Qualifying for CMP in the future

[Ankit S.]

Originally Posted by dodar

*Or the extra slots could be given by best overall record

Not by record. Team A could be a high tier team, and get really unlucky with their schedule, giving them a 12-7-1 record across 2 regionals.

Team B could be a middle tier team with not as tough matches, and end up with a 14-4-2 record.

According to this, Team B should "move on" because they are the "better" team.

It may not happen when many teams have near perfect or perfect records, but when looking between 2 teams that are close to the cut, that schedule could make a difference.

[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.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by 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.

If RCA winners were not given an automatic invitation to the Championship, and the award were to be judged like the website award:

A large part of the determination of the Chairman's Award is the presentation. If some teams didn't qualify based on points, they might be unable to send a small delegation of members to St. Louis to make the presentation, and thus would be out of the running for the award unless some major changes were made to the judging process. That's why I don't think that that change will happen.


Come to think of it, there is probably already some policy set in place for teams who win an RCA but cannot attend the Championship. I don't know what it would be - does anyone know if one exists, and if so, what it is?

----

In MI, winning a district no longer guarantees you a spot at States. However, each team is guaranteed two events. If the same exact point system was applied to the entire program, there would be problems. If the rankings were based off of one event, I think that there would be several ties for spots. Additionally, not all teams have the funding or ability to attend more than one event.

FIRST has a huge problem on their hands, and they know it. There are a lot of "what if"s and "on the other hand"s, and in the end there will be some tough decisions to make. I look forward to seeing what they make out of the situation.

[pathew100]

Assume that FIRST wants each team to at least have the opportunity to experience the Championship every 3-4 years. (So that students could go at least once while they are in high school.) This is basically the system they have now.

How do they do that with 2500 teams? 3000? 4000?

I know this is way way outside the box. Two events. One West coast, one East coast/Midwest.

Does it lessen any goals of the program? Not really. There are a ton of reasons why something like this might not be feasible. But it's an option.

[Hawiian Cadder]

what if they ran 2 championship events, one starting on friday, and going to tuesday, one going from wednessday, and going to saturday. in the same venue. then, the top alliances from every division over both matches face off on Einstein. which will have extensive tv coverage. they would need a smaller venue. so they would be more flexible, a smaller venue would also cost less. and if this were the case, i think that many more of the top rate robots would make it.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by pathew100

Assume that FIRST wants each team to at least have the opportunity to experience the Championship every 3-4 years. (So that students could go at least once while they are in high school.) This is basically the system they have now.

How do they do that with 2500 teams? 3000? 4000?

I know this is way way outside the box. Two events. One West coast, one East coast/Midwest.

Does it lessen any goals of the program? Not really. There are a ton of reasons why something like this might not be feasible. But it's an option.

Over 2000 teams now. Champs had ~350 teams this year. FIRST is clearly way past the 3-4 year ideal.

[Nemo]

Originally Posted by pathew100

Assume that FIRST wants each team to at least have the opportunity to experience the Championship every 3-4 years. (So that students could go at least once while they are in high school.) This is basically the system they have now.

How do they do that with 2500 teams? 3000? 4000?

I know this is way way outside the box. Two events. One West coast, one East coast/Midwest.

Does it lessen any goals of the program? Not really. There are a ton of reasons why something like this might not be feasible. But it's an option.

Here's another one outside the box. How about having a few super regionals (mentioned above). Make them two fields each, then make the championship two fields instead of four. That allows more teams to experience a big event, keeps the championship more exclusive which should drive up the level of play, and it fixes some space issues at the CMP.

[Madison]

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.

In FTC, only the alliance captain of the winning alliance qualifies for the Championship.

I don't like that system in the least. It's an insult to that team's partners and I'm shocked it exists at all, but it is what it is.

[Cory]

I'm not a big fan of not qualifying the third partner of the winning alliance.

Teams in general can be shockingly bad at picking and you end up with great robots that slip to the tail end of the second round. In general the 24th pick is probably weaker than the 16th, but unless the event is very small it's probably not a massive difference.

For example 254 was able to pick 111 and then 973 as the 23rd robot picked in the draft on Galileo this year. 973 was the MVP of our alliance and 5th on our pick list. We were utterly shocked that we were able to pick them. We would not have won Championships without them.

If that had been a regional and the third pick weren't qualified for champs, that would be a travesty. Obviously that's one extremely specific example and it isn't often that one of the top 8 robots by anyone's metrics falls so far, but we have been lucky enough to have a number of very competitive partners come from the tail end of the draft over the years.

[catsylve]

If so many people think that RCA, EI and RAS winners should be encouraged to come to championship and not compete, why not restructure championship to allow them a separate competition? I think you should stick to your guns and present FIRST with options that allow this to happen so that the competition is a quality competition. The RCA, EI and RAS winners could have a good time at competition themselves, instead of getting beaten up on the field or even feeling bad for being in a position where they feel they have caused a really strong team to lose the competition. They should come to compete at what they are strongest at. Instead of eliminating the 3rd alliance members, who legitimately helped those teams get there, set up a separate competition for the Chairmans teams.

[Nawaid Ladak]

I went back and i still support this idea. stick the Rookie All-Star, EI and Chairmans award winners in the heats. and let them compete for spots at the big show.

The RCA winners who didn't get to play in the big show would be able to give their presentations on Tues/Wed/Thurs. so that the winner could be announced either at Opening Ceremonies on Friday (woah, considering the event would technically start Tuesday, that would be awkward). or some other time during the big show. This would make enough room for 564 teams to technically attend the Championship event and have a shot to compete for the World Championship.

[OZ_341]

At the 2009 SD Regional and the 2010 NYC Regional we would simply not have won without our 3rd partner. They were both relentless in playing defense.
It would have been a crime if they had not qualified.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Nawaid Ladak

I went back and i still support this idea. stick the Rookie All-Star, EI and Chairmans award winners in the heats. and let them compete for spots at the big show.

The RCA winners who didn't get to play in the big show would be able to give their presentations on Tues/Wed/Thurs. so that the winner could be announced either at Opening Ceremonies on Friday (woah, considering the event would technically start Tuesday, that would be awkward). or some other time during the big show. This would make enough room for 564 teams to technically attend the Championship event and have a shot to compete for the World Championship.

So... you're going to fly all of these teams out to St. Louis, have them compete in a couple matches on Tuesday/Wednesday/whatever, and then tell them they didn't qualify for the actual Championships? How do they book their flights, hotels, etc.?

[Michael Corsetto]

District Competition/State Championship Model

It has been discussed before, and I know its gonna happen, eventually. Maybe not this year, or next year, but soon. FIRST is getting too big to qualify 6 teams from every event.

At a first glance, this is a total bummer.

But when you think about it a little more, the Michigan State Championship this year was AWESOME! Check out the ABC full length feature if you don't believe me (skip the ads): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq1Lq_n3Tfc

Imagine an established district system where EVERY local championship was this intense! Just getting to that level would be so exciting! Obviously, the World Championship would be just that much better, but if FIRST wants to get as big as it is think it wants to, this is how it will need to be.

I think California is next for the district model, just saying

-Mike

[rsisk]

I don't like any system that would reduce the importance of RCA. RCA winners should go and compete just like any other team that makes it to CMP. Remember that RCA is the culture changing part of FIRST, if you reduce it, then we are just a robotic competition, nothing more.

If an award needs to be removed from qualifying for CMP, I would suggest EI and then RAS in that order. But don't ever remove RCA from the mix.

Kara, in answer to your question earlier about RCA winners that don't go to CMP. They have to register for CMP just like any other team in order to compete for CCA. If they don't register, they do not compete for CCA.

I do like the idea of having events that do not qualify for CMP similar to what they do in FiM. So have qualifying competitions that lead to regionals that lead to CMP.

That should solve things until we get to the size where FLL is and you get to a lottery system and then some of the best teams risk not being able to go to CMP.