|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Standardized District Point Model
So, based off a newsletter that went out to New England teams today, it's confirmed that FIRST is planning on standardizing the district system point model for 2014... so, what do you think?
First off, do you think it should be standardized? Should each region be able to choose how they qualify teams - in something akin to "States' Rights?" Or would it be silly for FIRST not to choose how awards and accomplishments are rewarded? Second, what do you want to see in the point system? At least a dozen threads exist about exact point models... so while I'm not opposed to talking about details, I'd also like to talk about the "philosophy" and various approaches. I'll start it off with some of my own thoughts... While I do think regions certainly should be able to make some decisions about how they do things, I don't think FIRST can afford to allow every region to have it's own system. It could easily be a big source of contention for teams who just miss the cut in their own region (but would've made it under region __'s system)... and FIRST really does deserve to be able to decide how teams qualify for their events. In terms of philosophy, I think the point system should do the best to advance the best teams. That means the best robots, the best teams, and those who bring a strong balance of each. I like that NE FIRST has tried to add emphasis to some of the other awards... however, I don't feel an award like Engineering Excellence should be equal to the Safety award or Team Spirit (both of which, while awarding good attributes, sometimes end up having to be awarded based on more superficial actions at events). That said, the Michigan/MAR system of assigning points based on alliance selection is critical to rewarding strong teams who have a tough qualifying schedule or elimination set. I'm not a fan of the auto-bids. I'd like for everything to be assigned points... partly because of the scalability that Jim Zondag emphasized in his Q&A on the Michigan Districts... and partly because then it puts all the awards and accomplishments on the same level. FIRST can compare Chairmans' apples-to-apples to Regional Wins. Also, it gets rid of some of the little loopholes... With the proposed New England points system, winning Chairmans' at a district event autobids you to the DCMP... but it doesn't add to your point total to help you qualify for CMP. While I'm not a huge fan of the auto-bids, I would like for teams' that win Chairmans', Engineering Inspiration, or Rookie All Star to be automatically eligible to send their judging team to the District Championships... that way the best teams for each award are being judged at DCMP. Also, I think to help make the various judges' jobs easier, I'd like for teams to have to choose to be eligible for an award at an event. Judges for each award struggle to get much time with each team; however, if only the teams who are interested in winning a particular award apply for it, then the judges should be able to spend more time with each eligible team. It seems like judges have a nearly impossible job really determining the best team for an award with how little time they have... perhaps this could make it easier? Teams wouldn't need to be limited to a number of award applications at an event, or applications for a particular award at multiple events... but they could be if preferable. Personally, I'd rather teams not be limited to applying for an award at only one event... that way teams are less likely to "luck out" or get hung up by teams primarily applying for that award at one event or the other. What do you think? |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|