[archiver]

Posted by Dodd Stacy, Engineer on team #95, Lebanon Robotics Team, from Lebanon High School and CRREL/CREARE.

Posted on 5/7/99 8:54 AM MST


In Reply to: Crazy Idea, looking for comments posted by Joe Johnson on 5/4/99 7:58 PM MST:



The discussion in this thread seems to be about the inadequacy or 'unfairness' of the National QM's in correctly selecting the top 16 teams. Strong teams who came close but didn't make it, or, worse, were in and then fell out seem in general to be attributing that to the (bad) luck of the draw in QM's. So we're looking for ways to minimize the occurance of bad luck (like no-shows and dead bots) or its impact on QP's. My question is, what exactly are we trying to accomplish?

If the selection process for the top 16 is flawed by 'bad luck' that should not happen in the ideal case, I have 3 questions:

1) Were any teams NOT worthy of National Elimination level play included in the Top 16, as selected by the QM process?

2) How many teams SHOULD have been in the Elimination bracket to give all the strong teams their deserved shot at the title? If all of the teams who believe they would have made the Eliminations but for bad luck (with their ally draw or his performance) were to hold up their hands, what would the count be? (I will assume that no team who did make the 16 would withdraw on the basis that they were a weak team who rode in on good luck of the draw and superior performance by their allies.)

3) How many teams who SHOULD have made the Eliminations and didn't make the Top 16 were NOT subsequently drafted?

I'm genuinely curious about the answers to these questions, because it seems to me like the 'unfairness' impact of the QM random ally draw can be discounted by simply expanding the Elimination group. Why not trade off 1 of the 6 Q rounds for an additional level of Eliminations? That's nearly a wash on total number of Tournament matches with 200 teams.

A couple of things to think about, tho. The 'strong' teams would be depriving the 'weak' teams of some of the opportunity to play in Orlando that they busted their butts to get. They may have been washing cars for air fare while other teams were gaining strength at Regionals. Also, a 'Top 32' would draft another 64 teams as Elimination allies, totaling 96 of 200 teams. Hm, I can hear it now, late in the second round of the draft, 'no good allies left.' So I guess the strong teams who made the expanded Top group would feel that the process was still unfair if they didn't make it high enough to get to draft worthy allies.

I guess I can't totally avoid a little sarcasm. I'm sorry. It seems like there is an inherent and unavoidable tradeoff or balance between the benefits of the alliance concept and the element of randomness it brings to the competition. What is best for advancing the goals of FIRST?

Dodd