|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
|
Whoops, sorry Dave.
To avoid repeating many other posts and wasting bandwidth/ page space and people's time (that it takes to read long posts) I say this. I agree 100% with George1083's above post |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
To genericize my earlier post:
A good selection process would select teams based on the following criteria (in order of priority): 1. Teams which exemplify the highest ideals of FIRST 2. Teams which are currently competitive 3. Teams which have been competitive over the previous few years A fair selection system would give the majority of teams qualifying for championships approximately the same amount of time to prepare arrangements for fund-raising, travel, excused absences from school, etc. All teams should have an opportunity to attend over a period of (for instance) four years. Teams which have not attended championships recently should get priority on OPEN slots over teams which have recently attended. |
|
#33
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Okay, it's too late and I haven't put a lot of thought in that one yet. I'll try to come back with something better tomorrow, but for know that's it...
Say a team is elligible for the Championship in a determined year (not considering "luck", ie odd numbered team in a odd number year ), but, for some reason - okay, we all know, it's money - they can't go to Nationals (yeah, we call it that way). This team should have a spot guaranteed next year - c'mon, they earned it -, maybe with the points system being cumulative in some kind of way, or something else.I don't think there would be enough teams in that situation as to cause big trouble in the following year, so this is the kind of thing that wouldn't be to hard to apply and would make some teams really happy. PS: Even though we would be benefited next year if that rule did apply, we probably wouldn't be going to Nationals anyway. With the huge gap between last week of Regionals and the National, it is much wiser to go to two back to back Regionals and pay only one ticket (our biggest cost). |
|
#34
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Okay, my post as one piece of "meta-criteria":
Team selection should be based largely on performance. A point system would be fine, but I think that points should be given out for more things, and/or less points should be required. Above all, I think the performance part, both in competition, and things like Chairman's Award, should be the main deciding factor. If the threshold for performance is lowered just a little from where it is, you will still get lots of good, competitive teams (and more of the newer teams) but not have too many as Odd/Even may give you. |
|
#35
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
ok..
I'd have to say I sort of like the current system. All teams should have the chance to attend the championship at least every other year, regardless of how good they are. However, as said, you do want the best teams to be there. Therefore, keeping a points system in place is also a good idea. However, I would also like to see more of the regional awards have a greater influence in qualifying a team. Next (while i understand this would be hard to do for 2004), I would support having "super regionals". Or 2 sub-championships and then one final. (One west & one east coast. I know it must be hard for underfunded teams out west to afford going x-country for nats) However the one thing I would really like to see is being able to know if you can go as early as possible. It makes it so much easier to know how you can allocate your $$, etc. I understand that this then makes it hard for teams who all of a sudden qualify during a regional. My $.01 ![]() |
|
#36
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
I am mixed on this issue.
For the next three years, the FIRST Championships should include these teams: 1. Top performing teams from the current year ...regional winners ...regional Chairman's Award winners ...teams who can accumulate a certain # of awards divided by the number of regionals attended 2. Teams who have not attended a Championship in the past. FIRST could give "retroactive" points to teams who have not attended a Championship. These teams can accumulate points over many years. These points add up to a Championship qualifying level. Then they attend a championship and their point level gets back to zero. - team XYZ has never attended the Championship - they got 1 award in 99 - they got 2 awards in 2000 - they got 1 award in 2003 - these four awards put them over a watermark so that they qualify for Championships in 2004. 3. All Hall-of-Fame teams (Championship Chairman's Award teams) However, after the 3 upcoming years in Atlanta, this system needs to be entirely we-worked. At that time, I feel that there should be 4 or 8 Super-Regionals which will be elimination tournaments for the top-performing teams. These super-regionals can be 160-200 teams each, and those are the competitions where teams can accumulate points to attend. These super-regionals would have a similar qualification process that Championships have seen up until now. At that point, the Championship qualification criteria could be a mix of awards and performance-based, where the top 20-40 teams at each super-regional would attend the Championships... and those teams could be determined with a mix of performance and GPish (Chairman's Award, etc.) criteria. As others have said... good luck to Dave and the rest of the committee. Andy B. btw... I am not in favor of granting the teams who have been in all 13 years an automatic bid, for what it is worth. And... I am proud to be on one of those teams. |
|
#37
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
With 8 days left to registration...
I would like to see: -Not limited to performance only - the best thing I have seen is some of the smaller, less organized teams seeing the great teams, and being inspired. -A system that would allow every team to go once in a while. -A system that made what FIRST stands for very clear. (Is it for inspiring students or winning... I don't know anymore... but alas, that is for another post.) Our team has made a concious decission to NOT focus on winning, and worry more about teaching the students. I would hate to go back on that, and go build the robot for the kids. Our high school has tried it both ways with 2 different sponsors, and we seem to do a better job when we don't worry about winning. |
|
#38
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Automatic bid every xx years (2, no more than 3).
Why: It is more than robots and a teams performance on the field is not an absolute indication of their personal growth or committment to the ideals of FIRST. Resources out of the control of the team may determine their level of success. Every student should have the opportunity to experience nationals. And: Top teams - Based on points for the current year, but only the top certain number of teams qualify this way. What I mean is instead of saying with 25 points you qualify, say the top 25 teams qualify - that may be 100 points, it might be 15. This always gives the opportunity to the best performing teams (performing meaning special awards, robot awards, etc.). And: No automatics based on the past. And: The biggest challenge most teams face is the money to go, and the ability to get kids out of school. If the Chairman's decisions are late - there may not be money to go, or the administration might say no to more days out. More levels of qualifying (super events, 1/2 nationals then a finals, etc.) make it worse. Make the decisions known as early as possible. And: Keep it simple to understand and implement. FIRST has the same resource limitations the rest of corporate America has - the Championship process cannot take a big group to organize. Final thought - No automatic bids, Championship based only on current year performanance (on all FIRST aspects), and NO CHAMPIONSHIP ENTRY FEE. Eliminate that part of the financial burden to the top teams to make sure they can get there. |
|
#39
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Last Minute Changes???
Although the current system is far from perfect, I honestly feel that these last minute changes can't possibly be carefully considered. This rush to decision making has gotten FIRST into trouble in the past.
If a new system is decided upon in a few days, something WILL be overlooked and deserving teams WILL be hurt! I feel that any changes proposed now should opened for comment and then implemented for the 2005 Season. The only alternative to a slow, careful consideration process is to open up the Championship to all teams. (which seems unrealistic) Otherwise, I feel that FIRST is setting itself up for some unforseen and embarassing oversight. Just my opinion. Best of luck to everyone this Season!!! Al Ostrow Head Coach Team 341 |
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Well, no matter what format is decided...the bottom line is teams need to know in advance if they qualify to attend nationals. Currently, teams attending the latest regionals are at a major disadvantage. If they qualify, how are they expected to prepare on such short notice? We unforunately faced this situation last season and we're unable to attend simply because we had no time to prepare. $4000 doesn't appear out of no where. If the qualification process remains similar, this same burden will exist for other teams in the future. Why should a team be penalized because they won an award or regional later than someone else?
|
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sorry if this has been said already in this post, I have not read everyone's ideas yet. As I said in another post however,
I would like to see FIRST drop the even/odd rule, while at the same time relax the point system to qualify. Instead of just tech awards, let it be ANY award. So any team that: a) Gets an award or b) is a regional finalist ...will get to go. If there are 27 regionals this year, with 14 awards at each, I estimate between 270 and 540 teams will qualify for Nationals. Seems good to me =) |
|
#42
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
To extract the meta-data from my above post:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I realize that there is quite possibly no system which meets my criteria, and I know that there are contradictions. However, there is one thing that I want to stress: that any team that really tries, and puts in extra effort and dedication above and beyond what is needed to simply show up and compete, should get to go to the Championship. The real world may not work that way, but wouldn't it be nice if it did? |
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Radical Idea
Ok I have a radical idea so that the best of the best get to perform at Nationals. Using the current point qualification system tally up the amount of points for each team. Than take the top six teams for each state and invite them to Nationals. However, through the Canadian teams into Provinces. And foreign teams into automatic invite as it is good to show that FIRST has exposure overseas. Now obviously FIRST will have to rework this system so that states without six teams those invites get passed on to other such quality teams in other states. Maybe they will have to use an electoral such invite system similar to a presidental race where so many teams will get invited out of one state will another state may not have so many. How they can base this on is the amount of years a state has amongst its teams and how many rookie teams are within that state. That is something FIRST can work out. Ok I'm done
|
|
#44
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Championship
Everyone will not be happy and if a change comes about this year. Some teams will leave FIRST if changes are made as many teams have already planned their team and season. After all registration is a few days away.
I say leave as is, advertise that it will be changed next year (2005) warning all teams in advance. Have the new system for 2005 in place prior to the starting of season 2004. This gives all teams a chance to plan and get their effort organized. No one should be able to complain about this ( but you know they will ) if done in advance. |
|
#45
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Quote:
I disagree. I know it would be a great deal of work but not impossible. If we maintain this mindset then it will never happen. Dave- if we are to meet the purpose of FIRST of inspiring young people we need to see that those that need inspiration the most get to go. That means the rookies and very new teams who have never been able to go. With the points qualification process as it is now that is nearly impossible for most. The system of points being used now is definitely rarifying the field. Is that what is desired? Funding and experience are making the competition tougher and tougher. Do the novice teams have a chance? Raising funds to travel to the Nats. should be challenge enough. If points are going to be used the system should allow banking over a number of years, teams to donate points to each other and encourage interteam brotherhood and a lower, more reasonable points threshold to qualify. To qualify based on the existing system means a team needs to win a number of events or awards accumulate points to be eligible. One should be enough- two at most. Some research should be done into the numbers of teams never attending the Nats and why. Perhaps a provision to reach these teams should be made? What is their retention? How many are one year wonders? One last comment- I would expect this type of input to be solicited by an FRC teams e-mail blast, not a CD posting. While it does reach the diehard FIRST kids, CD is somewhat midwest oriented and not all teams even know this posting exists. Likewise- NO mention of changing qualification was on the agenda or discussed at the forums this summer, despite an interest at ours by a number of teams. The topic was untouchable. How serious is FIRST about this? Is this considered a real problem or is the Bd. just fishing for information and opinions? WC Last edited by Wayne C. : 21-09-2003 at 09:51. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|