Go to Post Sometimes students ask me if MIT wants students who are well-rounded. I usually say I don't care as much if you're well-rounded or pointy, what I care about is evaluating the space enclosed by the shape. - Petey [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
View Poll Results: Have 16 alliances in elimination rounds?
Keep the elimination rounds to 8 alliances. 20 57.14%
Have 16 alliances in the elimination rounds by adding 16 matches. 15 42.86%
Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-04-2003, 20:21
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
More teams in the elimination rounds

In one of the current threads, a number of teams were expressing some surprise that they weren't picked for the elimination rounds in Houston.

At the Arizona Regional, there were 37 teams so almost 2/3 of them went on to the elimination rounds. At the championships, only about 1/3 of the teams went on to the elimination rounds.

I would like to see that percentage increased. Otherwise, there is bound to be a lot of deserving teams that are wondering why they weren't picked.

Some people are worried that basing Qualifying Points on the difference in scores between winners and losers would be tough on less experienced teams. I personally think that having only a 1/3 of the teams go to the elimination rounds is far harder for teams to swallow, especially at the championships where there were many good teams who had travelled a long way to compete.

One possible solution would be to have a little less practice time and more match time. If we had 16 alliances per division (48 teams) going into the elimination rounds), we would need to have 16 more matches to get back to the 8 alliances currently in the elimination stage. (That assumes that the alliance with the highest total score moves on. Personally I think that would be fine, IF we got rid of the multiplier. In other words, the highest total score moves on, period. That would allow a team who lost by a small margin in the first match to come back and win overall by getting a better score in the second match.)

So can we fit 16 more matches into the schedule? By gosh, I think it is possible. What do you think?
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)

Last edited by DougHogg : 26-04-2003 at 20:30.
Reply With Quote
  #2   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-04-2003, 21:22
Kevin A Kevin A is offline
In Hibernation
#0481 (DART)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Richmond, CA
Posts: 244
Kevin A will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Kevin A
If only 1/3 of the teams make it to the elim rounds, then those who don't make it aren't really singled out. But if 2/3 of the teams are chosen, and x team isn't, is part of a group that is smaller, which is worse.

I say leave it, or maybe top ten.

Why not make more qualification rounds, more chances to show who you are, be allianced with the top 8 teams, more chances to get all your bugs out, and make the qualification worth more, make the seeded place worth more. Just a thought, and it also gives more teams more rounds, not just the top 8 or 16 or whoever advances.

Just leave it.

Last edited by Kevin A : 26-04-2003 at 21:27.
Reply With Quote
  #3   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 26-04-2003, 23:02
Rob Colatutto's Avatar
Rob Colatutto Rob Colatutto is offline
Roboticsrob
FTC #10092 (Green.Griffins;)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 849
Rob Colatutto is a splendid one to beholdRob Colatutto is a splendid one to beholdRob Colatutto is a splendid one to beholdRob Colatutto is a splendid one to beholdRob Colatutto is a splendid one to beholdRob Colatutto is a splendid one to beholdRob Colatutto is a splendid one to behold
the reason you get so little qualifying matches is all depending on how many teams go, and how long the game takes. this years game was 10 seconds longer and also took longer to reset than past years, and with bigger regionals match counts were generally lower. for example, the 73 team divisions let everyone have 7 matches, but at the 35 team long island regional each team got 10
__________________
Follow me on twitter @roboticsrob and my FTC team @griffins10092
Reply With Quote
  #4   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 00:49
Kevin A Kevin A is offline
In Hibernation
#0481 (DART)
Team Role: Mechanical
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Richmond, CA
Posts: 244
Kevin A will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Kevin A
im not complaining about the amount of matches we play, im just trying to come up for a solution to those who are. And yes, you are totally right. I see the thread going off topic perty fast.
Reply With Quote
  #5   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 01:02
Mike Schroeder's Avatar
Mike Schroeder Mike Schroeder is offline
Gone the way of the dinosaur
AKA: "Big Mike"
no team
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: North Brunswick, NJ
Posts: 1,872
Mike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond reputeMike Schroeder has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Mike Schroeder Send a message via Yahoo to Mike Schroeder
in prior years nationals had the top 16 alliances choose, (atleast they did in 2000)
__________________
GOT SEARCH?

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard"-JFK
Reply With Quote
  #6   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 01:33
Jack Jones Jack Jones is offline
Retired
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Waterford, MI
Posts: 964
Jack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond repute
Double Elimination!

So can we fit 16 more matches into the schedule?
Not to argue semantics, but I tend to think of a match as it is in the seeding rounds - 2:15.
But either way you look at it, it would take over three times as long if the current two match per contest remained in place.
On the other hand - and using my notion of a match...
The elimination rounds could contain 16 alliances , have only 14 more matches ( twice the current number ), and have a Bronze Medal winner to boot.

How's that? With a modified 16 alliance double elimination tournament. Similar to the ones we see in softball, but modified so that the alliance that emerges from the winner's bracket finishes first without having to face the alliances that emerges from the loser's bracket.
It would look like this:


EDIT- to clean up own semantics

Last edited by Jack Jones : 27-04-2003 at 07:53.
Reply With Quote
  #7   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 01:50
sevisehda's Avatar
sevisehda sevisehda is offline
Registered User
#0666
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 215
sevisehda is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to sevisehda
If you doubled the amount of teams in the elimation rounds you double the time of the elimination rounds. That means that it goes from half a day to almost a full day. If they go back to a best of 3 match like 90% of people want thats a third more time. Basically elimination would be an entire day at NATs.

This year teams played 6 qualifying rounds. 1 bad round would cripple kill a team and after a second bad round they got a death certificate. If they had to cut the time of qualifying dwon to one day that means even less of a chance to show your worth. So theres 2 solutions. Extend NATs to 4 days or cut the number of teams at NATs down even further.

This is basic economics people. FIRST can't do everything. Extending NATs to 4 days would make it more expensive because of the extra night. Not to mention missing another day of school in many cases. Less teams means more teams have to sit it out. Everything has a price. You can't have your cake to.

I think that FIRST should strive to increase the number of qualifying rounds so teams have ample time to show there worth. Bad rounds will hurt a team less. Eliminations should remain the same. Just getting into the elimination is an acomplishment and it shouldn't be extended.

Further I would feel better being 1 of 60 teams not selected rather than 1 of 30 not selected. My last thought may not be politically correct but in my view its the truth. The top 8 teams are there because they are among the best. They then select what they view are the next 16 best teams. If anything diluteing the pool with 'lesser' bots would lessen the amazing rounds that the eliminations are.
Reply With Quote
  #8   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 02:03
D.J. Fluck
 
Posts: n/a
To make it to the elimination rounds is a big deal for many teams. To make it into that top 8 or know that you are good enough for a team in the top 8 to pick you makes it prestigious. By adding more teams to the elimination it lowers that prestige knowing that many teams are going to be in the finals too.
Reply With Quote
  #9   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 09:17
Jack Jones Jack Jones is offline
Retired
no team
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Waterford, MI
Posts: 964
Jack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond reputeJack Jones has a reputation beyond repute
I'd really like to see more teams in the eliminations. They all make so many sacrifices - more of them should get to feel the excitement. However, I agree that we can't spend a full day, and that the top seeds should be rewarded.
Here's a scenario that puts 36 teams in the mix, rewards the top four seeds with a BYE in the first round, and would only take 20-30 minutes longer:

It would be a bit more complicated; but your local recreation softball leagues manage to make it work
Reply With Quote
  #10   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 11:18
Gabriel Gabriel is offline
Registered User
#1409 (Fightin' Llamas)
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Barrington MA
Posts: 150
Gabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really niceGabriel is just really nice
Send a message via AIM to Gabriel
I remember way back when we sucked (last year), ok we were a first year team, but we were 13th or so at UTC and it was my job to get us picked. Despite an hour of sucking-up nobody noticed us and nobody picked us and it was crushing to the whole team to work so hard and to get passed over.

This year we ended up 1st seeds at UTC and seeds in Newton and it was exhillerating to see teams work so hard to get us to pick them. I felt really bad for some good teams with incredibly nice people (155 at UTC and 19 at nat's come to mind) who didn't get picked.

If the scheduling issue can be worked out (and that's a BIG issue) than I would love to see more teams in the elimination rounds because it will force the high-seeds to notice more teams and it will make more teams feel wanted.
Reply With Quote
  #11   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 11:23
J2Kraatz's Avatar
J2Kraatz J2Kraatz is offline
Registered User
AKA: J2
#1037 (S.C.R.E.A.M Team)
Team Role: Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Rochester Hills,MI
Posts: 41
J2Kraatz is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to J2Kraatz
I think we should have the eight teams from each division in the finals for nationals. They also should be able to drop one member of their team and pick up a new one from a different division. I think that would make for a fun time what do you say.
Reply With Quote
  #12   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 13:50
D.J. Fluck
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally posted by Jack Jones
I'd really like to see more teams in the eliminations.
Ok, why we're at it, lets give away more chairmans awards...
Reply With Quote
  #13   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 14:19
Clark Gilbert's Avatar
Clark Gilbert Clark Gilbert is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Columbus, IN
Posts: 1,946
Clark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond reputeClark Gilbert has a reputation beyond repute
While this may not work well for an actual FIRST event it would work great for an off season event. This will give everyone a chance in the elimination matches. Most off season events are for fun and there's no fun in sitting out. I'de be all for this if it was used at an off season event.
__________________
Purdue Alumni
Cummins, Inc.
Reply With Quote
  #14   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 14:47
Gadget470's Avatar
Gadget470 Gadget470 is offline
A Fire Outside
AKA: Brandon Joerges
no team (Alpha Omega)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Madison Heights, MI
Posts: 1,000
Gadget470 is a jewel in the roughGadget470 is a jewel in the roughGadget470 is a jewel in the roughGadget470 is a jewel in the rough
Send a message via ICQ to Gadget470 Send a message via AIM to Gadget470
I like Jack Jones's idea, less the "Bronze" bracket. Single eliminations. That would add only a set of 4 matches into the mix, while adding 4 more alliances (12 teams) to the brackets.
Reply With Quote
  #15   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 27-04-2003, 15:00
abeD's Avatar
abeD abeD is offline
Registered User
FRC #4707 (Mentor FRC#4707 Alumni FRC#710)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Ft Lauderdale, FL
Posts: 305
abeD is a splendid one to beholdabeD is a splendid one to beholdabeD is a splendid one to beholdabeD is a splendid one to beholdabeD is a splendid one to beholdabeD is a splendid one to beholdabeD is a splendid one to behold
Quote:
To make it to the elimination rounds is a big deal for many teams. To make it into that top 8 or know that you are good enough for a team in the top 8 to pick you makes it prestigious. By adding more teams to the elimination it lowers that prestige knowing that many teams are going to be in the finals too.
I definately agree with this. The whole purpose of getting into the elimination rounds is to show that you are in the elite group of teams at that competition(different at some regionals due to small size). I know it sucks when you feel that you should have gotten picked and didn't, but hey it happens to everyone. All in all more teams in eliminations would not only take more time, but you wouldn't really be in that elite minority.
__________________
Penn Class 08
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Long post - this year's game was tough - here's why: archiver 2001 7 24-06-2002 03:31
Hits, Misses, & Suggestions -- long message archiver 2000 17 23-06-2002 23:36
The Case For 'Regionalizing' teams at the Nationals. archiver 2000 33 23-06-2002 23:35
How do we view more teams? archiver 2000 0 23-06-2002 23:11
Multiple Regionals archiver 1999 55 23-06-2002 22:26


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi