FRC Blogged - Share your FIRST Story, and *Preliminary* Championship Match Schedules

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I don't think they would double the team count if they ever added more divisions. I mean, 100 teams/division wasn't even a thing until last year, and in years prior I believe it was 90 teams/division.

But then again, I thought they would have stopped pulling off the waitlist at 378 teams to make 4-94 team divisions, but I guess getting registration money was a priority or something.

Or FIRST wanted more teams to play.
I'd like to think FIRST hasn't completely transformed into a money hungry self serving corporation. I'd like to think they actually still think they care about us.

[ehochstein]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

I don't think they would double the team count if they ever added more divisions. I mean, 100 teams/division wasn't even a thing until last year, and in years prior I believe it was 90 teams/division.

But then again, I thought they would have stopped pulling off the waitlist at 378 teams to make 4-94 team divisions, but I guess getting registration money was a priority or something.

If the goal of FIRST is to inspire students and the Championship event accomplishes this goal, then why not invite more teams to the event if you can? The more teams you have, the more students that get inspired.

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

I'd like to think FIRST hasn't completely transformed into a money hungry self serving corporation. I'd like to think they actually still think they care about us.

I'd like to think this too.

[Jaxom]

Originally Posted by Racer26

All tho. If crying that its too much time off work/school, what about that other day, currently AFTER the event? I never understood FIRSTs aversion to playing on Sundays, when it would make it so much less stressful on the teams.

Don't you have to travel home? It's actually better for a lot of jobs to take time off in a block, so travelling on Monday might even be worse than starting the event earlier in the week. Plus there's recovery time, especially for us older folks.

[Anupam Goli]

Originally Posted by Wiifi

If the goal of FIRST is to inspire students and the Championship event accomplishes this goal, then why not invite more teams to the event if you can? The more teams you have, the more students that get inspired.



I'd like to think this too.

It's all about inspiration until people start complaining about teams getting lucky schedules and seeding first.

[EricDrost]

Originally Posted by Wiifi

If the goal of FIRST is to inspire students and the Championship event accomplishes this goal, then why not invite more teams to the event if you can? The more teams you have, the more students that get inspired.

Originally Posted by Wing

It's all about inspiration until people start complaining about teams getting lucky schedules and seeding first.

The problem is that by overpopulating divisions, the teams that actually qualified get a lower quality event. There is a higher chance of a bad 1-8 seed captain that got a lucky schedule. We should be celebrating and inspiring excellence as a culture, not luck.

At least for the students and mentors on 11, we would much rather be beaten by a team that was better than us than by a team that was luckier than us. Relying on luck and losing is discouraging, not inspiring. Likewise, relying on luck and winning is less inspiring than winning based on ability and motivation to succeed.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by EricDrost

The problem is that by overpopulating divisions, the teams that actually qualified get a lower quality event with a higher chance of a bad 1-8 seed captain that got a lucky schedule. We should be celebrating and inspiring excellence as a culture, not luck.

At least for me and the students on 11, we would much rather be beaten by a team that was better than us than by a team that was luckier than us. Relying on luck and losing is discouraging, not inspiring. Likewise, relying on luck and winning is less inspiring than winning based on ability and motivation to succeed.

This

[Racer26]

My comment was partly aimed at the regionals too though.

My employer does NOT give me all the time off work; I wish. I have successfully convinced him that it is a worthwhile investment for him to give me two days (one regional) off to volunteer.

Living in a region with 5 easily accessible, and a couple more less easily accessible events (NYRO, ONTO, QCMO, ONWA, ONTO2, MICMP), I would love to be able to watch more of the events. If they were Fri/Sat/Sun instead of Thu/Fri/Sat, I'd be able to watch the important parts (and be with my teams) without needing to take extra days off work.

It might not be the solution for CMP, due to the excessive distance for many teams making the travel/recovery day necessary, but I think it would be good for the regionals. Seems like they're starting to try it with some events (CVR and some of the districts this year)

[Karthik]

As important as the discussion is about the future size of the Championship, it's distracting from the issue at hand. As it stands right now, we have a preliminary match schedule where teams only have 8 qualifying matches. This is simply not enough. What can we do get teams an extra match, putting us back at the standard we were at in 2012?

We have reports from regionals where they were able to consistently turn sub 7:00 cycles. So consider this option. 9 matches at a 6:45 cycle.

This means:

9 matches * 99 teams = 891 plays
891 plays / 6 teams per match = 148.5 matches --> 149 with three surrogate teams
149 matches * 6:45 cycle = 1005.75 minutes (Round to 1006)

The current match schedule has 960 minutes of playtime. 1006 - 960 = 46 minutes that need to be added to the schedule to achieve a 6:45 cycle with 9 matches per team.

This would require 1006 minutes of play time, which is 46 more minutes than we have right now. Where can we find this time?

- Start qualification matches at 12:45p instead of 1:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 8:15p instead of 8:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End lunch at 12:45 instead of 1:00p on Friday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 6:30p instead of 6:15p on Thursday = 15 minutes

That would give us 60 extra minutes in the schedule, meaning 1020 minutes of playtime, allowing for a cycle of 6:51. This is definitely doable. Yes, it will be a rushed pace, but I think the teams are up for it. If the issue is that FIRST needs more volunteers, let us know. I'll personally march through the pits on Thursday morning and recruit extra volunteers for you, if it means we get an extra match. I know some of my friends will do the same. Heck, I bet you I can get at least 50 extra volunteers just from the attendees of my seminar on Wednesday night. Let's all work together to make sure all teams get the most bang for their buck this week! FIRST has been doing an amazing job of making things more team centric over the past year, I have complete faith that they'll make the right decision here and get us more qualifying matches.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The size difference of the fields for FRc and Vex are significant. You can't compare the two.

This is obvious, I stated both to show which option is easier to execute. Cutting down number of teams vs increasing number of fields. One is easy to change.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Karthik

As important as the discussion is about the future size of the Championship, it's distracting from the issue at hand. As it stands right now, we have a preliminary match schedule where teams only have 8 qualifying matches. This is simply not enough. What can we do get teams an extra match, putting us back at the standard we were at in 2012?

We have reports from regionals where they were able to consistently turn sub 7:00 cycles. So consider this option. 9 matches at a 6:45 cycle.

This means:

8 matches * 99 teams = 891 plays
891 plays / 6 teams per match = 148.5 matches --> 149 with three surrogate teams
149 matches * 6:45 cycle = 1005.75 minutes (Round to 1006)

The current match schedule has 960 minutes of playtime. 1006 - 960 = 46 minutes that need to be added to the schedule to achieve a 6:45 cycle with 9 matches per team.

This would require 1006 minutes of play time, which is 46 more minutes than we have right now. Where can we find this time?

- Start qualification matches at 12:45p instead of 1:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 8:15p instead of 8:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End lunch at 12:45 instead of 1:00p on Friday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 6:30p instead of 6:15p on Thursday = 15 minutes

That would give us 60 extra minutes in the schedule, meaning 1020 minutes of playtime, allowing for a cycle of 6:51. This is definitely doable. Yes, it will be a rushed pace, but I think the teams are up for it. If the issue is that FIRST needs more volunteers, let us know. I'll personally march through the pits on Thursday morning and recruit extra volunteers for you, if it means we get an extra match. I know some of my friends will do the same. Heck, I bet you I can get at least 50 extra volunteers just from the attendees of my seminar on Wednesday night. Let's all work together to make sure all teams get the most bang for their buck this week! FIRST has been doing an amazing job of making things more team centric over the past year, I have complete faith that they'll make the right decision here and get us more qualifying matches.

Certainly looking to the future, it means that FIRST should design games that don't require 7-10 minutes between them for reliable reset times.

Design the games to a 5 minute reset time. That way, there is some wiggle room for problems like these.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Karthik

As important as the discussion is about the future size of the Championship, it's distracting from the issue at hand. As it stands right now, we have a preliminary match schedule where teams only have 8 qualifying matches. This is simply not enough. What can we do get teams an extra match, putting us back at the standard we were at in 2012?

We have reports from regionals where they were able to consistently turn sub 7:00 cycles. So consider this option. 9 matches at a 6:45 cycle.

This means:

8 matches * 99 teams = 891 plays
891 plays / 6 teams per match = 148.5 matches --> 149 with three surrogate teams
149 matches * 6:45 cycle = 1005.75 minutes (Round to 1006)

The current match schedule has 960 minutes of playtime. 1006 - 960 = 46 minutes that need to be added to the schedule to achieve a 6:45 cycle with 9 matches per team.

This would require 1006 minutes of play time, which is 46 more minutes than we have right now. Where can we find this time?

- Start qualification matches at 12:45p instead of 1:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 8:15p instead of 8:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End lunch at 12:45 instead of 1:00p on Friday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 6:30p instead of 6:15p on Thursday = 15 minutes

That would give us 60 extra minutes in the schedule, meaning 1020 minutes of playtime, allowing for a cycle of 6:51. This is definitely doable. Yes, it will be a rushed pace, but I think the teams are up for it. If the issue is that FIRST needs more volunteers, let us know. I'll personally march through the pits on Thursday morning and recruit extra volunteers for you, if it means we get an extra match. I know some of my friends will do the same. Heck, I bet you I can get at least 50 extra volunteers just from the attendees of my seminar on Wednesday night. Let's all work together to make sure all teams get the most bang for their buck this week! FIRST has been doing an amazing job of making things more team centric over the past year, I have complete faith that they'll make the right decision here and get us more qualifying matches.

This sounds doable. And the championship usually has the top level volunteers that serve FIRST (at least at the key positions) so I think the turnaround times can be done.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Karthik

As important as the discussion is about the future size of the Championship, it's distracting from the issue at hand. As it stands right now, we have a preliminary match schedule where teams only have 8 qualifying matches. This is simply not enough. What can we do get teams an extra match, putting us back at the standard we were at in 2012?

We have reports from regionals where they were able to consistently turn sub 7:00 cycles. So consider this option. 9 matches at a 6:45 cycle.

This means:

8 matches * 99 teams = 891 plays
891 plays / 6 teams per match = 148.5 matches --> 149 with three surrogate teams
149 matches * 6:45 cycle = 1005.75 minutes (Round to 1006)

The current match schedule has 960 minutes of playtime. 1006 - 960 = 46 minutes that need to be added to the schedule to achieve a 6:45 cycle with 9 matches per team.

This would require 1006 minutes of play time, which is 46 more minutes than we have right now. Where can we find this time?

- Start qualification matches at 12:45p instead of 1:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 8:15p instead of 8:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End lunch at 12:45 instead of 1:00p on Friday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 6:30p instead of 6:15p on Thursday = 15 minutes

That would give us 60 extra minutes in the schedule, meaning 1020 minutes of playtime, allowing for a cycle of 6:51. This is definitely doable. Yes, it will be a rushed pace, but I think the teams are up for it. If the issue is that FIRST needs more volunteers, let us know. I'll personally march through the pits on Thursday morning and recruit extra volunteers for you, if it means we get an extra match. I know some of my friends will do the same. Heck, I bet you I can get at least 50 extra volunteers just from the attendees of my seminar on Wednesday night. Let's all work together to make sure all teams get the most bang for their buck this week! FIRST has been doing an amazing job of making things more team centric over the past year, I have complete faith that they'll make the right decision here and get us more qualifying matches.

I've already volunteered for just Thursday and got turned away*, if it meant more matches I'd add volunteering Friday as well.


*I couldn't meet the time commitment of position given to me they didn't actually say no

[Kpchem]

I was one of the FTAA's at the Colorado Regional a couple of weeks ago, and we were consistently turning 6 minute match cycles - when there were no 30 point climbs. If there was a robot that needed to be belayed off the pyramid, the cycle for that match became 8-9 minutes due to the time required to safely get it down. While we were able to keep a 7 minute schedule going for most of the weekend, we only had 5 or so 30-point climbers in a field of 48 team, or around 10% of the field

I believe FIRST's primary concern about decreasing the cycle time is that the very thing that causes the largest delay in match times is also the thing that requires the most care and attention from everybody involved. With this being the Championship, there are probably more than 10 30-point climbers in each division, and that will slow down the cycles even further, making it extremely difficult to hold to a 7 minute schedule.

Having said all of that, I personally agree that 8 matches is not enough, and I have thought for years now that we need smaller divisions to create a fairer schedule. And I hope that FIRST tries to find a way to get every team 9 matches this year, because after attending 2009's Championship I don't want things to go back to that level. But if the decision is to hold 8 matches per team and safely get every robot on and off the field or hold 9 matches per team and risk injuring either a team member or a robot in the process, then 8 matches is the right thing to do.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by Kpchem

I was one of the FTAA's at the Colorado Regional a couple of weeks ago, and we were consistently turning 6 minute match cycles - when there were no 30 point climbs. If there was a robot that needed to be belayed off the pyramid, the cycle for that match became 8-9 minutes due to the time required to safely get it down. While we were able to keep a 7 minute schedule going for most of the weekend, we only had 5 or so 30-point climbers in a field of 48 team, or around 10% of the field

I believe FIRST's primary concern about decreasing the cycle time is that the very thing that causes the largest delay in match times is also the thing that requires the most care and attention from everybody involved. With this being the Championship, there are probably more than 10 30-point climbers in each division, and that will slow down the cycles even further, making it extremely difficult to hold to a 7 minute schedule.

Having said all of that, I personally agree that 8 matches is not enough, and I have thought for years now that we need smaller divisions to create a fairer schedule. And I hope that FIRST tries to find a way to get every team 9 matches this year, because after attending 2009's Championship I don't want things to go back to that level. But if the decision is to hold 8 matches per team and safely get every robot on and off the field or hold 9 matches per team and risk injuring either a team member or a robot in the process, then 8 matches is the right thing to do.

I believe there are less than 10 30 point climbers in Newton, I'd have to check my preliminary scouting to confirm but I'm pretty sure its less than 10. I don't know how many are in the other divisions but I would guess that there are less than 15 in each division.

To put some data behind it, say there was 15 teams in a division that can climb to 30 that comes out to 1 every ~9 matches which really isn't that bad and shouldn't slow down the event that much if at all. At a match in Wisconsin we had 4 30 point climbers and all 4 climbed to 30 and it didn't take more than an extra 2-3 min to get all 4 down. This is Champs they have had 7 weeks to train the correct people on how to use the belay system quickly and safely enough to get robots down to keep to a schedule. I'm sure there will be enough people to help get the robots down fast to get us at least 1 more match per team.

[kwotremb]

Originally Posted by Karthik

As important as the discussion is about the future size of the Championship, it's distracting from the issue at hand. As it stands right now, we have a preliminary match schedule where teams only have 8 qualifying matches. This is simply not enough. What can we do get teams an extra match, putting us back at the standard we were at in 2012?

We have reports from regionals where they were able to consistently turn sub 7:00 cycles. So consider this option. 9 matches at a 6:45 cycle.

This means:

9 matches * 99 teams = 891 plays
891 plays / 6 teams per match = 148.5 matches --> 149 with three surrogate teams
149 matches * 6:45 cycle = 1005.75 minutes (Round to 1006)

The current match schedule has 960 minutes of playtime. 1006 - 960 = 46 minutes that need to be added to the schedule to achieve a 6:45 cycle with 9 matches per team.

This would require 1006 minutes of play time, which is 46 more minutes than we have right now. Where can we find this time?

- Start qualification matches at 12:45p instead of 1:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 8:15p instead of 8:00p on Thursday = 15 minutes
- End lunch at 12:45 instead of 1:00p on Friday = 15 minutes
- End qualification matches at 6:30p instead of 6:15p on Thursday = 15 minutes

That would give us 60 extra minutes in the schedule, meaning 1020 minutes of playtime, allowing for a cycle of 6:51. This is definitely doable. Yes, it will be a rushed pace, but I think the teams are up for it. If the issue is that FIRST needs more volunteers, let us know. I'll personally march through the pits on Thursday morning and recruit extra volunteers for you, if it means we get an extra match. I know some of my friends will do the same. Heck, I bet you I can get at least 50 extra volunteers just from the attendees of my seminar on Wednesday night. Let's all work together to make sure all teams get the most bang for their buck this week! FIRST has been doing an amazing job of making things more team centric over the past year, I have complete faith that they'll make the right decision here and get us more qualifying matches.

I think most people would be all for a 45 min lunch over an hour if it means more matches. Usually with where a teams matches land they will usually have around an hour or more gap for lunch, with a 45 min core time. This would just be harder on the volunteers since they would only have 45 min, which would be closer to probably 30 min.