Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallry
Eh, I don't know about 10 fields...I don't even know about 8. Chief Dephi users have argued about this in the past:
(Image credit: Patrick Flynn)
|
Depends entirely on how much space you allot per field. Double field divisions allow you to put them a bit closer together.
I calculated several years ago (2011 IIRC) that you can fit 10 FRC fields (I think I calculated on 40'x70' plots), on an NFL Football field. Both Georgia Dome and EJD have floors considerably larger than an NFL field (EJD is bigger).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallry
Are you expecting the FTAs, Refs, Field Reset, Game Announcers, Emcees, and Queuing Volunteers to constantly run between the two fields?
|
IIRC, when it was done in Toronto (in 2004, 2006, and to a lesser extent 2011), you needed less than two regionals worth of nearly every volunteer type.
Instead of doubling the number, you increase it by some (say, 30-50%), and give the people (who will be working harder due to the non-stop nature of a double field event) more breaks more often.
Remember: We're getting a new control system (and likely upgraded/new FMS to go with it). There is no reason that it couldn't be designed to support 2 sets of field hardware from a single scorpion-case-replacement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallry
If a single field has one division of 120 teams with 10 matches each, and a double field has two divisions of 60 teams each with 10 matches each, wouldn't it still result in the same amount of matches played per team? A doublefield may decrease the wasted time between matches though, which could increase the total number of matches player per team.
|
That's exactly what I was getting at. The time that field reset is doing their job is wasted for teams. Double field divisions significantly reduce that. 2x Single Field Divisions to replace one singlefield division will give twice the matches in the same time, sure. But it does so at the cost of doubling ALL of the field equipment PLUS all of the volunteers.
Doublefield divisions don't need to double SOME of the field equipment (mostly the computers) and don't need to double the volunteers, just increase it some. They don't generate quite 2x the throughput though. They get maybe ~85-90% of the way.
I worked out last year, that each of our four divisions could go up to 140 teams/division, 12 matches per team by doublefielding the divisions, without extending the schedule at all. Additionally, doublefield divisions allow you to run a 16-alliance elimination bracket in approximately the same time frame, which gets more teams into CMP elims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallry
The 2006 Greater Toronto Regional only had 72 teams total, while having a doublefield division at Champs could be almost double that. Seating is already cramped as it is with 100 teams per division. I don't see having two fields with 150 teams total cramped together working out. Only a small majority would be able to actually sit centrally to both fields, most spectators will probably be towards the end of one of the two fields.
|
While I agree seating is a bit of a challenge, you're comparing seating 140-150 teams to watch two fields, regardless of whether its 2 divisions or 1. Most spectators are not scouts, and thus aren't as picky about vantage point.
Toronto used to be played in an OHL Hockey Arena (Hershey Centre) with 5,500 seats. From what I recall, there were plenty of open seats still. EJD seats 66,000. (AFAIK, we stick mostly to the 1xx series sections, which represent maybe 40% of EJD's total, still ~6x bigger than Hershey Centre for an event a little over 4x the size).