described above to the one used by FiM in 2011 (see page 6 at that link). Differences in the number of qualifying points that teams receive for their various achievements can be important. As an example, there were three district RA winners and one district EI winner that did not earn enough points to qualify for the Michigan State Championship this year.

Reaching agreement on how many CMP qualifying points to award for each achievement will be a challenge for FIRST.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Here is my proposal for Championship Qualification as well as some thoughts on regional play.

1) Championship Qualification needs to be a points based system. This is the only way any further manipulation of "how to qualify" to be discussed. Instead of discussing "Should this qualify a team?" the question becomes "How many points is this worth?". Every award in FRC is improtant, which is why they should all help qualify teams, some may just be worth more points.

2) Past years performance should be taken into account. Zondag's spreadsheet is the answer to how to calculate this, but once again, I think what to set % to is the question. My take, 30% would be the correct number.

3) I have always like the fact that teams can sign up for Championship if the they didn't go the year before. However, this is obviously not sustainable. Here comes the beaty of having a points system. What if every year you didn't go the championship you earned some points. Over X number of years you could add these points to those earned at compeitions and earn the ability to go. These points would see the same reduction value as mentioned above. Again I am sure there are vast opionions on how much not going to championship should be worth, but it's only an option if there is a point system.

4) I think that automatic entry should only be to the origional teams. I think HOF teams should get points on the order of 10 million when they win chairman's, which should enable them to go for quite a few years, but eventually that will run out per the past performance calculation mentioned in bullet 2.


I have further ideas for nation wide district play which I will post later.

-Eric

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Lots of interesting discussion here. After doing more reading and seeing some good ideas, here are my latest thoughts.

I read through the Michigan points system again (thanks to Richard for the link). There is a lot to like about a points system if it is well designed. It takes more information into account, so it can more accurately sort out the most deserving teams. Our existing qualification system places all of the value on four specific achievements (Winner / RCA / EI / RAS) and no value on any of the other achievements (qualifier wins, advancing through elimnation rounds, all the other awards).

Cases when a deserving team might qualify in a points system, but would NOT qualify as a Winner/RCA/EI/RAS:

1) Team has one of the best robots around. Catches a couple of tough breaks and loses in the finals at two separate regionals.

2) Team wins several awards (non-RCA/EI/RAS), compiles a respectable record in qualifiers, and finishes as semifinalists in two regionals.

Cases when a potentially less deserving team would qualify over a more deserving team under the current system, but probably not under a points system:

1) Rookie team with a minimally functional robot and no award submission materials wins Rookie All-Star award by being the only rookie team at a regional.

2) Team wins a regional with a weak robot after being picked by a strong #1 seeded alliance with the last pick of the draft.

If I were designing a points system, I would want to do the following:

i) Use the Michigan points system for qualifier wins, alliance selections, and elimination rounds. A team that goes 10-0 in qualifiers, is 1st seed or 1st pick, wins the regional would earn 56 points.

ii) Give the Chairman's Award winners slightly more points than a top seeded regional winner. Perhaps 60 points. That way the top award winner gets more points than the top seeded regional winner.

iii) Give Engineering Inspiration a lot of points, but not as much as Chairman's (CA is the top award, after all). Perhaps 40-50 points.

iv) Make Rookie All-Star worth some number of points such that rookies could get in by winning that award AND achieving a modest level of competitive success. Perhaps 20-30 points.

v) Increase the value of other awards compared to the Michigan system. 2 or 5 points seems pretty small compared to 50+ for winning a regional. Perhaps 5 and 10 points would be appropriate. Or 10 and 15.

vi) Award points for Woodie Flower or Dean's List awards. I know they are individual awards, but I don't see any harm in awarding a few points for them.

vii) Give teams points if they didn't attend in the previous year or years. Great idea, Eric.

One advantage of a points system is that once it's in place, you don't have to modify the system further when the number of teams and events gets even bigger. You simply set the number of teams you want at the championship, and you invite the top n teams. Teams can join a wait list, and their wait list priority is determined by their point rankings. As the total number of teams goes up, the bar for points goes up.

One Event vs Two Events

A major weakness of a points system is that many teams only play in one regional each year. Things would be a lot more fair if all teams accumulated points in exactly two events, like they do in Michigan.

Art outlines a proposal for a three tiered system that would help this situation. The system would require reorganizing some regional events into a larger number of smaller, less expensive events. I am in favor of that. He also suggests not forcing teams into districts based on geography - also a good idea. He proposes using points to qualify for Tier 2 and using the existing system to qualify Tier 2 winners for champs (tier 3). That's the bit that I disagree with; our existing system for qualifying 6 teams per event is a really blunt instrument that doesn't necessarily qualify the best teams for the Championship.

There is no tidy district / regional model that will work perfectly for everybody. But I would really like to see us and FIRST sort that out, even if we have to settle for just getting a district system to work in more of the higher density regions. And I think part of that has to involve embracing a lower cost event model, which has been discussed elsewhere.

Other Invitations
I think it's fine to invite the previous year's Einstein winners.

On a philosophical level, I see no reason why original and sustaining teams should be auto-invited. This is a minor point since, as was stated above, this only results in a small handful of invitations.

I think Championship Chairman's Award teams should get invited for the next 5 or so years after they win the big award. Then invite them once every several years after that. This way Hall of Fame Row can stay a reasonable size and would be populated by the most recent 5 HOF teams plus a rotating group of teams that won more than 5 years ago.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Take a look at the Fantasy FIRST points system.

RCA: 42 points
EI: 36
Winner: 30
RAS: 25
Finalist, first seed, RI: 20
15 points for the technical awards
5 points for high score, highest rookie seed, judges award
2 points for win, non-robot award that isn't listed
WFFA 8 points, Dean's List 4 points
1 point for a tie
Loss does nothing to the score
Seeding from 2-16 has varying levels:
2-3, 12 points
4-8, 6 points
9-12, 3 points
13-16, 2 points

Then for the non-qual years, the team gets some fraction of the points they earned (say, 1/2 of the points) or a fixed number, whichever is higher, to be added to the next year's point total.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

If you go with a point system, you need to find a way to account for event size and strength of regional. If not, I'd consider going to the 31 team Utah regional or one of the Minnesota ones instead of Midwest. Also, since teams get points for where they are selected, you'd see teams pick their friends in order to get them to the Championship.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

So if you were the 1st seed and you had a choice between 254/148/1114/217/111 or whoever or a friend of yours, you would pick your friend? I highly doubt that. My friend's would understand why I didnt choose them if I had those other options because they would make the same choice.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

Sounds like the strength of regional issue would sort itself out over time. Teams would move to events that they felt gave them the best chance of success - thus leveling the regionals.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

What team resources do you think would be necessary to support an FLL team? This year we closely mentored 3 FLL teams that started as a direct result of work our FRC team had done by volunteering & helping run the FLL regional tournament. We also did a bunch of other stuff:
* Volunteer & help run summer camps that teach Mindstorms to kids.
* Volunteer at rumbles (think "practice tournament"). Both rumbles in our area are before FRC build season starts.
* Provide mentors during FLL meetings for those 3 teams, week after week. This interferes the most with FRC build season (which was a small percentage of actual FLL time; most of which was before FRC season), but we had enough FRC students helping that we had enough for each meeting. And it only took about 2 hours out of build time, two days a week, for each FRC student who mentored.
* Volunteer & help run the regional tournament. This happens after FRC ship date.
* Provide other, occasional, mentoring support for a bunch of other FLL teams that we weren't as directly involved with starting.

Does this cover most, or even a large percentage, of situations? Of course not. One big factor is that our regional FLL tournament is very late when compared to most. Every circumstance is different, but my point is that there's a lot you can do that directly impact FLL teams (we did other things for younger kids as well; this isn't an all-inclusive list) that don't really take a lot of money, if any. And not really that much time, either. But for any particular situation, there are ways to influence younger kids.

Having said all that, I don't think that supporting FLL or FTC teams should be a requirement for attending CMP, or for winning EI or RCA. But supporting those teams is a Good Thing To Do, and FRC teams that do support FLL & FTC (and VRC, and other STEM programs for younger kids, and....) are better off for it.

Re: Qualifying for CMP in the future
 

I wouldn't do it, but it happens. I've heard from several different people that it occurs in Michigan after they went with the district format.