Divisions 2012

[lemiant]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

I'd go as far as to say 1717 equals 2056 in... bridge balancing.

This is wrong. 1717 did not balance at all in CVR Elims. In fact they have a negative bridge OPR, as such I highly doubt that they will be part of a triple. 1717 makes up for this by just being an incredible shooter!

[EricH]

Originally Posted by SuperNerd256

Agreed. And Newton's gonna win.

They aren't. Not because 67/2056 is unstoppable (remember, 469 and 1114 was unstoppable in 2010), but because the odds of the stacked division winning are low.

It happens every year: The division lists come out, some division is quickly pegged as stacked, and predicted to win it all. Sometime on Einstein, that alliance loses two, and they don't win it all. This may be due to the epic battles royale in the divisional eliminations, or the breakup of really, really top teams, or something else entirely.

The only thing more predictable is Curie not winning it all.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

Originally Posted by lemiant

This is wrong. 1717 did not balance at all in CVR Elims. In fact they have a negative bridge OPR, as such I highly doubt that they will be part of a triple. 1717 makes up for this by just being an incredible shooter!

Eh, they seem like the kind of team who is always improving. I wouldn't assume previous outcome equal to future outcome.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by EricH

They aren't. Not because 67/2056 is unstoppable (remember, 469 and 1114 was unstoppable in 2010), but because the odds of the stacked division winning are low.

It happens every year: The division lists come out, some division is quickly pegged as stacked, and predicted to win it all. Sometime on Einstein, that alliance loses two, and they don't win it all. This may be due to the epic battles royale in the divisional eliminations, or the breakup of really, really top teams, or something else entirely.

The only thing more predictable is Curie not winning it all.

The "stacked" division won both in 2008, 2009, 2011.... That's 3 of 4 recent years.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by lemiant

This is wrong. 1717 did not balance at all in CVR Elims. In fact they have a negative bridge OPR, as such I highly doubt that they will be part of a triple. 1717 makes up for this by just being an incredible shooter!

1717 co-op bridged with us very easily.

They also have what is functionally the same exact drive as us (eerily similar considering their independent development).

We've done multiple triples with ease, and they have more ground clearance along with a better driver. If 1717 wants to triple at champs, they can.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by lemiant

This is wrong. 1717 did not balance at all in CVR Elims. In fact they have a negative bridge OPR, as such I highly doubt that they will be part of a triple. 1717 makes up for this by just being an incredible shooter!

Can they be wide? Check.
Can they drive? Check.

Those two things pretty much assure that they COULD be part of a triple balance.

Not saying it's going to happen or that it's in their best interest to do it...but, they definitely can be part of a triple balance.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

The "stacked" division won both in 2008, 2009, 2011.... That's 3 of 4 recent years.

After not winning in a BUNCH of other years. 2007, Curie. 2005, Archimedes, IIRC (might be another, but not Newton). I want to say it was Galileo in 2004--Archimedes won. I don't remember the stacked division in 2006, but it might have been Newton with the 254/968 twins. (I don't remember which division won.)

2004, 2005, 2007, 2010, stacked didn't win.
2008, 2009, 2011, stacked won.
2006 needs more research.

I think that's a bit more odds against the stacked division winning than 25%...

[jwfoss]

Originally Posted by EricH

2006 needs more research.

Newton 2006 was IMHO the most stacked division I can remember in my 10 years in FIRST.

Newton ended up being finalists...

[Doc Wu]

Originally Posted by nahstobor

From just the look at who's in which division, this is the most balanced CMP I have witnessed in a long time. If the superstars can't lock up the #1 seeds, expect a lot of parody.

I like a little parody every now and then.

I expect to see some parity, too.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by nahstobor

From just the look at who's in which division, this is the most balanced CMP I have witnessed in a long time. If the superstars can't lock up the #1 seeds, expect a lot of parody.

Its a bit harder for any one robot to seed #1 in a larger champs division. With 100 teams in the division, and only 9 matches, you have a maximum of 18 unique partners and 27 unique opponents. There will be some schedules much easier than others. Having a larger field of participants, fewer qualification matches, and continuing the diverse qualification structure (over 50% not directly based on robot performance) almost ensures this.

If you are a great robot you can always guarantee one great robot on your alliance. That puts the odds in the favor of great robots, but it's not always enough. I predict 5 of the top 8 will be outstanding robots. 3 will make you scratch your head at the system. The #1 seed may be one of those 3 head scratchers.

Originally Posted by EricH

The only thing more predictable is Curie not winning it all.

I remember losing in the finals on Curie in 2010 to 1114, 469, and 2041. We all thought that would be the year. This is now 1986's 3rd consecutive year on Curie. To borrow a slogan from the last place KC Royals "It's Our Time" The curse will be broken!

[stundt1]

I think this year has been a bunch of upsets and with the co-op points affecting seeding heavily this year. I believe there will be upsets this year as there has been all season.

But there is a high chance this year that a robot could get a good schedule and end up seeding high maybe breaking up powerhouses. Like the 2056/1114 breakup.

I do think arch is my prediction to win.....

[RMiller]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

To borrow a slogan from the last place KC Royals "It's Our Time" The curse will be broken!

Odd choice, since it has been 26 years since the Royals have made the postseason!

[JB987]

Originally Posted by EricH

The only thing more predictable is Curie not winning it all.

Maybe the Curie winners should just concede their Einstein matches and pack it up...no way to break a curse, right? (Insert missing sarcasm Smile)

[MichaelBick]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

1717 co-op bridged with us very easily.

They also have what is functionally the same exact drive as us (eerily similar considering their independent development).

We've done multiple triples with ease, and they have more ground clearance along with a better driver. If 1717 wants to triple at champs, they can.

Also, we were supposed to coop with them at LA. First match, they were not working due to comm issues(FMS problems, not them). We got a rematch, and then we got comm issues. So the balance didn't happen. They can definitely balance. I've even heard the reason they chose to not double in CVR finals, was because they felt they could score more than 10(which came out to be true). Furthermore, they can turn their wheels sideways so that they act like brakes.

[eli2410]

Anyone else notice Da Vinci as a playing field on the list with the FRC fields? Last I checked, there isn't a Da Vinci field.
http://championship2012.usfirst.org/...playing-fields