View Single Post
  #70   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-03-2014, 20:40
scottandme's Avatar
scottandme scottandme is offline
Registered User
AKA: Scott Meredith
FRC #5895 (Peddie School Robotics)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Hightstown, NJ
Posts: 239
scottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond reputescottandme has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2014 MAR Standings

As a preface, this is probably most relevant to MAR (as opposed to FiM, NE, PNW) as we have a few unique characteristics that exacerbate the problem.

1. We have a good number of teams that continue to travel to outside events, and qualify via those outside events.
2. We have a comparatively small number of slots to award, being the smallest district (though in the same rough proportion as FiM, NE, PNW).
3. We have the largest % of slots devoted to "awards" at our region championship, and losing any number of slots has a bigger impact on remaining "point" slots. I haven't been able to find the distribution for FiM/NE/PNW for this year - if anyone has those, it would be helpful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Donow View Post
The logic (I believe/IIRC) in 'taking away' spots for outside qualifications stems from the idea that once district systems become more and more widespread, the amount of qualifying spots (ie. excluding O&S, HoF, Championship Winners, Championship EIs, etc...) should remain proportional to the number of robots at Championships and that district system's population vs all of FIRST.
That was the rough explanation I remember as well...

It doesn't hold up to scrutiny too well though.

1. As districts become more widespread, there will be fewer regionals to attend/earn slots at, reducing the significance of the problem. The Regional to District transition is a long way off for many regions, if it ever happens at all. Doesn't really make sense to be solving a problem that doesn't exist yet, unless it doesn't cause any unwanted side-effects.

1a. That explanation only "fixes" the problem for the district region. The outside Regional is not compensated in any way for an "outside" team coming in and winning a bid - same as it ever was. So that undermines that particular explanation.

2. FIRST hasn't (to my knowledge) made an effort to make CMP slots proportional to any particular locale/community. No value judgement there - depends what you think the purpose of WCMP is. If it's to give every region a fair shot at attending, the slots should be proportional. If it's to showcase the best robots - we should have way more slots for Michigan and Ontario teams. This has previously caused teams to flee highly competitive regions for less competitive ones, and who can blame them. Ontario is to thank for the current wildcard system, which is a pretty good band-aid to make Regionals more "District-like".

3. It reduces the efficacy of the point system in awarding the District Champion and Point slots. One of the main benefits (IMO) of the district point model is that it allows high-performing but unlucky teams to advance, and reduces the number of low-performing but lucky teams that advance. As far as I remember, that was a primary focus of the Michigan teams & mentors who designed the system. Worst case, a district championship will give a "winning" bid to the 24th best team in the region (out of 110 to 200+ teams). Much better than the 24th best team at a 30+ team regional.

3b. It distorts the balance of slots awarded by the district. Slots can be lost by any method, but they are only removed from the "points" slots. Fewer of those high performing but unlucky teams get to attend WCMP. MAR will effectively award 3 slots via Chairman's award, 3 slots via Engineering Inspiration, and another 2 slots via winning events. So instead of 5/18 slots being awarded for RAS/CA/EI, we're now at 7/18 slots (39%). Pretty big jump. For reference, Michigan gave 5/27 slots for those awards last year (19%). See point 3 from the top.

Again, this is all through the lens of my personal preference for the district model to reward more of those high performing but unlucky teams, instead of giving out an excessive % of culture awards. I think I'm in line with the initial FiM perspective on that point. Our team has been honored to win DCA awards the last 3 years running - before eventually losing to other very worthy programs at our Region Championship. Would I turn down a bid to CMP if we ended up winning RCA at an outside regional? No, but it makes sense to let the District sort out the most competitive applicants and send those teams to WCMP on their relative merits.

As for solutions? If the intent is truly to evenly distribute slots to WCMP - then don't allow District teams to qualify via outside Regionals. Exclude them from the CA/EI/RAS judging process, as they will still have the ability to compete for those within district (don't even need the robot at DCMP to win those). If they win the event, open up a wildcard slot for a Regional system team. The only disadvantage that remains is the lateness of qualifying for Worlds, but I don't think there's a good solution for that with the current District structure. Gives all district teams an equal bite at the apple, with the ability to still travel out of region.
Reply With Quote