View Single Post
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 15-03-2016, 20:33
Boltman Boltman is offline
Registered User
FRC #5137 (Iron Kodiaks)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: San Diego
Posts: 861
Boltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud ofBoltman has much to be proud of
Re: Real Week 2 update

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citrus Dad View Post
No, we're not trying to avoid playing with the same teams repeatedly. We're trying to avoid matches in which one alliance is over strong vs the other simply due to the nature of the composition. We should not have been paired with 254 or 1671 AT ALL at CVR, yet we played with both of them. Excluding such pairings is more imperative than playing with as many teams as possible.

Another option to use a sliding scale of point ratings for each team, and ensure that each alliance has a total that exceeds a minimum value. That would allow for more flexibility in alliance composition. Again an imperative to ensure that every alliance has a minimum level of competence. The flip side of having overly strong alliances is less important if each alliance surpasses a minimum.

I'm interested in what the problem was with the 2007 schedule? What criteria were they using?

BTW, I think it's interesting to see that it's only the NFL that uses strength of schedule. The other leagues have so many games (80+) that each team is able to play each other multiple times. (But I will note that the NBA changed its playoff qualification instead as a means of correcting a regional misbalance in schedule strength.) The NFL season is more akin to FRC with relatively few matches compared to the number of competitors.
Thanks Citrus Dad for voicing from the top tier what I witnessed in my two years of analyzing. I think FRC can do better and that would possibly allow a new generation to break through to the necessary experience of a true national World Class competition. I have a feeling that is why its so hard for young teams to break through as captains..usually they get in as second ,third or backup because if multiple powerhouse qual pairings get skewed the randomness skewed its awfully hard to remain #1 in day 2 to have pick of the litter we would have picked 1678 not to discredit 254 or 973 or 1323 and many other worthy teams...just 1678 dominated by never losing and proved they could get 1 ball auto and scale. Plus pretty much un-blockable with arguably the fastest cycle times at CVR.. very close was 254 but no scale so (-2 HG equivalent)

I was happy to see in another regional a 5000# captain did break through not sure if that was powerhouse laced or not though..awesome to see.

All I know is going to worlds our first year is the main reason WHY we are so good now as a young third year team. It made an impression on us we will not forget we did not like the taste of finishing 90th or so there. The world championship experience is something every team should have as I believe it helps young teams to become that next generation. You see what it takes and witness first hand the best. I'm just glad CA offers every year a world class regional experience within driving distance.
__________________

Iron Kodiaks Team #5137 San Marcos, CA

2016 Semi-Finalist | Central Valley Alliance Captain #2
2016 Semi-Finalist | San Diego 2nd bot alliance #8
2015 Semi-Finalist | Ventura 3rd bot alliance #3
2015 Quarter-Finalist| San Diego 2nd bot alliance #5
2014 Rookie All-Star | #21 San Diego | Galileo Division #91

Last edited by Boltman : 15-03-2016 at 20:57.
Reply With Quote