View Single Post
  #51   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 30-07-2010, 13:30
rick.oliver's Avatar
rick.oliver rick.oliver is offline
Mentor - Retired
AKA: Pap
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Liberty Township, OH
Posts: 249
rick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond reputerick.oliver has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 2010 IRI Results and Awards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karthik View Post
... I'd love to see IRI go down to about 50 teams and use a qualifying point system ... and the event could regain the intimate feel that it used to have which made the event so magical. ... plenty of this chatter at the event. ... a smaller event with more rigid qualifying rules could make IRI an even more exciting and rewarding competition.
I did not hear any of this discussion at the event and was surprised when I read about it here. I have been thinking about it over the past week and decided to share my thoughts and perspective.

First I will put my comments in context. I am coming from the perspective of one who has felt fortunate that our team has been invited to attend I.R.I. each of the eight years we've been in existance, able to attend seven of those. Our robot has never been among the best at the competition; our robot's performances have varied year-to-year. I appreciate that the selection committee uses a broad set of criteria and I understand the wisdom of not sharing their criteria

Compared to the Championship event, I.R.I. is much more intimate. I don't think that the growth in participation has compromised the intimacy. I think that the excitement of the event and the level of energy has been enhanced by the larger numbers.

I understand that the excitement and outcome of matches can be highly influenced by the effectiveness of each alliance partner. I can't say that I notice a difference in the Qualification Rounds from previous years. However, I know that Karthik is always data-based and accurate in his communication; therefore, I accept it as true.

I offer the following alternative to reducing the size of the event. Create two tiers of teams that compete in different "brackets" during the qualification matches. Add four alliances to the Elimination Rounds (eight from Tier 1 and four from Tier 2 with the top four Tier 1 teams having a bye in the first round).

I understand the additional effort required to manage it and the risk of going over on time in Eliminations. I think that it would enhance the experience of all of the teams attending.
Reply With Quote