|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#16
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#17
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Yeah; I didn't mention them since people might get scared by the association with FTC. FTC qualification is unfair for one big reason: not enough qualification slots from each tournament, so the winning alliance captain's first pick usually doesn't qualify for the next level. With only two spots to earn from most events, only the Inspire winner and the winning alliance captain get invitations to the next level. In my opinion it is questionable to put the Inspire runner-up ahead of winning alliance first pick, but that is a judgment call. Anyway, FTC either needs either more slots at the Championship or another layer of competition (super regionals) to remedy that. It's a problem.
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
|
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Future Championships
I'd like to see some sort of leveling. At the very least, there should be some attempt at balancing the 6 teams in each qualification match.
There shouldn't be any matches at the World Championship where an alliance scores less than 10 points. It's hollow for the winning alliance and demoralizing for the losing alliance, and it doesn't make sense to the crowd. I sat through three rounds like that and it's no fun. I'd love to see a system where every match was a tossup, and OPR wasn't the near sure thing it is now. Last edited by Nyxyxylyth : 02-05-2013 at 21:14. |
|
#20
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Please don't bring back the Alliance Algorithm of Doom. It was bad in 2007, and I don't think it will ever be a good idea.
|
|
#21
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Future Championships
That's way before my time, and I've never heard of it; can you elaborate?
|
|
#22
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
All teams at an event were placed in one of three brackets, by number. (This wasn't too hard to figure out by Week 3, BTW.) Each "random" alliance was composed of one team from each bracket. Add in the normal turnaround time and a deemphasized "not too many times with/against each team" factors, particularly at a small event. Result: You guys (1124) would NEVER be with 1114 in a match*, but would probably get pretty badly beaten by them in 3-4 matches. 330, on the other hand, might be with them in 2-3 and against them in 1-2. Guess who seeds higher, regardless of who has the better robot? It was so bad that corrections had to be applied mid-season because of such cases as mentioned above, and then it did a better job but not the best. It has never returned. *Unless you happened to be on the other side of the dividing line from them... probably not. Last edited by EricH : 02-05-2013 at 22:23. Reason: grammar |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
I suppose the current luck-of-the-draw system generates less unhappiness overall, but many times it felt more like a "Convocation" than a "Championship". Last edited by Nyxyxylyth : 02-05-2013 at 22:25. |
|
#24
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
While I don't necessarily agree with the "super-regional" concept, I do like the district model they have set up here. |
|
#25
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
|
|
#26
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
|
|
#27
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
Yes, Georgia World Congress Center had a much bigger convention center and a lot more open space than St. Louis. I've been wanting to go back ever since we moved away. |
|
#28
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Future Championships
Here's a thought that occurred to me because of this other championship thread.
How about we have N super regionals that essentially take the place of the championship? After those are done, the winning teams get to participate in a much smaller event where the super regional winners duke it out. I'm talking about a very small number of alliances, like 4-8. I suggest this for two reasons: 1) Venues only need capacity for 100 teams instead of 400 2) For the vast majority of teams, it doesn't add a level of championships* *That's my big complaint about the conventional FRC super regional idea. Too many competitions for teams and families to pay for; too many vacation days for volunteers and mentors. |
|
#29
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Future Championships
All this is making me wonder if FRC will ever start to look more like high school sports in competition structure. In football, for example, the state championship is the end of the road. Not that I think it will happen soon, but will the FIRST championship go away in the future?
|
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Future Championships
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|