Qualifying for CMP in the future

[akoscielski3]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

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.

lets do it ... or make our own multi billion dollar facility specially designed for FIRST and championships

[artdutra04]

Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.

Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.

So what do we do? A year or two ago I had a long discussion with my father about this, and basically what came up with as a solution was similar to the Michigan district model, but without the "walled off enclave" of not allowing teams to travel around. So here's our idea:

The new model of FRC competition structuring would have three tiers, Tier 1 events are "District" level events with maximum of 30-40 teams, Tier 2 events are "Regional" events with 50-70 teams, and the Tier 3 event is the Championship.

Your initial registration of $5000 can be used to apply to two Tier 1 events or one Tier 2 event. Tier 1 events are held in Weeks 0-4, and are all Bag-N-Tag. Tier 2 events are held in Weeks 3-6. Using a points-based system similar to Michigan, winning various awards at the Tier 1 events qualifies you for a spot at a Tier 2 event. Additional Tier 1 events cost $2500 to register, and additional Tier 2 events cost $4000 to register.

Eligibility to play at Championships is only available to those who win one of the six traditional spots at Tier 2 events (or have automatic entry, or won a lottery spot back in open registration in the fall).

What this allows is for:

• The "one regional and out" teams can now attend two smaller events for the price of one.
• Teams who like "traditional" regionals have the option to only register for Tier 2 events.
• This reduces the number of events giving berths to the Championship.
• This eliminates all the problems that would arise would a "let's draw an arbitrary invisible line on a map to decide what events you can and can't attend" if the Michigan district model was exactly cloned elsewhere. There are always going to be teams near the border who get screwed, and I've never liked the "no outsiders" rule.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.

Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.

So what do we do? A year or two ago I had a long discussion with my father about this, and basically what came up with as a solution was similar to the Michigan district model, but without the "walled off enclave" of not allowing teams to travel around. So here's our idea:

The new model of FRC competition structuring would have three tiers, Tier 1 events are "District" level events with maximum of 30-40 teams, Tier 2 events are "Regional" events with 50-70 teams, and the Tier 3 event is the Championship.

Your initial registration of $5000 can be used to apply to two Tier 1 events or one Tier 2 event. Tier 1 events are held in Weeks 0-4, and are all Bag-N-Tag. Tier 2 events are held in Weeks 3-6. Using a points-based system similar to Michigan, winning various awards at the Tier 1 events qualifies you for a spot at a Tier 2 event. Additional Tier 1 events cost $2500 to register, and additional Tier 2 events cost $4000 to register.

Eligibility to play at Championships is only available to those who win one of the six traditional spots at Tier 2 events (or have automatic entry, or won a lottery spot back in open registration in the fall).

What this allows is for:

• The "one regional and out" teams can now attend two smaller events for the price of one.
• Teams who like "traditional" regionals have the option to only register for Tier 2 events.
• This reduces the number of events giving berths to the Championship.
• This eliminates all the problems that would arise would a "let's draw an arbitrary invisible line on a map to decide what events you can and can't attend" if the Michigan district model was exactly cloned elsewhere. There are always going to be teams near the border who get screwed, and I've never liked the "no outsiders" rule.

Would you have to pay to attend the Tier 2 event after qualifying for it via Tier 1 events? If so, whats the benefit to attempting this way vs just paying your way into Tier 2 events?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Would you have to pay to attend the Tier 2 event after qualifying for it via Tier 1 events? If so, whats the benefit to attempting this way vs just paying your way into Tier 2 events?

You could do a reduced registration scheme--if you attend 2x Tier 1 events and qualify for your local Tier 2 event, you only have to pay half of the cost, or something like that. But if you don't attend 2 Tier 1 events, then you pay full cost for the Tier 2. Tier 3 would always be full cost.

I like the idea; I think it could work out at least as well as the MI district system.

[artdutra04]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

Would you have to pay to attend the Tier 2 event after qualifying for it via Tier 1 events? If so, whats the benefit to attempting this way vs just paying your way into Tier 2 events?

There would likely be a reduced registration cost if you win your way into a Tier 2 event; as for why a team would choose to compete in Tier 1 events to win their way into a Tier 2 event, they a) would have more driving experience, and b) based on the regional, there would perhaps only be about 30 available slots for any team to apply to a Tier 2 event without winning, the rest would have to be kept aside for point winners of Tier 1 events.

[PhilBot]

I think it's interesting the way the numbers come out when you look at the odds of getting to CMP.

FRC had 2075 active teams this year and 352 get to go. That's about 6:1
FTC had 1500 active teams and 128 get to go. That's about 12:1
FLL had 17100 active teams and 81 get to go. That's about 211:1

So, it's odd that the further you go up the chain, the more likely it is you earn a spot to CMP. One in six FRC teams get to go....

Maybe it's getting too easy... or maybe we're all feeling just a little bit too "entitled".

I agree that it's a great learning experience etc. to go to CMP, but if that's the reason we go, let's call it a FIRST Convention and let everyone go. If it really is a WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP... let's make it a bit harder to qualify.

JMHO. Not looking to change anyone's mind.

Facts from http://www.usfirst.org/aboutus/content.aspx?id=160

[AlecMataloni]

How about EI winners get financial grants for their team by whoever's sponsoring the award instead of championship spots?

Just a suggestion, not my personal opinion at all. I just want to see what people think.

[waialua359]

No problem with it this year right?
For every new regional they add, reduce at large bids by 6.

St. Louis is only for two more years. After that, find another larger venue. The bigger the world tournament and with FIRST growing, it just has to get bigger!

[Madison]

Give FTC and FLL their own events.

Problem solved.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by waialua359

No problem with it this year right?

For the first time, open registration ran out before teams that had attended the Championship the previous year won.

I think the Championship qualification system needs some work. If 177 won WPI, 40 would not have attended Championships. If some other team won Smoky Mountain, we wouldn't have seen 71. If 973 won a regional in 2010, they wouldn't have been at the Championship this year. If you can look at Einstein and find that lots of major players wouldn't have gotten there, you have to take issue with the qualification system.

Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.

[Libby K]

I don't have any suggestions for HOW to make it better because a lot of ideas have been covered already. I can only imagine how difficult these decisions must be for FIRST. However, I just want to echo this sentiment.

Originally Posted by artdutra04

Not qualifying the third alliance partner for championships? Absolutely horrible idea. It's the alliance that wins a Regional, not an individual team.

Not counting RCA, EI, or RAS for qualifying? Again, absolutely horrible idea. These are the awards that recognize teams who are achieving the actual goals of FIRST.

Especially the awards. The Chairman's Award is the reason we're here. If you take away the award about changing the culture, you lose what makes FIRST unique. FIRST wasn't started because we needed to whack a bunch of robots around. FIRST was created because America (at the time, we were USFIRST) was falling behind in STEM education and it needed a way to celebrate engineers as the rockstars of our generation.

Originally Posted by FIRST Website

Vision
"To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders."
Dean Kamen, Founder

Mission
Our mission is to inspire young people to be science and technology leaders, by engaging them in exciting mentor-based programs that build science, engineering and technology skills, that inspire innovation, and that foster well-rounded life capabilities including self-confidence, communication, and leadership.

This stuff seems to be beaten into us at every turn by FIRST and its media, but from this thread, it looks like nobody's listening.

If you remove qualification for the teams that are doing what we're really here for? You've lost the point. Those teams that are getting it right need to be celebrated on a Championship stage just as much as the ones who produce a winning robot.

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.

That would let us go back to a 3 day event, instead of a 3.5 day event.

edit: Oh yeah....great idea Art!

[Jon236]

Originally Posted by AlecMataloni

How about EI winners get financial grants for their team by whoever's sponsoring the award instead of championship spots?

Just a suggestion, not my personal opinion at all. I just want to see what people think.

I think NASA is going to do just that for US Regionals; that will be in addition for EI teams going to Champs.

I think Art's idea has a lot of merit. The best part of it will be the greater driving experience teams will have, leading to improved performance.

[dodar]

I mean, I remember seeing someone in this thread or another saying that we didnt even use all of the space that the pit area was in. We could put 7 fields in the Dome(6 FRC + Einstein/FLL) and 2 fields in the pits(2 FRC + all FTC). Of course I also did like the idea of having the FLL and FTC events on their own. You could do those events on Monday-Wednesday and have theirs ending right when FRC comes to begin. Of course if they do separate FTC/FLL from FRC, then you could do entirely 7 in the Dome and 2 in the Pits or 6 in the Dome + concert stage, then after Friday, build Einstein where the stage was.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

For the first time, open registration ran out before teams that had attended the Championship the previous year won.

I think the Championship qualification system needs some work. If 177 won WPI, 40 would not have attended Championships. If some other team won Smoky Mountain, we wouldn't have seen 71. If 973 won a regional in 2010, they wouldn't have been at the Championship this year. If you can look at Einstein and find that lots of major players wouldn't have gotten there, you have to take issue with the qualification system.

Personally, I think 8 smaller divisions would be great. 4 in the stands, 4 in some building near the pits. 60 teams per division.

As great as those teams are, and the results we got this year, everyone is in the same boat. Every team regardless of their history, should be given the same opportunity to attend. If at large bids decrease or go away entirely, as a result to FIRST growing, then you just need to be 1 of those 6 ways to qualify (non-MSC).
Art has a great idea, but I have just one concern. What about teams that cant drive to an event or isn't financially feasible to be a part of a district type event?
If FRC is a world championships, and it expects teams to grow outside the US, then what?
How many of you will be able to participate in the Australia tournament if it indeed happens as planned in 2014?