View Single Post
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 11-04-2016, 23:30
BumblingBuilder's Avatar
BumblingBuilder BumblingBuilder is offline
Red is fast
AKA: Matthew
FRC #2169 (KING TeC)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Rookie Year: 2014
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 56
BumblingBuilder will become famous soon enough
Re: 2016 Minnesota State Champs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis View Post
I'm open for recommendations on how to fix it - any you send me will be presented to the rest of the RPC. We've looked at it from every angle we can think of, analyzing what the changes would be if we counted second events (as an average with the first event), analyzing the differences between teams that earn a spot at States versus those that earn a spot at Champs... We haven't found a better way that's fair to every team.

Counting a second event simply gives an unfair advantage to those teams that can afford more events. And for the record, that's 42 teams out of 208 this year - 20%. Allowing those 20% to count their second event gives them a benefit over the other 80% of teams in the state. This is the same decision that was made in districts - there, they count a team's first two events, because every team gets two events. If you sign up for a third? Well, that's some more practice and experience for you, but it doesn't count towards your ranking.

2175 and 3130 did really well at North Star, it was fun watching them play. But that was their second event. It's tough, but that's the only fair way we've found to make it work.
I'm very much on the fence about this issue. I really wouldn't mind whether or not a second event is factored in, but I really like defense Jon provides here.

One of the arguments for counting a second regional is that it rewards teams that took the time to improve their bot. But doesn't that still inherintely and indirectly hurt teams that can only afford one event? This improvement ideology still hinges on the fact that teams with more money are given an advantage. We'd be fooling ourselves if we thought teams that can't currently afford two regionals do not want to improve their robot. Factoring in a second regional rewards the opportunity to improve the bot, not the actual action of doing so. Every team would strive to improve their robot for their second regional if they could afford it. Sometimes the opposite happens (our first day at North Star this year for example, and us in 2008), but regardless, factoring in a second regional is more of a reward for the opportunity to improve the robot rather than a reward for the drive and motivation of doing so.
__________________
2014: FRC 2169 scouting/spirit, FTC 7897 Mechanical

2015: FRC 2169 Mechanical/CAD

2016: FRC 2169 Mechanical/CAD
2017: FRC 2169 Head of Mechanical

Last edited by BumblingBuilder : 11-04-2016 at 23:33.
Reply With Quote