Qualifying for CMP in the future

[thefro526]

Some of the EWCP guys and I were talking about this subject actually.

Personally, I think CMP should go to a Michigan State-like qualifying system - weighted in such a way that an event winner or RCA team would automatically qualify. This would also allow 'good' teams who don't win still qualify, especially if they received two finalist awards or something like that...

In theory, this could lead to an more competitive event overall (Most teams would get in based on performance on the field) and could result in a more competitive season all together. (teams that usually go to the CMP for 'fun' would now have to earn their way in by performing well.)

Just a thought.

[Taylor]

Someone please remind me what the acronym FIRST stands for. I don't believe the R stands for Robots. (I know, I know, FRC does, but tbtp.)
If we are to Recognize and be Inspired by Science and Technology, then absolutely the RCA, EI, and RAS teams should be included; I'd go a step further and say the RCAs and EIs should get prominent pit locations. Let's celebrate what we intend to celebrate - display the RCAs and EIs as the center of attention.
RAS - absolutely should be included. Having worked with a RAS team in 2010, the CMP experience absolutely lit a fire underneath that team that will smolder for years.

Having said that,

I also agree with what Nawaid said. The idea of a play-in bracket is one worth pursuing - it worked well for VCU BB in March, didn't it? The EIs and RASs are there the same duration as the other teams; they have a play-in bracket on, say, the dormant Einstein field, on Thursday. (I know FLL is there, we can be creative with that) The four winning alliances are plugged in as 8-seeds on Newton, Archimedes, Curie, and Galileo. These teams can get the recognition they deserve; their pit location can be fluid, and it will take some of the pressure off the very crowded A/C/G/N pits and fields.


*This is for RAS, EI, and RCA recipients that did not win their events

[jwfoss]

Another vote for the District Event Model as discussed back in 2009:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...district+model

Michigan can do it in a state because of the the dense population of teams, but I can see New England doing it as a regional thing. There are plenty of teams in the area that could strongly benifit from lower costs and more field time. I hope this is in the works for the near future.

[Nawaid Ladak]

Originally Posted by Taylor

Having said that,

I also agree with what Nawaid said. The idea of a play-in bracket is one worth pursuing - it worked well for VCU BB in March, didn't it? The EIs and RASs are there the same duration as the other teams; they have a play-in bracket on, say, the dormant Einstein field, on Thursday. (I know FLL is there, we can be creative with that) The four winning alliances are plugged in as 8-seeds on Newton, Archimedes, Curie, and Galileo. These teams can get the recognition they deserve; their pit location can be fluid, and it will take some of the pressure off the very crowded A/C/G/N pits and fields.


*This is for RAS, EI, and RCA recipients that did not win their events

Interesting twist to my idea. somehow i don't think the level of competition in the play-in's will be as impressive as the division qualification rounds. those teams would be torched as 8 seeds. but it would be fun to watch. (on another note, i think we can feasibly do 12 alliances if we have 95+ teams per alliance.)

[Peter Matteson]

I'm for the Michigan style system because of what happened with my team this year.

For those that don't know know we seeded 2nd at both regionals we went to and ended up as finalists while picking up the GM Inductrial design award at both events and a WFFA at the WPI regional.

If we had not been pre-qualified as defending champions we would not have been able to get in off the waitlist/open registration. I'm sure other teams with similar seasons were unable to attend and that is a travesty.

I'm also surprised how no one has brought up the fact that there are around 20 "sustaining" teams with atomatic bids to the championship every year. This is another batch of teams that should have to earn their way in at this point.

[Racer26]

I can see a few ways to handle it:

Going to a district system (at least, doing so the same way that FiM did) won't fix the problem that 80% of the seats at CMP are spoken for before the season even starts, but it might slow the problem down some. I have already said I'm a huge proponent for moving to a district system in Canada for sure. (Canadian teams all hail from within a few hours drive of Toronto (outliers being 1535 from Sault Ste Marie, 1305 from North Bay, and the handful for Quebec teams started in the last couple years + 296), with the exception of 1482 who come from Calgary, AB). Theres a high enough concentration of teams to hold 4 districts (Niagara, Toronto, Waterloo, and Quebec, with a Canadian Championship replacing GTR)

Ultimately though, I think the easiest solution is to give the championship event MORE fields. Go to an 8 division setup, with Einstein running a full bracket instead of only Semis and Finals.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

I'm also surprised how no one has brought up the fact that there are around 20 "sustaining" teams with atomatic bids to the championship every year. This is another batch of teams that should have to earn their way in at this point.

There are now 15 teams that qualify as previous CCA winners. This should not change, as the Chairman's award is the highest honour in FIRST.

They are:
16
51
67
103
111
120
151
175
191
236
254
341
359
365
842

There are 7 "original and sustaining" teams that qualify this way, and in my experience, most of them typically qualify by other means anyway.

The 7 teams are:

20 - Finalist at BAE
45
126
148 - 2 event Champion in 2011
151 - Also a CCA winner
190
191 - Also a CCA winner

So in reality this year, there were only 4 original and sustaining teams that were admitted to championship for that reason alone.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

I'm also surprised how no one has brought up the fact that there are around 20 "sustaining" teams with atomatic bids to the championship every year. This is another batch of teams that should have to earn their way in at this point.

There are 7 original and sustaining teams: 20, 45, 126, 148, 151, 190, 191

There will be 15 HoF teams next year with auto bids: 16, 51, 67, 103, 111, 120, 151, 175, 191, 236, 254, 341, 365, 842, 359

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Going to a district system (at least, doing so the same way that FiM did) won't fix the problem that 80% of the seats at CMP are spoken for before the season even starts, but it might slow the problem down some.

How so?

According to the FiM website, 18 teams qualify for the world championships, out of the entire FiM district system. That is 18 teams out of a possible 171. Just over 10%. Now extrapolate that to the 2000 teams in FRC currently, you have just over 200 teams at the Championship. Plus the Oldies/HoF/Former Champion teams, you're looking at 230-240.

Seems pretty sustainable to me, until FIRST gets to be 3500+ teams. Thats a good problem to have.

Maybe we're talking about different problems. Or maybe I don't understand what you mean by 80% of the seats being spoken for.

It seems to me the moving to a district system just makes sense.

-Mike

[Racer26]

I agree, however, MI has grown significantly since the launch of the district model in 2009. In 2008, MI had 3 regionals, each with a population of around 60 teams, with a large overlap between them. (There were 118 MI teams in 2008.)

MI could easily sustain 4 regionals, if not 5 now. FiM is unfairly underrepresented in the current system (also, the district model drives new rookies, because its lower cost)

and why I said it won't fix the problems, is if implemented as FiM was, (delete 3 regionals, replace with districts, + MSC, qualify 3 regionals worth of teams from MSC), you havent changed the number of qualifying based seats at CMP, you've simply moved where they're issued from.

[Jacob Paikoff]

How about instead of 3v3 starting next year the games are 4v4. I know that that would mean an extra team from each regional would qualify, but having two extra teams on the field at a time would make up for the extra 50 or so teams that qualify.

In this system we could have upwards of 120 teams in each division and still play the same number of matches overall while including 160 extra teams.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

I agree, however, MI has grown significantly since the launch of the district model in 2009. In 2008, MI had 3 regionals, each with a population of around 60 teams, with a large overlap between them. (There were 118 MI teams in 2008.)

MI could easily sustain 4 regionals, if not 5 now. FiM is unfairly underrepresented in the current system (also, the district model drives new rookies, because its lower cost)

and why I said it won't fix the problems, is if implemented as FiM was, (delete 3 regionals, replace with districts, + MSC, qualify 3 regionals worth of teams from MSC), you havent changed the number of qualifying based seats at CMP, you've simply moved where they're issued from.

I get what you are saying. I am coming from the perspective that this "10% of teams in a region qualify for the championship" would carry over to each district model. For example, there are 175 teams in California, with 4 regional competitions. That means up to 24 teams qualify. Now take it to the district model, only 18 teams qualify. Not a huge jump, but still significant.

As more regions adopt the district model (which as I've stated before, seems to be the natural evolution of the program) we will see the strain on Championship spots decrease, as long as they follow the same qualification ratio that FiM does.

-Mike

[Tetraman]

Originally Posted by Jacob Paikoff

How about instead of 3v3 starting next year the games are 4v4. I know that that would mean an extra team from each regional would qualify, but having two extra teams on the field at a time would make up for the extra 50 or so teams that qualify.

In this system we could have upwards of 120 teams in each division and still play the same number of matches overall while including 160 extra teams.

The problem with going to a 4v4 game is the number of minimum teams you need for a regional would go up. Teams would play very often in a regional setting, where robots do need to be fixed from time to time. Not only would you need 32 teams per regional (4 robots within 8 seeded alliances), but the quality of the finals matches will diminish as robots with 2-8 records for a regional could very well play in the finals.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Jacob Paikoff

How about instead of 3v3 starting next year the games are 4v4. I know that that would mean an extra team from each regional would qualify, but having two extra teams on the field at a time would make up for the extra 50 or so teams that qualify.

In this system we could have upwards of 120 teams in each division and still play the same number of matches overall while including 160 extra teams.

And fit 500 teams plus two fields in the pits?

Like the idea, but I think FIRST will be rocking the 3v3 for a while.

-Mike

[Racer26]

I dont think that reducing the teams that get to go to the big show is the correct approach. Increasing capacity at CMP is better. If that means moving it to Orlando to be in the worlds largest convention center then so be it.

I did the math a few weeks ago, 10 FRC fields (8 divisions + Einstein/FLL + FTC) CAN be placed in the floor area of the EJD, 4 down each side, plus one between the rows on each end.

Get more pit space (as far as I understood, we only occupied part of the convention center), and bam, you have doubled CMP capacity, and just have to adjust the schedule, and speeches and stuff on Einstein to make more time to hold 8-12 more matches on Einstein.
It would be tight, yes, but it could be done.

Might need a few extra curtains for modifying the directionality of the sound from each field.