Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayne C.
flawed logic- just showing up doesnt give you an equal probability of winning anything. A robot can win multiple regionals due to quality play or be the worst robot at every regional.
|
I believe he was just giving a lesson in the proper method of calculating that probability, based on obviously simplified assumptions. So my thanks atleast to Nikhil for getting at least a bit of good math into the thread.
Now then, not to be too crass about such a noble subject as fairness and all that, but I grabbed all the team lists and tabulated a few numbers for regional wins and awards. First and foremost, over 25% of FRC teams attend more than one event. This is not some incredibly small minority of "powerhouse" teams that are taking an extra try at the brass ring. Second, there were 14 teams that won multiple regionals that represent, as should be obvious to anyone that followed this year, 16 total "extra" regional wins. So out of a minimum of 656 regional wins, 2.4% were "extra". So I think at the least, the concern about multiple regional teams taking up lots of regional wins is unfounded.
Now, as groups, 3+ regional attendees received, per team, more regional wins and awards (-RCA, -WFA, etc.) than did 2 regional attendees. Similarly, 2 regional attendees received more wins and awards per team than did single regional attendees. This is not interesting, however, and is probably expected. The interesting bit is the 3+ teams received more wins and awards per team per
regional than 2+ teams. And 2 teams similarly did better on a per regional basis than 1 teams. Feel free to interpret this data as you wish, but I find is rather interesting.
Finally, to be as utterly crass and base as possible in a thread about "fairness", it simply doesn't matter whether attending multiple regionals is fair or not. The plain fact is that the 432 extra regional attendances more or less represent about $1.75 million of pure extra revenue for FIRST, since teams receive no extra kits, benefits, or other outlays from FIRST for regional attendances after the first. I think it's fairly certain that FIRST depends heavily on this extra revenue and that no small part of it ends up acting as a subsidy for first regional fees for other teams. Coincidentally, if FIRST prevented teams from attending more than one regional, they'd have to raise the first regional fee to $7000 per team to make up the difference. And recruit something like 60-70 additional teams. So if you're convinced teams attending extra regionals is nothing but bad for FIRST, there's some food for thought.