Qualifying for CMP in the future

[Nemo]

I am creating a new thread to discuss ideas for a new qualification system for the FRC Championship, because the thread discussing Bill's post focuses mostly on field / pit layout.

http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2011/05/yes-im-already-counting-down-to-kickoff.html


As Bill says in his blog, eventually there will not be enough spots in the Championship to qualify six teams from every regional and 18 more from Michigan.

From the blog:
"This summer we’re going to be taking a long hard look at the future of Championship (CMP). At the current rate of growth for FRC, we are going to face a space crunch at CMP in a few years. Consider this. At each regional, six teams earn a space at CMP (the winning alliance, the Engineering Inspiration winner, the Chairman’s Award winner and the Rookie All Star team). This year we had 48 regionals. Add eighteen teams from the Michigan State CMP (When the District pilot began, the State CMP replaced three Regional events.) and you get a total of 306 teams. 352 teams competed this year. Not every team who qualifies to come to CMP can make it, so there are always a few empty slots, but as we continue to add new regionals each year, we are eventually going to run out of room. In the short run, there will be fewer and fewer spaces for non-qualifying teams at CMP. In the long run, we’re going to have to figure out a new system for determining which teams come to CMP."

Ideas?

[dodar]

I know no one will like this but I say that competing teams should be those who win the Regionals and Rookie All-Star and then everyone else gets in the the MSC qualfying system. Chairman's and EI go but do not compete unless they qualify by points or win a regional, otherwise they would just compete just as Website and Visualization teams do if they weren't invited to CMP in the current format.

[Basel A]

How about a second round of qualification for RCA, EI, and RAS? Sure, you won at your regional, but not every regional winner will be a real competitor at the Championship. I hate to leave people out, but it's not the worst short-term solution I can think of. Michigan is already underrepresented (much, much larger than 2009, but still only 18 qualifiers).

Eventually, this could very well lead to a full two-stage qualification system (Regional Competition -> Regional Championship -> CMP).

[XaulZan11]

I think they should increase the amount of teams that make it in Michigan. The number was based on the 3 regionals they had in 2008, but due to growth in Michigan they probably could have 4 regionals and thus more teams should get invited.

[Nawaid Ladak]

A points system based on performance along with awards (basically, the Michigan system) would be perfect.

a RCA doesn't entitle you to a championship entry. your robot has to perform remotly well to qualify.
winning a regional as a 3rd alliance partner on the #1 alliance at a small regional won't qualify you for championship
backing into a rookie all star because your the only rookie at the event won't get you a spot at championship

... but of course, FIRST won't fly with it. this program isn't about the robots.

[NickE]

It'd be a shame if it came down to it, but they could always just not qualify the 3rd robot on the winning alliance.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by NickE

It'd be a shame if it came down to it, but they could always just not qualify the 3rd robot on the winning alliance.

If that ended up being the case, why do 3v3 then? Why not just go back to 2v2? Would you wanna be that 3rd team on the winning alliance?

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by dodar

If that ended up being the case, why do 3v3 then? Why not just go back to 2v2? Would you wanna be that 3rd team on the winning alliance?

Unfortunately, he's right. There's no way you could do that. Suddenly, it matters so much more which team the 8th alliance picks first! Going back to the 2v2 would be even more terrible. Each team would only get 2/3 of the matches they get now!

[Tknee]

Originally Posted by Basel A

Going back to the 2v2 would be even more terrible. Each team would only get 2/3 of the matches they get now!

How about going back to a hexagonal field and playing 2v2v2? I don't know if the logistics work out for regionals (54 teams would get into elims), but you would get the same amount of matches and one less robot qualifying from each regional.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Tknee

How about going back to a hexagonal field and playing 2v2v2? I don't know if the logistics work out for regionals (54 teams would get into elims), but you would get the same amount of matches and one less robot qualifying from each regional.

You would likely also have two alliances conspiring against the third.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Cory

You would likely also have two alliances conspiring against the third.

I believe this was the original reason for leaving the 1v1v1 system. Also, triangular (or hexagonal) fields don't fit as well as rectangles..

I would like to note that an FRC team in every high school doesn't mean an FRC team for every high school. One team can potentially reach a few schools, especially in urban, even suburban, areas. We may only need 10,000 FRC teams to reach every high school.

As for expanding the district model, Israel seems like a very good place to try it, once they reach 100-ish teams. Not many foreigners are coming in anyway, and every team could reach every event. At 60 teams, they currently only need about 3 district events, but the National Championship wouldn't be much more competitive outside of more events per team. Still, as Israel grows, that may be another possible district system success.

[Tetraman]

Does anyone have an image or graphic that depicts the number of teams in each state? I know there is one somewhere but I can't find it.

I'm working on taking everyone's ideas and making a structured proposal.

[Nemo]

I would be in favor of not qualifying the 3rd robot from the winning alliance.

1) It would not create awkward situations like they have in FTC where the top pick might decline so they can be a captain and have a better chance at qualifying.
2) I think the #10-16 picks would be happy enough to play in elims and have a chance at a banner.
3) There is some awkwardness with the #8 and #9 picks since they are essentially equally seeded. One could argue in favor of allowing all three teams to qualify in cases when the #8 seed wins the event.
4) This move would increase the competitive level of the average team at the Championship.

It would be nice to see a Championship that was more competitive on average during qualifiers than MSC. Accomplishing that while appropriately recognizing and inspiring the RCA / EI / RAS award winners is an interesting challenge.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Nemo

I would be in favor of not qualifying the 3rd robot from the winning alliance.

1) It would not create awkward situations like they have in FTC where the top pick might decline so they can be a captain and have a better chance at qualifying.
2) I think the #10-16 picks would be happy enough to play in elims and have a chance at a banner.
3) There is some awkwardness with the #8 and #9 picks since they are essentially equally seeded. One could argue in favor of allowing all three teams to qualify in cases when the #8 seed wins the event.
4) This move would increase the competitive level of the average team at the Championship.

It would be nice to see a Championship that was more competitive on average during qualifiers than MSC. Accomplishing that while appropriately recognizing and inspiring the RCA / EI / RAS award winners is an interesting challenge.

If you guys want to not qualify the 3rd member of the winning alliance, how would you know if they didnt get a steal and majorly helped that alliance to win? In Florida our alliance picked 744 as our 3rd pick and we got a STEAL. Their minibot got us 30 points every match. Now if we had won because a good number of our matches had 30pts because of that minibot, how could you deny them a slot at CMP?

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by dodar

If you guys want to not qualify the 3rd member of the winning alliance, how would you know if they didnt get a steal and majorly helped that alliance to win? In Florida our alliance picked 744 as our 3rd pick and we got a STEAL. Their minibot got us 30 points every match. Now if we had won because a good number of our matches had 30pts because of that minibot, how could you deny them a slot at CMP?

This is a fair argument. I'm not saying that 2 teams qualifying is ideal, but if you're limited on the number of teams you can send, this is where I'd probably start cutting spots. And most times you'll end up with a #1 or #2 alliance winning, and you're looking at a winning alliance that potentially consists of the 1st, 2nd, and 24th best robots in the competition. Makes a lot of sense to me to qualify the 1st and 2nd best and call it a day.

While I'm at it, I suppose I'll examine the other slots:

Rookie Allstar: I would suggest not qualifying RAS teams. But keep the award around.

Chairman's Award: I'd send all of these teams. I feel happy sending a Chairman's Award winning team to the CMP even if their robot is awful, and I think most of them have fairly competitive robots anyway.

Engineering Inspiration: Similar feelings to RCA award.