Quote:
Originally Posted by PayneTrain
However, when teams are moved off the waitlist who didn't try like hell and ended up winning two judged awards, or get knocked out by the champs of both of their events in quarterfinals, or something else, that's bad. When you are moving teams who can't build a functional machine off the waitlist and keep finalists who picked bad events waiting or wholly excluded, you are doing something very, very wrong. You are instilling in children that no matter how much effort they put into their build season, HQ doesn't care and would rather have any old team willing to drop $5k and registration plus the insane costs of travel and lodging. Having merit based waitlisting is something that should be instituted. It is not fair to teams who are just "elite", it is unfair to any team that has ever busted their chops and just wasn't great enough to say that one team clicked the blue box on TIMS .xxx seconds faster so they earned it.
|
This strikes me as a kind of optimization problem. Given the current composition of the Championship, can it be demonstrated that the value of admitting an additional merit-qualified team in lieu of a waitlisted team will be positive?
1 And how does this relationship change as you tweak the proportions and quantities of qualified teams? Is this relationship different for teams that only won judged awards versus the ones with more competitive robots?
I suspect that to answer that, we'll need to discuss the purpose of the Championship, and the criteria used to judge merit and calculate value.
1 Or, given the distribution of likely outcomes, at least a positive expected value and a low likelihood of drastically negative values.