FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility

[Jscout11]

Well, this all but confirms that alliances will stay at 3 teams, based on the fact that "3" Winners will qualify from each event. But really, this is not much of a surprise at all.

[BBray_T1296]

the unquestionable 2014 FRC game as deciphered from this blog post

the number of waitlist slots we will be able to offer teams is likely to be very small. [...] it would not surprise me if we could offer only 20 or fewer waitlisted teams slots

This clearly means, that the game is some kind of mail-theme. We have to pick up pallets with team members on them, and stick them into slots. The number of slots on the field is determined by the level of competition, with championships having the fewest number of available slots.

depends partially on the rate at which teams offered merit-based slots accept

Obviously, we have to put the team near a slot, and the team member has to decide if he wants the tiny, cramped chairman's award slot, or the spacious "regional semi-finalist" one. your score directly depends on your ability to convince that team member that they do want to be crammed into the smaller slot.

Originally Posted by Jscout11

Well, this all but confirms that alliances will stay at 3 teams, based on the fact that "3" Winners will qualify from each event.

OMG LEAKED!

Hahaha!!



Just kidding

[lemiant]

I strongly hope that FIRST only takes enough wait list teams to make even divisions. The size of divisions made the number of matches at champs too low last year.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by lemiant

I strongly hope that FIRST only takes enough wait list teams to make even divisions. The size of divisions made the number of matches at champs too low last year.

This isn't a unique/exclusive correlation. Newton was a 100-team division in both 2012 and 2013, but we played 9 in 2012 and 8 in 2013. (2011 was 88 teams with 10 matches, though.)

[BrendanB]

Originally Posted by Siri

This isn't a unique/exclusive correlation. Newton was a 100-team division in both 2012 and 2013, but we played 9 in 2012 and 8 in 2013. (2011 was 88 teams with 10 matches, though.)

The 2012 game made for quick turnaround with automatic scoring, easy bridge calls, little penalties, and game reset was extremely quick.

2013 had a lot more field reset time involved but I really preferred Ultimate Ascent over Rebound Rumble.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by BrendanB

The 2012 game made for quick turnaround with automatic scoring, easy bridge calls, little penalties, and game reset was extremely quick.

2013 had a lot more field reset time involved but I really preferred Ultimate Ascent over Rebound Rumble.

I know. (Ahh, reffing 2013, how I won't-particularly-miss-you.) That's the point behind the number of teams not directly correlating to number of matches.* We won't know what turnarounds to expect next year, so I argue it's premature to talk about waitlist in this context. The GDC is in control of much of what influences average turnaround, and given Frank has acknowledged the match issue, we'll hopefully see 2012-style timing and be able to view the waitlist in that context. (Read, hopefully we won't all be groaning #ohnochampionshipmatches when the kickoff video talks about belaying robots off pyramids...)


*The other side of this coin in the total time available, which CD also discussed at length back then.

[Racer26]

I'm really disappointed the wildcard rules didn't change.

The wildcard system made a HUGE difference to the caliber of the teams attending Championship. Every region was represented at CMP by more of its top talent because of the wildcard rules.

I see no real reason (other than causing some slots to be wasted) to not extend the wildcard rule to generate wildcards ANY time a team who is already qualified for the 2014 Championship earns a slot in 2014. This includes 2013 FIRST Champions, HOF teams, Sustaining teams etc.

The net difference is a maximum of 27 slots.

Additionally, a team who has earned a slot by any means at a previous regional, who wins EI or RCA at their 2nd or 3rd regional does not generate a wildcard currently. They should.

Each event should qualify 6 teams that arent already qualified for CMP.

Additionally, the same should hold true for District model teams. If a team is already qualified by some other means (say, winning an out-of-district regional), then they should not eat up a district slot that could go to another team from the district.

[Steven Donow]

Originally Posted by Racer26

I'm really disappointed the wildcard rules didn't change.

The wildcard system made a HUGE difference to the caliber of the teams attending Championship. Every region was represented at CMP by more of its top talent because of the wildcard rules.

I see no real reason (other than causing some slots to be wasted) to not extend the wildcard rule to generate wildcards ANY time a team who is already qualified for the 2014 Championship earns a slot in 2014. This includes 2013 FIRST Champions, HOF teams, Sustaining teams etc.

The net difference is a maximum of 27 slots.

Additionally, a team who has earned a slot by any means at a previous regional, who wins EI or RCA at their 2nd or 3rd regional does not generate a wildcard currently. They should.

Each event should qualify 6 teams that arent already qualified for CMP.

Additionally, the same should hold true for District model teams. If a team is already qualified by some other means (say, winning an out-of-district regional), then they should not eat up a district slot that could go to another team from the district.

The problem with adding 27 slots is that's 27 "new" slots in a system that already has more slots "acquirable" than existing; there are already too many spots available.

And if I'm not mistaken, I believe in MAR (so it should follow through with FiM history) the last statement does hold true; the only example of this I could find/think of excluding team 341(who have a HoF spot, so it's skipped anyway) was 2590 in 2012, who, along with having enough qualifying points, as well as previously winning the Montreal Regional, were skipped over in giving out point spots according to this document

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by DevenStonow

And if I'm not mistaken, I believe in MAR (so it should follow through with FiM history) the last statement does hold true; the only example of this I could find/think of excluding team 341(who have a HoF spot, so it's skipped anyway) was 2590 in 2012, who, along with having enough qualifying points, as well as previously winning the Montreal Regional, were skipped over in giving out point spots according to this document

Yes, this is true in MAR, and I'm pretty sure (not 100%) in FiM too. At least for MAR, some of their St. Louis slots are given to the top ranked teams (via ranking points accumulated over the whole season, see the Mid-Atlantic Robotics website for more details) in the region. In 2012, this sent 5 teams to Champs, and I believe it was increased to 6 in 2013 (along with there being another spot for EI too - lucky us )

In 2012, 2590 was skipped over in the MAR ranking slot distribution since they won Montreal, 365 was skipped over due to HoF, and I'm pretty sure 222 was skipped over since they were preregistered via waitlist for St. Louis. 25 was also skipped over since they won MAR Champs. However, 341, already prequalified for Champs due to HoF, also won the MAR Championships, and were first in points. While they were skipped over in the distribution of the MAR slots given to the top ranked teams, I believe this wasted away a slot given to a MAR Champs winner.

In 2013, 11 was skipped over in MAR ranking slots since they already qualified by winning Palmetto, 1676 was skipped over since they won EI at MAR Champs, and 103 was skipped over due to HoF. 2590, 2729, and 1640 were skipped over since they won MAR Champs.

[Mr V]

Originally Posted by Racer26

I'm really disappointed the wildcard rules didn't change.

The wildcard system made a HUGE difference to the caliber of the teams attending Championship. Every region was represented at CMP by more of its top talent because of the wildcard rules.

I see no real reason (other than causing some slots to be wasted) to not extend the wildcard rule to generate wildcards ANY time a team who is already qualified for the 2014 Championship earns a slot in 2014. This includes 2013 FIRST Champions, HOF teams, Sustaining teams etc.

The net difference is a maximum of 27 slots.

Additionally, a team who has earned a slot by any means at a previous regional, who wins EI or RCA at their 2nd or 3rd regional does not generate a wildcard currently. They should.

Each event should qualify 6 teams that arent already qualified for CMP.

Additionally, the same should hold true for District model teams. If a team is already qualified by some other means (say, winning an out-of-district regional), then they should not eat up a district slot that could go to another team from the district.

If we followed the wild car rules you propose there would be a need for more that 400 teams. IIRC there were only about 20 spaces available for the wait list last season due to the current wild card system.

As we move to more districts the wild card system will go away. Every district will send the number of teams they are allotted. If a team can't go the space is offered to the next highest ranked team until all slots are filled.

Since we have two more districts this season that means there will be fewer unused spaces and thus Frank's prediction that there will be fewer than 20 wait list spaces this season. You can rest assured that people at FIRST headquarters ran through a number of scenarios when determining the wild card system to maximize the number of teams that go on to CMP based on merit, w/o running the risk of not having enough spaces for those teams.

[Racer26]

The truth of the matter is that we DO need more than 400 teams at Championship.

I have proposed a solution that provides 4 divisions of 140 teams with 12 qualification matches each.

Each division running 2 fields, as the 2004 and 2006 Toronto Regionals were done, provides nearly double match throughput. It requires fewer volunteers than adding more divisions, avoids lengthening Einstein, as well as avoiding noise pollution issues associated with having 8 different divisions crammed too close together.

We've outgrown the old CMP model. Something drastic has to change in the next 2 seasons. It makes the most sense to make such a change in 2015 when the control system is already being revamped.

[waialua359]

As the pressure to increase the # of teams at CMP keeps coming up, how about increasing the # of teams that make eliminations similar to offseason events such as IRI? Good teams can continue to play, other than the 8-10 matches in recent CMP events.
The format of just 24 making eliminations out of 100 or more teams, seems a bit too low.

2013 was the perfect example of why such a format would have been useful.
Teams were rushing to get reinspected after they attached a blocker against full-court shooters.
At IRI and TRR, we just selected a robot that could already do it.

I would guess that every team that attends CMP would want a greater chance at making eliminations.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by waialua359

As the pressure to increase the # of teams at CMP keeps coming up, how about increasing the # of teams that make eliminations similar to offseason events such as IRI? Good teams can continue to play, other than the 8-10 matches in recent CMP events.
The format of just 24 making eliminations out of 100 or more teams, seems a bit too low.

2013 was the perfect example of why such a format would have been useful.
Teams were rushing to get reinspected after they attached a blocker against full-court shooters.
At IRI and TRR, we just selected a robot that could already do it.

I would guess that every team that attends CMP would want a greater chance at making eliminations.

I think this might be the best solution. Just allow each alliance to pick their "4th bot."

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by waialua359

As the pressure to increase the # of teams at CMP keeps coming up, how about increasing the # of teams that make eliminations similar to offseason events such as IRI? Good teams can continue to play, other than the 8-10 matches in recent CMP events.
The format of just 24 making eliminations out of 100 or more teams, seems a bit too low.

2013 was the perfect example of why such a format would have been useful.
Teams were rushing to get reinspected after they attached a blocker against full-court shooters.
At IRI and TRR, we just selected a robot that could already do it.

I would guess that every team that attends CMP would want a greater chance at making eliminations.

Originally Posted by dodar

I think this might be the best solution. Just allow each alliance to pick their "4th bot."

I'm on record as liking this idea back in 2010. I'm still on board.

[Lil' Lavery]

In terms of everyone picking their own back-up/4th bot, I'm not sold on the idea. It makes for an interesting debate on multiple fronts.

Originally Posted by waialua359

As the pressure to increase the # of teams at CMP keeps coming up, how about increasing the # of teams that make eliminations similar to offseason events such as IRI? Good teams can continue to play, other than the 8-10 matches in recent CMP events.
The format of just 24 making eliminations out of 100 or more teams, seems a bit too low.

Why does it seem too low? Just because a larger percentage of teams make eliminations at regionals than Championship? This is the championship event, shouldn't there be a higher grade of exclusivity there, both in terms of who qualifies for the event and who qualifies for eliminations? Why further dilute the field of competitors? We already have a 96 team tournament.

Originally Posted by waialua359

2013 was the perfect example of why such a format would have been useful.
Teams were rushing to get reinspected after they attached a blocker against full-court shooters.
At IRI and TRR, we just selected a robot that could already do it.

This obviously changed the game (and alliance selection) dynamic heavily, and without a clear answer of if it's "better" or "worse." It's obvious how the proposed format encourages both building and selecting "specialized" robots and role players over well-rounded machines. It's clearly not as simple as picking the next 8 "best" robots in the field, and I'd venture to say it would likely also impact earlier parts of alliance selection.

To me, one of my favorite parts of the elimination tournament is seeing robots suddenly change their strategy to match an opponent. Rather than playing "rock, paper, scissors" with which robots to put into a match, teams would have to adapt strategically (and sometimes mechanically, as you mentioned with mounting blockers) on the fly. I find moments when teams like 469, 973, and 1126 suddenly become shutdown defenders or 217 scrambling to attach pool noodles or 1114 and 294 working together to improve mini-bot launchers as some of the coolest and most memorable moments of elimination tournaments. I love the strategic engineering that occurs when you have to figure out how to make your alliance composed of X, Y, and Z beat an alliance of A, B, and C.

Originally Posted by waialua359

I would guess that every team that attends CMP would want a greater chance at making eliminations.

I also addressed the exclusitivity of the elimination tournament. I obviously also see the merit of trying to enhance the experience of many teams at Championship.

The biggest appeal of adding teams to the elimination tournament for me would be mitigating the impact of "weak" alliance captains (assuming they were humble enough to bench themselves). We always see a few alliance captains each year who are borderline elimination teams (or sometimes worse), and rather than damning their alliance partners to a quarter-final exit, a back-up bot may increase their odds.