Official: New England Districts in 2014

[Steven Donow]

Another calculation I thought of: The number of teams a region sends to championship from the region championship is: the number of teams in that region as compared to the number of overall teams; this percentage is the percentage of teams at championship that are representative of that region(the calculations I ended up with when comparing MAR and FIM were both off by about 4 teams less, so I'm guessing the number of overall teams is incorrect).


Based off last year(team numbers all taken from this map):

There were 2341 teams registered. 400 at championships. With 151 teams in NEFIRST, that's about 6.45% which is about 25 teams(realistically with the data probably a lower number). NEFIRST is replacing 5 district events, so that means 5 Chairman's, also adding on 1 RAS, 1 EI(this could change as MAR did 2 EI's this year), and 3 winning alliance teams means there should be about 10-15 "ranking qualifiers"*


*of course, this is all just me being bored and in a number-crunching mood, and could all change dependent on how the NEFIRST board decided to do their points/ranking/qualifying system

[JackS]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

There were 2341 teams registered. 400 at championships. With 151 teams in NEFIRST, that's about 6.45% which is about 25 teams(realistically with the data probably a lower number). NEFIRST is replacing 5 district events, so that means 5 Chairman's, also adding on 1 RAS, 1 EI(this could change as MAR did 2 EI's this year), and 3 winning alliance teams means there should be about 10-15 "ranking qualifiers"*

If you use the number of regionals converted metric, NE would get 30 spots. The district model is hard to sell if a region suddenly loses ~18% of their CMP spots.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by JackS

If you use the number of regionals converted metric, NE would get 30 spots. The district model is hard to sell if a region suddenly loses ~18% of their CMP spots.

Except that I remember hearing something about MI (and MAR?) going to a percentage of total teams model for slots at Champs. IIRC, the reason was something like the massive growth in MI. (Source: Jim Zondag's whitepaper, Q24)

That being the case, I would suspect that if an area starts with "# of regionals", and then gets some growth to the point where "% of total" gives more teams, then that would be the way to go; however, if you want all district areas roughly equal, then they all gotta be the same way.

[AlexD744]

Since it seems that Florida's events aren't lining up my school's break, it's nice to see that the Championship will be in Boston . Can't wait to volunteer!

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

Also, it should be taken into account that at 9 Districts, that means 9 Chairmans winners possibly "taking away"(not saying that to be demeaning/condescending) point-slots.

This depends on the model that is used. As it is possible/likely that FIRST will be standardizing the system across the districts, and its hard to tell what the final result will be. Using several points model simulators (ie the ones in this thread), of the 5 NE winners, only one was even close to the cutoff of the 53/60 line in one model I've seen (and easily made it in several others). Yes if you add 4 more, there is a slight possibility that the robots will not be as high in points, but in general, I think the District points wont produce as wide a variation as the CA performance at Worlds correlation.

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

Another calculation I thought of: The number of teams a region sends to championship from the region championship is: the number of teams in that region as compared to the number of overall teams; this percentage is the percentage of teams at championship that are representative of that region(the calculations I ended up with when comparing MAR and FIM were both off by about 4 teams less, so I'm guessing the number of overall teams is incorrect).
...With 151 teams in NEFIRST, that's about 6.45% which is about 25 teams(realistically with the data probably a lower number). NEFIRST is replacing 5 district events, so that means 5 Chairman's, also adding on 1 RAS, 1 EI(this could change as MAR did 2 EI's this year), and 3 winning alliance teams means there should be about 10-15 "ranking qualifiers"*

Take a read through the old NE Proposal. Because of the 5 events, the district was told they were given 30 qualifying slots. (I think I heard that MI is getting more because of their growth, but FIRST's original stance was you get a # of slots based on the number of regionals you had when you went to districts).

NE also has a large number of pre-qualified teams (CCA, Sustaining) including teams 23, 151, 175, 190 & 236. If these teams opt out of the DCMP like 341 did last year at the MAR DCMP (or FIRST omits them from the # of qualifying teams), then NE could potentially send 35 teams.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

NE also has a large number of pre-qualified teams (CCA, Sustaining) including teams 20, 23, 151, 175, 190 & 236. If these teams opt out of the DCMP like 341 did last year at the MAR DCMP (or FIRST omits them from the # of qualifying teams), then NE could potentially send 36 teams.

You mean 20 could go to the NE DCMP! WHOOOOOOA!
Living in New York stinks...

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Thunder910

You mean 20 could go to the NE DCMP! WHOOOOOOA!
Living in New York stinks...

Lol, I just saw 20 and thought NE(I fixed my typo)... but if New York hurries up and goes to districts, and this whole standardizing districts works out, 20 could come play in a NE event again (maybe not DCMP, but at an NE event!)

Originally Posted by PVCpirate

This season, the Michigan and MAR numbers for Championship Qualification changed, Michigan from 18 to 27 and MAR from 12 to 14. These numbers are roughly based on the percentage of total teams in each of those region, as Steven mentioned in this thread. That is the reason we are assuming that the same thing will be done for New England.

If this were the case, there would be no incentive for NE to go to districts. Why do more work just to lose WCMP slots for your teams?? Like I said, read the NE blog. I'm fairly certain there would be a riot if we got fewer than 30 slots

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

If this were the case, there would be no incentive for NE to go to districts. Why do more work just to lose WCMP slots for your teams?? Like I said, read the NE blog. I'm fairly certain there would be a riot if we got fewer than 30 slots

I have been keeping up with all thing NEFIRST, the FRC blog, and anything else vaguely district related, and I have formed an opinion based on what I know. If you know additional information that is not available to me, then of course you would have a different opinion. The blog post you are referring to is from January, and it is my understanding that the situation isn't exactly the same now as it was then. From the FRC blog post announcing the NE and Northwest districts, it seems like FIRST is trying to standardize all districts, and I think it should extend to Championship slots as well.

Furthermore, I think that the number of slots for each district system should be calculated in the same way, so if you are correct about NE getting 30, which you very well may be, I would disagree with that decision.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

If this were the case, there would be no incentive for NE to go to districts. Why do more work just to lose WCMP slots for your teams?? Like I said, read the NE blog. I'm fairly certain there would be a riot if we got fewer than 30 slots

I firmly disagree. I see a lot of incentive for New England to go to districts (i.e. lower cost per event, more events, a DCMP at which the best of NE compete, and more regional pride/camaraderie) that outweigh the cost of a few teams qualifying for CMP. Personally, I'd rather go to World Championships
~18% less often if it meant having the District system.

Regardless, I'd prefer to see the "slots for CMP assigned by region's percentage of total teams" applied in New England. That's the fairer way to represent who goes to CMP... that way you don't have Michigan sending a tiny percentage (like they did last year) because of misrepresentation, nor can someone else complain "Hey, that region gets to send 20% of their teams, while we only get to send 15%!"

As a sidenote, only 28 teams (3 ME, 5 NH, 2 RI, 8 MA, 10 CT) qualified in 2013 from New England, despite having 30 regional slots and those extra HoF and founding slots...

[Pault]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

As a sidenote, only 28 teams (3 ME, 5 NH, 2 RI, 8 MA, 10 CT) qualified in 2013 from New England, despite having 30 regional slots and those extra HoF and founding slots...

This. I feel like people are forgetting that just because we carry 30 tickets to championships doesn't mean that we send 30 teams. Between double-qualifying teams (at Boston 126 both won the competition and got chairmans, plus they are an original and sustaining team) and our friends from NY, its not very likely that we would consistently send 30 teams (not including prequalifiers, because they don't take up any of our slots).

Anyways, even if this wasn't the case and we really were sending less teams every year, I would still rather send 25 of very best teams than 15 of what are mostly the best teams and 15 teams that just lucked out.

[Ken Streeter]

Originally Posted by Pault

Anyways, even if this wasn't the case and we really were sending less teams every year, I would still rather send 25 of very best teams than 15 of what are mostly the best teams and 15 teams that just lucked out.

I think there is something important to consider in the above, but I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by sending "15 of what are mostly the best teams and 15 teams that just lucked out." Can you please explain this a little further? Thanks!

[PVCpirate]

I think he was referring to teams such as 2nd picks by 1 seed alliances when he said "teams that just lucked out". Although I will agree that a winning allliance is almost never the 3 best teams at an event, I wouldn't go so far as to say they just got lucky.

[Pault]

Yea, I was partly referring to the 2nd pick, which I kind of agree doesn't simply luck out, they have to play well once they get onto that winning alliance in order to make it win. But in 9/10 cases, they are just an average robot at a competition who found themselves in a good place and did what they needed to do.

The other part is rookie allstar. Sometimes, they are really a great team that deserved the award and to go to champs. But other times, they just happened to go to a competition with few/no other rookies, and didn't necessarily do anything special to win the award.

Also, when I said 15 of mostly the best teams, I was implying that sometimes the regional model leaves out some really good teams (every year we see the "best teams who didn't make champs" thread). But from what I understand from the district model, this happens far less often.

So I might of exaggerated a little bit when I said that. It's probably more along the lines of 22 teams who are mostly the best and 8 who are either average or lucky. Still worse in my opinion than 25 of the best teams. But I know other people have other opinions on it, and with good reasons to back their opinions, so I respect whatever disagreement people may have with this.

[PVCpirate]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

Take a read through the old NE Proposal. Because of the 5 events, the district was told they were given 30 qualifying slots. (I think I heard that MI is getting more because of their growth, but FIRST's original stance was you get a # of slots based on the number of regionals you had when you went to districts).

This season, the Michigan and MAR numbers for Championship Qualification changed, Michigan from 18 to 27 and MAR from 12 to 14. These numbers are roughly based on the percentage of total teams in each of those region, as Steven mentioned in this thread. That is the reason we are assuming that the same thing will be done for New England.

[Mark McLeod]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

There were 2341 teams registered. 400 at championships. With 151 teams in NEFIRST,

Your numbers are just a little off. That map hasn't been kept up-to-date.

2524 Teams total for the 3013 season
154 New England teams competed.

see http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on