View Single Post
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 25-07-2014, 21:30
Shrub's Avatar
Shrub Shrub is offline
Registered User
no team (N/A)
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: nowhere
Posts: 268
Shrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant futureShrub has a brilliant future
Re: Frank Answers Fridays: Expanded Championship Qualification

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
FIRST doesn't have to have proportional representation at champs... The problem comes in when some areas are proportional while others aren't. Teams from Michigan don't have to compete for spots with teams from Hawaii, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, etc... But Minnesota teams do. I'm completely willing to back a non-proportional system, so long as it provides equal opportunity for everyone, not two radically different sets of rules that potentially benefit one group but not another. Giving proportional representation to one group but not another simply doesn't present a level playing field.
According to this awesome whitepaper I found, Minnesota is the most under-represented state for FRC teams at CMP (a 14 team difference). (link)

There's also a paper on representation of regions at CMP (link) that goes back quite a bit. (It probably doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand but I think its a good read as well).

Although I do find it interesting, I really have no idea what can be done about it, if anything (especially the under-representation some regions face).
Reply With Quote