|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Odd/Even
Quote:
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think that the odd/even system was pretty workable. Our first year, we were rookie all-stars in S. Calif., so we made use of fact that we had an even number and went to Florida. This year, we had to win our way to Houston with a technical award. So we experienced both sides of the coin: free entry one year and pressure the next. Variety is the spice of life, someone once said.
However it is obvious that some change is needed which is the reason for this thread. My recommendation is to make the smallest changes possible to solve the current problem, rather than sweeping the current system totally aside. Why? This system is working, so let's just modify it. Perhaps in addition to being odd or even, some other qualification could be added to reduce the numbers somewhat, such as "made it into the elimination rounds at a regional" or "was in the top half of teams in the qualifying rounds" at a regional. Also in keeping with the idea of a society getting what it celebrates, let's continue and expand upon the idea of rewarding teams who go the extra mile to make big contributions to the goals of FIRST and to our society, by giving such teams a championship slot. Since regional winners get to go to the championships, the one enhancement that I feel is vital is to handle the scoring system so that we are actually celebrating hard work and creativity and not something like "last minute negotiations". Although there will always be some luck involved in who you get as partners, etc., let's make sure that we are doing everything possible to set up the scoring system to put the best teams on top and in the championships. After all, that is part of what we all want to see each year: which designs turned out to be the best for this year's game. Then we all learn from those teams. Let's work hard to make sure that we are celebrating the qualities that we want to encourage in our students, by rewarding those qualities with high qualifying points at our competitions. Last edited by DougHogg : 23-09-2003 at 15:28. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
as the game is some what based on luck when it comes to your quailifing matches the best robot/team may not have lost due to a bad draw not there ability as a team. any and all teams who are able to rase the funds to get to nashionals should be welcome! as we can only truly diffine being the champion's as the team that competed agasint the best and came out on top, not the best of the odds or the evens
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
To be honest, the odd/even system wasn't a terrible idea. However, it was kind of disapointing to know that each individual team member would only be able to experience a National event 2 out of their four years in high school, assuming that their team didn't qualify for both years opposite their team #. In a sense that isn't quite fair. There have been countless instances where, during a regional event, lady luck wasn't quite our side. Luck is a huge part of the game whether we like it or not! Unfortunate things can happen, and the downside to that is that our team may have an outstanding robot that just had a bad game. We may feel our team deserves a chance at nationals. And every team should have an oppertunity to compete with other teams from all over if they want to. It's a truly rewarding experience. Nationals gives them that oppertunity. If at all possible, allow all teams to attend national events every year IF they want to. I know that size, money, time, etc. play important roles in perhaps preventing every team who wants to to go, but then maybe a location that is big enough during a time period that is convenient should be considered. Florida seemed to really work. I'm sure it could be pulled off again. Just let all the teams go!!!
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
The most important value of FIRST to a student, a young adult, is participation and exposure to all aspects of a team project... planning, innovating, learning new skills, using existing skills, building, trying, getting it right the first time, getting it wrong and figuring out how to recover and get it right, presenting, competing, building teams and friendships, and above all, learning that in the real world all of this is important to achieve your goals.
My vote is that everyone should go!!! Philosophically, if you could not send everyone, send the weaker teams because they clearly have more to learn then the ones that have their act together. |
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Main Objectives
Dave, thanks for asking but you are making me nervous. Either way here are my opinions.
I am assuming the limitation for robots competing is around 300. I am a fan of performance based objectives. The odd/even thing was doomed from the start and, in my opinion, was a temporary fix. Even if 0 teams got in from performance, assuming 1200 teams; that is one team goes every 5 years and any random process will simply exclude most teams. Let's look at this from a different perspective: There are two types of performance: on field and off field, but the only one limited to 300 is the on field performance. Why can't the off-field (aka award winners for spirit, sportsmanship, etc.) performers go to the Championship to compete for those awards and not bring the robot .. the experience is gained. To take it one step further (just like with other awards) only the regional winners of awards are qualified to compete for the Championship award. I don't want to go any more specific than that, but you can see where I am going. I think the remainder of the slots (after current year qualifying) should be based on past years performance (banked up over several years) with preference going to those that have not been to the Championship recently. I do not know how to handle the multiple regionals for rich teams. My suggestions are complete, so continue reading at your own risk.... One argument against the average per regional is that if a team gets a qualifying award at their first regional, then they do not register for any more and their average is high. I guess it does make it harder to just attend regionals (shotgun approach) to qualify. I have a question, but I think I am going to start a new thread to ask it. Please look for it regarding team's impressions about this year's qualifying. -Paul |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Main Objectives
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand the practicality of dividing the competition into on- and off-field components. One may be more important than the other (and which is more important depends on who you ask) but I don't think either could exist on its own. Also, would it then be impossible for teams with a competing robot to win an off-field award? Or will there be twice as many of those? |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
What about addressing the idealism of FIRST and having teams apply for spots at the Championship thru an application process?
This would leave out the "performance" part. My team has to scratch up every penny to go to an event. It is a 9 hour bus ride (that costs $3500) to go to the nearest event. The hotel is $2500. With the entry fee, 1 regional costs us $8000 or more. We can't compete with teams that go to multiple events. I also am bothered by the fact that a team can go to 3 or 4 events, and take the same award(s) at each event. (Multiple Awards) This limits the availability of teams that can only attend one regional. One thing that would help is if a team wins a judges award at one regional --then they cannot win that same award at another regional. Similar to only being able to apply for the regional Chairmans Award at only one regional. I don't think that revising the Championship Criteria is wise at this point. My team is planning on attending this year because we are an even numbered team--we already have our airline tickets. If things change--we could lose our $2000 deposit on our tickets. Not to mention finding any other type of transportation. When we were rookies in 2000--being able to attend the Championship was our driving motivation---we won Nat'l Rookie All Star that year. With current guidelines--we would not have made it. I also don't understand why the Regional Rookie All-Star award doesn't qualify a rookie team for the Championship. We mentored a Kansa team last year 1104---they won a Rookie Award at St. Louis---but didn't qualify--they were also one of the top 10 finalists. This didn't seem fair either. I DISAGREE with the idea of having Sub-finals---WHO could afford to attend besides the "SUPER" robotics teams? Money is a major issue for many teams. The SUPER funded teams don't worry about additional travel costs. I like the even/odd selection. Then teams know that they could at least go every other year. I also think that ALL Regional Award winner should qualify. my 2 cents 2000 Lone Star Regional Leadership In Control 2000 Nat'l Rookie All Star 2001 Lone Star Regional Driving Tomorrow Technology 2001 Lone Star Regional Champion 2001 Nat'l Imagery Award 2002 St. Louis Regional Entrepreneurship 2003 St. Louis Imagery Award |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
OK really hesitated posting.
The solution to me is to somehow deemphasize Nationals. What if there was no qualification process? You knew that every 2 or 3 years you would be able to go to the Big Dance. No one is excluded from the opportunity to go. Wether odd/even or lottery or some other random selection process that guarantees the opportunity to attend the big show occasionally and also that there would be years you know you could not go. |
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Championship criteria
After sleeping on this---I thought of an idea. With no particular idea being the solution at this point--I thought I would at least post this.
CRITERIA: 1. teams wanting to attend the Championship event complete an application (similar to chairman's entry) and they can only submit it to one regional (this would eliminate the unfair practice of teams taking more than 1 spot at each regional) This form would ask teams if they would have the funds to attend. A few alternates are chosen to attend in the event qualified teams back out. The judging criteria will be on the many qualities that teams possess, not just their robot. This would celebrate the spirit of FIRST. If teams know they can't afford to go---then they would not apply. The judges would pick the teams at each regional that exemplfy FIRST's values. They would judge them on how the kids are performing as a team, observing the kids in the pits, on the field. I think a good way to do this is maybe have a feeback sheet that the teams complete about each other at the event (positive remarks like "team xxx helped us today by finding our programming error). The kids can give positive credit to the teams practicing Gracious Professionalism. They are taped on a designated wall, and judges can read them. 2. The judges at each regional would award x amount of slots to the teams---for the following year--this would allow teams to prepare a year ahead of time to know if they were going. 3. Rookie teams would be selected in a different manner.--maybe they have to provide documentation (log book, website/calendar) in which they show their progress as a Rookie team) Much of this judging could be done remotely, from the judges homes. 4. The application process could also occur earlier in the year (off season) so that the teams could prepare a FIRST "resume" in which they published their other activities (public appearance--practicing Gracious Professionalism and also Celebrating Science & Technology) Most teams do parades, civic clubs etc etc. This also celebrates and demonstrates the spirit of FIRST. These applications don't have to be difficult and detailed either. The "yearbook page" that we send in could be modified as such. Just my ideas to keep the focus off of the "only winners attend" . I watched the Science Channel documentary--it broke my heart when the Bronx team Pius Princesses didn't win. They should have had the opportunity to attend. Many rookie teams that looked REAL GOOD last year didn't get a shot to attend the Championship (even after winning a reg. rookie award) and they left with a bad taste. That is not good. I hope they return, but don't know. my 4 cents worth. (not even a nickel) |
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Coaches Poll
I feel that the criteria should encompass the following...
1. Eliminate the odd/even teams deal. 2. This is a competition, the national championship should have the best of the best. (This includes all categories, Robotic and Chairmans) 3. Fair number of teams of all experience levels. 4. Hall of fame teams should get auto entry. 5. Innagural teams should get auto entry. 6. The system should allow for even teams who didn't win an award to qualify due to ability. (i.e. team 95 in 2002 who had the best offensive robot in the country yet didn't qualify for nationals) With that said, I shall go off on my tangent for what I feel would be a good system. 1. All regional champions and award winners qualify for nationals. 2. All FIRST Hall of Fame teams gain automatic entry. 3. Innaugural teams gain automatic entry. (I know many people don't like this, but for teams who have been around for 13 years, and have paid their dues, its the least that FIRST can do.) 4. There should be a quota for teams involved. (i.e. x number of rookies, y number of 2-4 year teams, z number of 5-7 year teams, etc....) 5. Teams should be chosen by "coaches poll" To elaborate on what I feel would be the big portion of this, the coaches poll, here is tangent number 2.... The coaches poll encompasses the idea that who knows more about what teams deserve to go to nationals than the teams competing against them. This will allow for great teams who dont win awards to get into the nationals. This would be done by giving each team a ballot at every regional. At the conclusion of each regional, each team should hand in the ballot with a certain number of teams that they feel should attend nationals. At the end, top vote getters from every experience class would gain invitation to the national championship. This would allow for teams to go by various things they see that encompass the true meaning of FIRST. For instance a team could vote for team xxx if they like the robot, or team yyy because of their constant showing of gracious professionalism towards others every year out. Fact of the matter is that there is no way that everyone is gonna be happy, and whether we like it or not, FIRST is getting too big to allow all teams to go to the championship event. That is why it is important for there to be more focus on the regional events, to make sure that especially rookie teams get the feel and excitement of the nationals, in each regional event. Furthermore I think that it is about time for FIRST to separate the dates of the nationals and regionals so that proper planning could be achieved by teams. Maybe for 05' Have a great winter all, Andy Grady |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Some interesting thoughts
What about doing something similar to the NCAA basketball tournament?
Four people at FIRST could receive input from judges / FIRST volunteers / referrees, etc. (all officials) throughout the season. Then, there could be a selection show - webcast of course - in which the four championship divisions are selected. Selection criteria would be performance based (number 1 seeds, champions, finalists, etc.) and non-performance based (best design, creativity, etc.). Award winners would obviously warrant more consideration, as they did something to warrant extra recognition during the season. Selection would continue until the field is complete, not necessarily relying on any past performance, and should take into account awards and what-not mentioned above, average performance (similar to win-loss record in NCAA), availability of team to attend nationals (not exactly like a team being eligible for post-season play, but somewhat similar), extraneous conditions (similar to injuries, etc.), etc. I'm kind of opposed to any kind of team poll. Unfortunately, I see this too easily getting out of hand and becoming more of a popularity contest. Lesser known teams will likely be overlooked, and larger teams will dominate this aspect. Even teams that have a profound impact on another team may not be considered if word doesn't travel fast enough. I'm very much opposed to basing qualifications on an essay and taping it to a wall for judges to review. It's called the FIRST Robotics Competition for a reason. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Chairman's Award is very important, and teams that win this should be recognized (and attend nationals), but when the entire championship event attendance is based on essays and does not at all consider performance, it should be renamed the Essay Event, and not the Championship. |
|
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
diversity of Opinions
All of this wonderful diversity of opinions and unique perspectives only solidifies my point (post#39) and some of the view points of Mike Martus (post #44).
We will do a diservice to the teams and the competition, if we change everything without careful consideration. I just don't see how you can assess the entire situation carefully in an 8 day time frame. Al Ostrow Coach Team 341 |
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: diversity of Opinions
Quote:
That's why we're being asked to describe what characteristics are important to us rather than to recommend an entirely new system. It could be that they're just trying to decide among new criteria they've already created rather than draft it from scratch in a week's time. |
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Question - What makes the best the best? Is it by winning or competing. How many teams were not in the top 8 but were "better" robots? Teams that have large bucks can add much to a robot. Are they better than the team that has to eke out a robot on a shoe string budget? Which of these teams is best?
One of the things I find most impressive about FIRST is the spirit of gracious professionalism. Everybody helping everybody else. Weak teams become stronger, stronger teams become wiser and everyone is encouraged. Boy it would be great to win Championship but you ask the other teams that were there if they were disappointed or discouraged when they left I think that they would all say it was rewarding and exciting. It was a time of celebration to all that were there. Should some teams get a free pass forever? I don't think so. Rewarding them for a 4 year period with a free pass is ample. We shouldn't be living off of others accomplishments. Teams that were here from the start are thanked continuously by others for there experience. Free pass though? Think of the new team with bright eager eyes being told I'm sorry you can't attend cause we are giving your spot to a team that just happened to be started sooner than they are. Lets keep our eyes on the real reason for FIRST. To ENCOURAGE students into the Sciences and Technology fields. We need to try and be fair to all. Will it happen? Not likely because everything isn't fair. Can we strive to be fair? That is my hope. Once FIRST moves into competition is number 1 then we become just another sport and we start to shun the weaker teams. I see a bright future for FIRST if it keeps its eyes on what made it what it is today. Sorry for the ranting!!! |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|