View Single Post
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-10-2003, 10:41
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,412
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Some people "feel" that the system is unfair. They either think that the FIRST Championships should be a competition or a celebration. It is apparent that FIRST is doing their best to appease both. While they really didn't want to change things, it was necessary that the change took place.

I have certain "feelings" about these changes also, but before I post my opinions, it would be nice to see some hard facts. Let's look at the numbers:

Pre-qualifying teams:
--------------------------
6 sustaining teams from '92 (although I have heard of a 7th)
12 Chairman's Award teams
3 Champions from 2003
XX teams who received 5 points from last year (PQ5)

It would be nice to know how many PQ5 teams there are. I assume that there are 70. If we know this number, then we know the total number of pre-qualified teams (PQ). Let's assume that PQ5=70, therefore PQ=91.

2004 qualifying teams (merit-based qualifiers):
----------------------------
78 Regional winners (at the most)
26 Chairman's Award winners
26 Engineering Inspiration winners
26 Rookie All-Stars

This total is easy. However, there is going to be some overlap. Some of the PQ teams may win one of these spots in 2004. I am guessing that 30 PQ teams will do well enough in 2004 to qualify as merit-based (MB) teams. So, the total of MB teams who are not PQ teams would be this: 156-30=126

Open qualifiers:
--------------------
AA tier 6 teams
BB tier 5 teams
CC tier 4 teams
DD tier 3 teams
EE tier 2 teams
FF tier 1 teams

It is apparent that FIRST likes limiting the Championships to about 290 teams. Expanding that number, I am assuming, is not an option for the near future. In a perfect world, it would be nice if that number was bigger, but demanding to make that number much bigger is unrealistic.

So... looking at the above numbers, about 220 PQ and MB teams will be going to the 2004 Championships, before FIRST begins with the open qualification process. That leaves about 70 open qualifiers (OQ).

It would be really nice to know how many tier 6, tier 5, tier 4, tier 3, tier 2, tier 1 and PQ5 teams there are. There has gotta be people out there who know these numbers. Anyone?

In the mean time, here are some opinions. My first reaction is that FIRST is giving more awards to "good teams" as opposed to "good robots". This is due to the removal of auto-births for technical awards and the addition of auto-births for Rookie All Stars and EI awards. However... if my assumptions above are true, then 220 "qualifying" teams will go to the Championships along with 70 OQ teams. Of those 220, 96 teams (many of who will qualify in 2 or more ways) are qualifying by being "good teams" and might not have "great robots".

It is apparent to me that there will be a good mix of "good teams" with teams who have "good robots"... at least for 2004. All in all, I like the new system. There are bits that I don't like about it. I still don't like the '92 sustaining teams getting a auto-birth, but that is just my opinion. I do feel that those teams deserve it, but it is my mission as team leader on one of those teams to never depend on that grandfather clause. This rule really does put these grandfather teams in a tough spot, but that is a topic for another thread.

Sorry to be so long, as I yet again broke my concise rule.

Andy B.

Last edited by Andy Baker : 20-10-2003 at 14:43.
Reply With Quote