Thread: Wild Card 2013
View Single Post
  #132   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 16-04-2013, 14:44
Siri's Avatar
Siri Siri is offline
Dare greatly
AKA: 1640 coach 2010-2014
FRC #2641 (PCCR; Refs & RIs)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Rookie Year: 2007
Location: PA
Posts: 1,640
Siri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond reputeSiri has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via ICQ to Siri
Re: Wild Card 2013

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26 View Post
My goal with such changes is to have each event qualifying 6 teams not otherwise qualified. Yes I realize this quickly means a bigger Championship. I'm OK with that. It's easy to solve, by having 2 side-by-side fields for each CMP division. Basically doubles match throughput, allowing for more matches/team with more teams, without the sound pollution and additional volunteers needed to run an 8 division CMP.
It's not just match throughput. Where do you put the extra pits (and fields)? It's tight in here. It does take lots of extra volunteers--almost everyone for the 4 extra fields, plus more inspectors, judges, and crowd control at least. Not to mention extra FedEx donations, all kinds of supplies, and any number of other things we don't know about.

I'm all for equalizing the wildcard system across all events, but it needs to be scalable.

That said, I'm not sure what to do beyond the status quo. The only absolute way of regulating invitations is to rank teams for a set number of open slots. Districts already do this, but it's not impossible to implement in the regional infrastructure. Point rank the teams, but you still have to decide what events to count (1st only, average 1st and 2nd), and when invites go out, etc.
__________________