**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?

[Siri]

As far as I can tell, these are the would-be wildcards for each multi-qualifying team.
Letters signify whether they went to Worlds anyway: 9(6) yes, 10(13) no.
Teams in parentheses would have wild-carded if double-qualifying a one event (first or otherwise) would have generated another card (as corrected and discussed above)

16: 111Y, 3676N
48: (2641N), 2481N
148: 2948N
181: 1071Y
233: (180Y), 125Y
234: (2386N)
246: (125Y)
281: (2642Y)
340: 188N, (1551N)
359: 624Y
384: (346N)
971: 1868Y
987: 2034N
1114: (610Y), 1503N
1311: 2614Y
1477: 2992N
1507: 1270N
1540: (2389N)
1592: 79Y
1714: (2052N)
1717: 1323Y
1983: (3663N)
1985: (1288N)
1986: 1208Y
2046: (1510N)
2056: 3161N, (244Y) 2852N
2169: (2220Y)
**3940: (3193N)
3990: (176N)
4001: (2634N)
4226: (3293N)


I haven't checked the second-tier rundown (i.e. if the the pre-qualification of these wildcards would have wild-card qualified someone else later). The most striking thing about this list to me though, is that many multi-qualifiers actually didn't generate extra spots (or at least as many as they should). I think it's 19 and 19? The wildcard system would have sent 10 more teams to World last year, but omitted 13 simply because the teams that beat them did it at one event instead of two or their first event instead of their second.

[IndySam]

you guys mean 3940.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by IndySam

you guys mean 3940.

For some bizarre reason, QC* is Montreal and OHC is Queen City. In reality we missed 3940 at Queen City.

3940: OHC (RW), OHC (RAS)
3990: QC (RW), QC (RAS)

Fixed.

*Ok, not bizarre per say, but still. (MTL and QC probably would have been less confusing.)

[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).

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

Now to go figure out who the wildcards would have been.

Sure, why not.

From the original list, posted by Alpha Beta, I've removed all the teams who double qualified at the same event, and did not qualify again. Next, I eliminated the initial qualifying instance of each team. That leaves us with 17 teams generating 19 potential wild card spots. From here I sorted these potential spots by the week that the regional occurred at, to make sure we capture any new wildcard spots generated by wildcard spots created earlier in the season. An extra wild card spot was created by 111 earning a wild card at Midwest, and then going on to win Minnesota North Star. The final results are below, with a list of the 20 wild cards, along with when, where and who they were generated by.

Some immediate observations:
- Only one wild card spot was created prior to week 4
- Wild card spots went to non alliance captains 6/20 times, with a 2nd pick earning one just once.
- The 111 situation is a bit odd, since they're a pre-qualified Hall of Fame team, yet they can still generate a wild card spot by being a wild card, even though they don't need a wild card. It works based on what we know of the rules, but it's definitely counter-intuitive

Team    Event Week WC
1477     LA    3   2992
16       IL    4   111
233      MA    4   78 (1st pick), 125 bypassed -- already qualified
1986     MO    4   1208
340      OH    4   188
1507     OH    4   1551 (1st pick)
1114     WAT   4   1503
2056     WAT   4   2852
48       WI    4   2481
181      CT    5   1071
16       DA    5   3676
148      DA    5   2948 (1st pick)
111*     MN2   5   3293
2056     ON2   5   3161
1592     SFL   5   79
971      SJ    5   3256 (1st pick), 1868 bypassed -- already qualified
1717     CAF   6   1323 
1311     NC    6   1771 (1st pick), 2614 bypassed -- already qualified
987      NV    6   2034
359      TX    6   2773 (2nd pick), 624 & 1447 bypassed -- already qualified

[Alpha Beta]

LOL... It looks like several of us were editing / working on the 2012 retroactive wild card teams at the same time...

[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.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Some immediate observations:
- Only one wild card spot was created prior to week 4
- Wild card spots went to non alliance captains 6/20 times, with a 2nd pick earning one just once.
- The 111 situation is a bit odd, since they're a pre-qualified Hall of Fame team, yet they can still generate a wild card spot by being a wild card, even though they don't need a wild card. It works based on what we know of the rules, but it's definitely counter-intuitive

Hey Karthik! ;-)

Since I'm STILL relatively new and trying to decipher the-lay-of-the-land I could use some help... is it your conclusion that the 2013 eligibility criteria will INCREASE the overall competitiveness (on the field) at CMP by displacing the teams who have in the past used the wait-list to garner a spot?


Also, could you weigh-in on the District Model as if it was deployed several years from now and is the _dominate_ format nationwide... as to whether the overall competitiveness (on the field) at CHAMPIONSHIP would be HIGHER compared to the 2013 Regional rules that feed teams to CMP?


I can't get anybody who's defended/promoted the District Model here to overlay it on Texas and weigh-in on my question... so, I'm giving up on that discussion...


I guess what I'm concerned about, with the District Model, is LOSING the _height_ of the mountain that a non-current powerhouse team has to climb here in Texas to be Regional-WINNERS.

We have 4-5 elite/powerhouse teams that have dominated the Texas Regionals (field performance) for 4-5 years and I am JAZZED by the _enormity_ of the challenge to problem-solve our way to ONE or TWO WINS where we're up against/with these exemplar Texas teams... I DO NOT want it to be easier to qualify for CHAMPIONSHIP, I want that bar to be HIGH... and I want the Bronc Botz to _strive_ for the reward of a CMP slot year-after-year...

I just think that attitude/approach makes for a better team AND a better environment to expose teens to in order to help shape/prepare them for the _real world_. PLUS, it puts trophies in the case _and_ BLUE BANNERS on the wall... ;-)

REAL WORLD = TOP PERFORMANCE... otherwise, get used to Ramen Noodles dinner or living in your childhood bedroom.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Michael Blake

I can't get anybody who's defended/promoted the District Model here to overlay it on Texas and weigh-in on my question... so, I'm giving up on that discussion...

Not sure if I'm one to take heed of, but I have no doubts that a District model implemented anywhere with sufficient density will do nothing but raise the bar for those going on to the Championship. Yes, District wins will be easier in Texas than Regional wins once were, but rightly so with the teams more spread out among events, and the idea is that the District events are at a lower level, so to speak. To move on to the World Championship, you still have to compete and do very well at the State/Region Championship (in this case the Texas State Championship), and it seems unambiguous to me that this would be much more difficult than advancing from one of the former Texas Regionals, since you now have all 4-5 of the powerhouses you mentioned and many other competitive teams who have made it through the district selection at the same event (rarely the case with the current model).

I think this has been explained already, and it sounds like you are afraid that the talent distribution in Texas drops off too fast for the above (maintained by high caliber out of state teams gracing you with their presence) to work. However, I also posit that the district model works wonders to raise the bar for everyone by encouraging more involvement and commitment via 2+ events. The teams have to come back and do it again, so they start seeing they need to continue to improve to have any shot, they can't just drop it until next year after the first event. It also builds community and a competitive spirit between teams seeing each other more at different events.

I myself am eager for Minnesota or some equivalent region to move over to this model, since we are quickly reaching a so-called "critical mass" (more like density) that makes the District system very appealing (for many other reasons as well). The exclusion of outside teams, however, is one feature I find very undesirable and that I hope will change.

As for the change at hand for the Regional model everywhere, I was wary when I first heard, but I'm liking it more and more. There are going to be issues, but this HAS to be better than filling those spots off the waitlist, right? (If you are mostly concerned with the level of competition at and the meaningfulness of getting to the championship event, which it seems we all are. Some might argue for the old waitlisting as a way for lower caliber teams to still get students inspired and pick themselves up by seeing the caliber of Champs every once in a while, but I suggest that the district model does this very well.)

[PayneTrain]

The primary motivation behind the district system was cutting the massive overhead of running three regionals in Michigan and instead truly operate only one regional and now 10 events that as a whole cost less than a regional and now supports nearly 200 teams... 200 mind-blowingly competitive teams chomping at the bit for the last four seasons.

Now the increased quality of the FRC product is being matched with the lower costs in MAR, and HINT HINT other states and regions will probably throwing their hat into the ring by the next season HINT HINT.

I have discussed this before at length, and barring an unfortunate missing external HDD and college coursework beating me down, I would have even more to talk about with respect to districts. This move by FIRST was not only to eliminate what I call the "Fastest Finger" competition for leftover CMP spots, but positions the league to move a qualification only via district->regional/"destination regional" tournaments within the next few years (I hope/think).

Ideally I think we could do something like this:

CMP representation would not be dissimilar to congressional representation, where a competing state/province/region of states/provinces are given the "standard six" spots guaranteed and the rest distributed based on team population. Under this format, the Michigan State Championship would ideally generate 26 at-large bids on top of the "standard six". I guess FIRST would not be too picky and would allow MSC to distribute the 26 spots however they choose: go down the final standings and pick the top 26, pick multiple SCA/EI/RAS awards, give a spot to everyone in elimination play, or whatever.
If the state of Virginia were to possibly go to a district system in 2014 for who knows why and this distribution system were used, VA would 6 spots on top of the standard six.

There are so many ways FIRST could navigate CMP to a purely-qualified-only event that I can't coherently spell out at 3am, but I do love the district system and what it could bring to the sport so I am always eager to talk about it (especially with people working for VirginiaFIRST) so it can be difficult to shut me up from espousing its benefits and necessity in what we will look back as the pre-district era instead of the modern era.