FRC Blogged - 2014 FIRST Championship Eligibility

[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.

[JB987]

I'm with Glenn and Aaron regarding selection of 4th bot for Division/Einstein elimination alliance. Only "negative' impact I see is a few minutes added to alliance selection time and a little extra cost for extra trophies/banners. There were at least 8 more good robots available at Archimedes last year.

[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.

[Gregor]

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.

Trying to make a picklist for 24 teams is enough, the 32 team picklist takes forever. It only works at IRI because of the ridiculous talent depth. Even then, it began to be a struggle around team 28ish.

The talent depth in the divisions is not there. The upper back half of the draft already starts to see a massive drop in performance. I don't want to have to pick (or be picked as) another barely functional robot. There are always exceptions and outliers (read, the successful alliances) but for the most part the third robots are low enough.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Trying to make a picklist for 24 teams is enough, the 32 team picklist takes forever. It only works at IRI because of the ridiculous talent depth. Even then, it began to be a struggle around team 28ish.

The talent depth in the divisions is not there. The upper back half of the draft already starts to see a massive drop in performance. I don't want to have to pick (or be picked as) another barely functional robot. There are always exceptions and outliers (read, the successful alliances) but for the most part the third robots are low enough.

Looking at actual data from champs, and I don't see 4th robots being substantially worse than 3rd. I'm sure teams would prefer picking their own backup versus the next remaining highest seed.

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Trying to make a picklist for 24 teams is enough, the 32 team picklist takes forever. It only works at IRI because of the ridiculous talent depth. Even then, it began to be a struggle around team 28ish.

The talent depth in the divisions is not there.

I really disagree. The 24th best robot in a division is far better than the 24th best robot at a regional, and somehow we all manage to make 24 team pick lists at regionals. For example, this year's 24th selections were 217, 862, 4039, and 2959. Yes, it is much harder to make a good pick list this far down the draft list, but it's by no means impossible.

Also consider the teams that missed CMP eliminations this year. 4265, 4124, 230, 2145, 399, 125, 2648, 2485, 842, 180, 79, 191, 503, 2439. Almost all of these teams outright won regionals. Surely there's room in the backup round for them.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Gregor

Trying to make a picklist for 24 teams is enough, the 32 team picklist takes forever. It only works at IRI because of the ridiculous talent depth. Even then, it began to be a struggle around team 28ish.

I disagree. There were some incredible robots left that didn't get picked.
11, 1625, 1741, 829, 2252, 1676, and many more were all putting up good numbers.
I thought for sure 11 would get picked, since they had such crazy potential.
I also thought that some alliance would select 1640, because although their climber wasn't working very well at the end of quals, if they could get it working by elims, they could provide a climb to an alliance sorely lacking one (Like the 118-469-2590 alliance).

IRI certainly went way different that how I thought it would in more than one regard (How did 1334 slip to the second round? How did 4265 slip to the third round? I just don't get itttttt)

Anyway, it's past midnight and I have school in the morning and this post is barely relevant to the conversation. Good night, Chief Delphi.

[Caleb Sykes]

I don't really want to have to make a 32 team pick list, but it would be nice to have a little control over which robot your backup robot would be. What if alliance selections stay as they currently are, but you can pick any non-selected robot you want to be the backup when/if the need arises? I know that our team has run into instances where the available backup robot is somewhat mediocre.
Just a thought.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by inkling16

I don't really want to have to make a 32 team pick list, but it would be nice to have a little control over which robot your backup robot would be. What if alliance selections stay as they currently are, but you can pick any non-selected robot you want to be the backup when/if the need arises? I know that our team has run into instances where the available backup robot is somewhat mediocre.
Just a thought.

I dont really see the problem people have with making a longer pick list. If your team does good scouting, then it should be easy to rank teams on the abilities you want on your alliance.

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by inkling16

I don't really want to have to make a 32 team pick list, but it would be nice to have a little control over which robot your backup robot would be. What if alliance selections stay as they currently are, but you can pick any non-selected robot you want to be the backup when/if the need arises? I know that our team has run into instances where the available backup robot is somewhat mediocre.
Just a thought.

And so in a division of 100, you'd make 76 robots wait until the final division match to pack up? What about an alliance deciding they'd rather have a specific undrafted robot for their matchup, rather than one of the original picks?

No, having teams draft their backup is a better plan. Of course, this has the unfortunate aspect of qualifying yet another team for the Championship from regionals.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

And so in a division of 100, you'd make 76 robots wait until the final division match to pack up? What about an alliance deciding they'd rather have a specific undrafted robot for their matchup, rather than one of the original picks?

No, having teams draft their backup is a better plan. Of course, this has the unfortunate aspect of qualifying yet another team for the Championship from regionals.

I don't think FRC will get to a point where backups are drafted at the regional level. The talent depth is immense in a 100-team division when comparing it to a 40-50 team regional. You'll only add one pre-qual to the Einstein winner.

[Allison K]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

And so in a division of 100, you'd make 76 robots wait until the final division match to pack up? What about an alliance deciding they'd rather have a specific undrafted robot for their matchup, rather than one of the original picks?

No, having teams draft their backup is a better plan. Of course, this has the unfortunate aspect of qualifying yet another team for the Championship from regionals.

The 4th draft pick could be implemented only at world championships level, or only at world championships and district championships level, rather than being implemented across the board.