**FIRST EMAIL**/2013 Championship Registration/2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadlines/As

[Patrick Flynn]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

What seems odd at the moment is that a team who double qualifies in their first event and then wins a 2nd event only generates one wild card (1986), while a team who qualifies at an early event and double qualifies at a second event would generate two wild cards (340). Instead of 39 wild cards, this group would have only generated 22.

It is my understanding that a team like 340 would have only created one wildcard slot, this is because they won both EI and regional win at their second regional after already qualifying at their first regional. And only the RW spot would have become a wild card.

If a team who wins a Regional in 2013 – in other words, if a team who is a member of the Winning Alliance – has already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013, a ‘Wild Card’ slot is created at the Regional which they just won.

It appears that EI and RCA would not create wild card slots even if the teams that are receiving them at their second regional had already qualified. This also means that a team that receives RW, RCA, RW in that order at three different regional would create one wild card slot while a team winning in the order of RCA, RW, RW would create 2.
I believe that this also means that the numbers you provided for total wild card slots should be lower because 2056 and 1114... would only have created 2 wild card slots because you have to exclude their RCA

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Patrick Flynn

I believe that this also means that the numbers you provided for total wild card slots should be lower because 2056 and 1114... would only have created 2 wild card slots because you have to exclude their RCA

You are more correct. I got stuck somewhere between what I wanted Frank to say, and what he actually said. It looks like there would have only been 19 wild card slots generated, with 16 and 2056 generating 2 each. (1114 would have only generated 1 wild card.)

The RW's in bold below would have generated a wild card under the new guideline.
(Edit: Wild Card berths would have been offered to the teams in blue.)

16 KC (RW), IL (RW) 111, DA (RW)3676
48 PIT (RW), PIT (RCA), WI (RW)2481
148 IL (RW), DA (RW)2948
181 MD (RW), CT (RW)1071
233 FL (RW), FL (RCA), MA (RW) 125 already won NY so it would go to their first pick 2084
234 TN (RW), TN (RCA)
246 MA (RW), MA (RCA)
281 SC (RW), SC (RCA)
340 ROC (RCA), OH (RW)188 was offered 1507's spot, so 1270., OH (RCA)
359 HI (RW), TX (RW) 624 and 1477 already qualified, so their third finalist member 2773 would go.
384 VA (RW), VA (EI)
971 SAC (RW), SJ (RW)1868 won chairman's at SAC, so it would go to 3256.
987 CA (RW), NV (RW) 2485
1114 ON (RW), ON (RCA), WAT (RW) 1503
1311 GA (RCA), NC (RW) 2614 already won Pit, so 1771.
1477 STX (RW), LA (RW) 2992 , LA (EI)
1507 ROC (RW), OH (RW) 188
1540 OK (RW), OK (RCA)
1592 FL (RW), SFL (RW) 1065
1714 DMN (RW), DMN (EI)
1717 CA (RW), CAF (RW) 1323, but also qualified due to EI at same event.
1983 WAS (RW), WAS (RCA)
1985 MO (RW), MO (RCA)
1986 KC (RW), KC (EI), MO (RW) 1208
2046 WA2 (RW), WA2 (RCA)
2056 ON (RW), WAT (RW) 2852, WAT (RCA), ON2 (RW) 3161
2169 DMN (RW), DMN (RCA)
3940 OHC (RW), OHC (RAS) (added in edit)
3990 QC (RW), QC (RAS)
4001 ON2 (RW), ON2 (RAS)
4226 MN2 (RW), MN2 (RAS)

PS. It looks like Dallas East and Waterloo (and Buckeye) would have been the real finds last year with 2 wild card spots generated each.

PPS. Could 111 have declined the wild card berth (since they are a hall of fame team) and would it have passed on to Team Hammond (71) keeping their championship streak alive?

[smistthegreat]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

PS. It looks like Dallas East and Waterloo would have been the real finds last year with 2 wild card spots generated each.

Buckeye also would have provided 2 wild card spots, as RWs 1507 and 340 both qualified earlier at FLR (RW and RCA, respectively).

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

PPS. Could 111 have declined the wild card berth (since they are a hall of fame team) and would it have passed on to Team Hammond (71) keeping their championship streak alive?

No. Under the Wild Card rules...

Wild Card slots are passed to the next team in order only if the team occupying that Wild Card slot has, itself, already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013.

(emphasis mine)

So, 111 could have declined the wild card berth, but at that point it would have become unused/unusable.

[BrendanB]

So based on this year the Wild Card wouldn't have made much of a difference and with more regions moving to the district system it will be used less and less.

So waitlisted teams will still be used a lot for RCA, HOF, and Original teams when they qualify for CMP through awards and winning events.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

BTW... the 16 teams in the Texas District was told to me months ago before Lubbock was announced, so I think you're right about the increase to 24 teams.

Texas still had four regionals last year, with both Dallas East and Dallas West.

Originally Posted by IndySam

You can't imagine? I know you have a better imagination than that Oh and I never use the word fair.

I have quite an imagination, but with that imagination I can also imagine the gripes and objections that can be created to any system put in place.

Originally Posted by IndySam

My biggest objection is not to giving those extra spots out on a merit basis it's more about giving it to the runner-up alliance, I just don't think that would be the best way. How are they really anymore deserving of the spot than any other alliance that the regional winner defeated? They just had better timing.

I would much rather see them reward teams that did well during the qualifying part of the tournament. That would at least give some extra emphasis to doing well in qualifying.

If you're going to make that argument, you should probably disclose that 829 was the #1 seed at two events last year, but didn't reach the finals at either event. You pretty clearly have circumstances that would impact your opinion on this matter. It's only natural you would favor a system that rewards qualification success.

I can see and understand the logic behind that argument, but why is that any better of a system than finalists? Basing championship qualification off of a series of matches played with random partners and against random opponents? Hardly any less based on luck than where you fall in the elimination bracket.

And of course the finalists are more deserving than the other teams the winning alliance defeated. Are they "better" than the other alliances? Not automatically. But they are certainly more deserving. They defeated two opposing alliances in the elimination tournament. They won their matches. The same can't be said of alliances that fell in the quarter or semi-finals.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Texas still had four regionals last year, with both Dallas East and Dallas West.

Yep... but I got the 16 slots number from someone pretty-high in the FIRST hierarchy... that's all I know regarding proposed in Texas.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

If you're going to make that argument, you should probably disclose that 829 was the #1 seed at two events last year, but didn't reach the finals at either event. You pretty clearly have circumstances that would impact your opinion on this matter. It's only natural you would favor a system that rewards qualification success.

Yes, 829 was a #1 and #2 seed but would not have received a wild card in either instance had the top unqualified seed been given a spot last year.