Go to Post In 2001 instead of staring at the field at the game I turned around and watched the people watch the field. All I could see was a mass of people from all corners of the world, eyes lit up, gears turning in their heads. That, to me, is FIRST in action. - Jessica Boucher [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > General Forum
CD-Media   CD-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #106   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 14:11
Joe Ross's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Joe Ross Joe Ross is offline
Registered User
FRC #0330 (Beachbots)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,603
Joe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond reputeJoe Ross has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26 View Post
It seems to me that FIRST is targeting a rate of about 1 team in 8 for the long-term ratio.
Given that you've shown the ratio varies wildly from region to region and year to year, what causes you to draw this conclusion? Don't you think there are other factors in play?
Reply With Quote
  #107   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 15:05
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

I'm drawing this conclusion based on the updated number of seats HQ assigned to our two 2013 district championships. I expect the number of seats awarded to our four 2014 district championships will keep pace at around 1 team in 7.7-7.8. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats what I'm expecting.

Anybody know if the number of qualifiers from MI, MAR, PNW, and NE are announced for 2014 yet?

Ontario will roughly keep pace with the 1 team in 4 rate in 2014, with 5 regionals qualifying 30 teams, from an estimated 115-120 competing.
Reply With Quote
  #108   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 15:14
Steven Donow Steven Donow is offline
Registered User
AKA: Scooby
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,335
Steven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26 View Post
I'm drawing this conclusion based on the updated number of seats HQ assigned to our two 2013 district championships. I expect the number of seats awarded to our four 2014 district championships will keep pace at around 1 team in 7.7-7.8. Maybe I'm wrong, but thats what I'm expecting.

Anybody know if the number of qualifiers from MI, MAR, PNW, and NE are announced for 2014 yet?

Ontario will roughly keep pace with the 1 team in 4 rate in 2014, with 5 regionals qualifying 30 teams, from an estimated 115-120 competing.
The qualification of district teams is supposed to follow that region's percentage of total FRC teams=the same percentage of team's at championships. So, let's say MAR is 10% of all FRC teams and there are 400 teams at championships, MAR should have 40 qualifying spots at championships.
Reply With Quote
  #109   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 15:17
themccannman's Avatar
themccannman themccannman is offline
registered lurker
AKA: Jake McCann
FRC #3501
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Rookie Year: 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 432
themccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond reputethemccannman has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

As several other people have mentioned, due to the large average size of FRC teams along with the volume of teams at CMP, we're approaching the maximum capacity of any city to host the event. I don't think you can take many more than 400 teams to a single city to compete due to the physical limitations of the city itself, I can't think of very many places that can handle a regular population influx of 25,000+ people in one week. Instead of increasing the size of CMP I think the only solution (as previously mentioned) is adding another layer of qualification, e.g. super regionals. Looking at other highschool sports their qualification ladder goes something like this:

divisions --> sections --> regions --> states --> nationals --> worlds.

FRC could adapt a similar method with districts --> regionals --> CMP.

I hope I'm not being redundant but I'm just casting my vote.
__________________
All posts here are purely my own opinion.
2011-2015: 1678
2016: 846
2017 - current: 3501
Reply With Quote
  #110   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 15:33
Cory's Avatar
Cory Cory is offline
Registered User
AKA: Cory McBride
FRC #0254 (The Cheesy Poofs)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 6,825
Cory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond reputeCory has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Cory
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodar View Post
I dont think you understood his post.
His point is you'd have a really hard time setting up stands in a convention center at the scale required. You're basically constructing an arena. This is from Einstein in 2002 when championships was 290 FRC teams, no FTC, and far fewer FLL teams. Think about how much bigger that has to be to accommodate basically twice as many people.
__________________
2001-2004: Team 100
2006-Present: Team 254
Reply With Quote
  #111   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 15:58
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by themccannman View Post
As several other people have mentioned, due to the large average size of FRC teams along with the volume of teams at CMP, we're approaching the maximum capacity of any city to host the event. I don't think you can take many more than 400 teams to a single city to compete due to the physical limitations of the city itself, I can't think of very many places that can handle a regular population influx of 25,000+ people in one week. Instead of increasing the size of CMP I think the only solution (as previously mentioned) is adding another layer of qualification, e.g. super regionals. Looking at other highschool sports their qualification ladder goes something like this:

divisions --> sections --> regions --> states --> nationals --> worlds.

FRC could adapt a similar method with districts --> regionals --> CMP.

I hope I'm not being redundant but I'm just casting my vote.
Certainly this is the direction things will have to go long-term. Until we get more districts online though, this isn't a workable solution.

I don't believe that we've reached the maximum feasible size for CMP.

I agree there are few places that have the space and the ability to deal with the influx of people a bigger CMP would require.

I would say, actually that there is just two. Orlando, and the OCCC, or Atlanta, and the GWCC/Georgia Dome.

Examining dual-field divisions a bit further:

I think we all agree that GWCC had significantly more space than we needed for the pits. Enough to easily house up to ~600 FRC teams, plus FLL and FTC, still with room to spare.

This:
Click image for larger version

Name:	Possible Layout.png
Views:	90
Size:	4.1 KB
ID:	15282

Is an NFL-football field (large rectangle, 360x160ft), with 12 FRC-field sized areas (40x70ft) drawn on it. The truth of the matter is that the floor of both the EJD and the GD are significantly larger than an NFL field, so things wouldn't be quite this cramped.

While Einstein is being used for FLL, it could be curtained off from Archi and Curie to reduce noise pollution. Then for the Einstein rounds, some of the Archi and Curie seating can serve dual-duty with the curtains dropped.

In 2013, we played 134 matches per division, with an average cycle time of 7:03, with 100 team divisions.

Each team played 8 matches, except 4 per division who each played a surrogate match.

With a match cycle time of 7:03, there is no reason to believe that achieving 200% of a single field's matches is impossible, but for sake of argument, lets say you achieve 194%. 260 matches, at 6 teams/match, and 130 teams/division = 12 matches per team. 520 team CMP capacity AND everyone gets 12 matches, without extending the length of the event. For what its worth, 7:03 cycle times is the longest cycle times CMP has had since 2008.

Everyone cites a limited number of volunteers as a sticking point for a bigger CMP. I don't see that as a problem. Bigger CMP, means more teams, means more people to volunteer.
Reply With Quote
  #112   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 16:08
Steven Donow Steven Donow is offline
Registered User
AKA: Scooby
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,335
Steven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26 View Post
Certainly this is the direction things will have to go long-term. Until we get more districts online though, this isn't a workable solution.

I don't believe that we've reached the maximum feasible size for CMP.

I agree there are few places that have the space and the ability to deal with the influx of people a bigger CMP would require.

I would say, actually that there is just two. Orlando, and the OCCC, or Atlanta, and the GWCC/Georgia Dome.

Examining dual-field divisions a bit further:

I think we all agree that GWCC had significantly more space than we needed for the pits. Enough to easily house up to ~600 FRC teams, plus FLL and FTC, still with room to spare.

This:
Attachment 15282

Is an NFL-football field (large rectangle, 360x160ft), with 12 FRC-field sized areas (40x70ft) drawn on it. The truth of the matter is that the floor of both the EJD and the GD are significantly larger than an NFL field, so things wouldn't be quite this cramped.

While Einstein is being used for FLL, it could be curtained off from Archi and Curie to reduce noise pollution. Then for the Einstein rounds, some of the Archi and Curie seating can serve dual-duty with the curtains dropped.

In 2013, we played 134 matches per division, with an average cycle time of 7:03, with 100 team divisions.

Each team played 8 matches, except 4 per division who each played a surrogate match.

With a match cycle time of 7:03, there is no reason to believe that achieving 200% of a single field's matches is impossible, but for sake of argument, lets say you achieve 194%. 260 matches, at 6 teams/match, and 130 teams/division = 12 matches per team. 520 team CMP capacity AND everyone gets 12 matches, without extending the length of the event. For what its worth, 7:03 cycle times is the longest cycle times CMP has had since 2008.

Everyone cites a limited number of volunteers as a sticking point for a bigger CMP. I don't see that as a problem. Bigger CMP, means more teams, means more people to volunteer.
Bigger CMP doesn't mean more teams to have people volunteer...many team's bring what is considered a "skeleton crew" compared to what they bring to regionals/districts. And just because there are more volunteers(many teams don't bring people/have people strictly volunteering at Champs...) doesn't mean there are more trained volunteers...that's the challenging part. With an additional field you need additional FTAs, Head Refs, head Queuers, scorekeepers, Field Supervisors, inspectors, etc. All positions that require significant training. Not to mention that with the double-field structure, what happens if one field has technical issues? This could essentially derail the entire competition. The reason there were so few matches/team this year at championships was due to the significantly longer reset time compared to past years.
Reply With Quote
  #113   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 16:18
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevenStonow View Post
With an additional field you need additional FTAs, Head Refs, head Queuers, scorekeepers, Field Supervisors, inspectors, etc. All positions that require significant training.
Except you don't. That's the whole point of a double-field division, and not going to an 8 division format. A dual-field division only needs one set of refs, one set of scorekeepers, one set of field resetters. It really only needs some additional queuers, and some additional crowd control volunteers. Most of the additional volunteers needed are relatively untrained positions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevenStonow View Post
Not to mention that with the double-field structure, what happens if one field has technical issues? This could essentially derail the entire competition.
And this is different from a single-fielded division how? If anything, having 2 fields allows for some added fault-tolerance in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevenStonow View Post
The reason there were so few matches/team this year at championships was due to the significantly longer reset time compared to past years.
Agreed. The truth of the matter though, is that matches are 2:15 long. Match cycles since 2009 have always been in excess of 6 minutes, so my 200% argument should hold true.

FIRST had to make Championship Qualification matches start on Thursday afternoon to get 10/team in 2010 and 11, and just 9/team in 2012. We all agree that more matches is better.

Last edited by Racer26 : 08-10-2013 at 16:21.
Reply With Quote
  #114   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 16:27
Steven Donow Steven Donow is offline
Registered User
AKA: Scooby
no team
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,335
Steven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond reputeSteven Donow has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26 View Post
Except you don't. That's the whole point of a double-field division, and not going to an 8 division format. A dual-field division only needs one set of refs, one set of scorekeepers, one set of field resetters. It really only needs some additional queuers, and some additional crowd control volunteers. Most of the additional volunteers needed are relatively untrained positions.



And this is different from a single-fielded division how? If anything, having 2 fields allows for some added fault-tolerance in this regard.
1. Refs need breaks in between matches and if you're having two seperate fields, they scorekeepers can't just keep getting up and walking back and forth between scoring tables(the people at the scoring table are what I define as scorekeepers, different years have allowed different definitions).

2. There IS more room for error. 2 fields allow for less tolerance because it implies the solution to a field fault can't just be "play on another field" or "play through matches on one field while the other field sorts out it's issues" because then that could mess with match separation.
Reply With Quote
  #115   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 16:34
Alan Anderson's Avatar
Alan Anderson Alan Anderson is offline
Software Architect
FRC #0045 (TechnoKats)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2004
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 9,113
Alan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond reputeAlan Anderson has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevenStonow View Post
The qualification of district teams is supposed to follow that region's percentage of total FRC teams=the same percentage of team's at championships...
That's an unwarranted assumption. I'm pretty sure the original district-based region quota was based on how many Regional competitions it replaced, not on how many teams it involved. Besides, what is true right now might not be true later. There are rumblings of a significant revamping of how merit-based qualification might change in the near future.
Reply With Quote
  #116   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 16:35
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevenStonow View Post
1. Refs need breaks in between matches
So you have a few extra. I know from the fields I've volunteered on they had a few extra. The goal here is to require less than 200% of the volunteers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevenStonow View Post
and if you're having two seperate fields, they scorekeepers can't just keep getting up and walking back and forth between scoring tables(the people at the scoring table are what I define as scorekeepers, different years have allowed different definitions).
I envision this as being done with a single scoring table, connected to two sets of field hardware. I agree, walking back and forth would be silly. The two fields would need to be connected in order to generate sensible rankings anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DevenStonow View Post
2. There IS more room for error. 2 fields allow for less tolerance because it implies the solution to a field fault can't just be "play on another field" or "play through matches on one field while the other field sorts out it's issues" because then that could mess with match separation.
CMP already has no ability to easily switch over to "play on another field". Yes, technically Einstein sits there set up, and they keep a spare field on a truck in the loading dock, but the reality is that to switch anything like that out is a non-trivial operation.

As long as the sequence of the matches is respected, match separation should be unaffected by playing through on the working field.
Reply With Quote
  #117   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 17:02
Lil' Lavery Lil' Lavery is offline
TSIMFD
AKA: Sean Lavery
FRC #1712 (DAWGMA)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 6,656
Lil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond reputeLil' Lavery has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Lil' Lavery
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by themccannman View Post
As several other people have mentioned, due to the large average size of FRC teams along with the volume of teams at CMP, we're approaching the maximum capacity of any city to host the event. I don't think you can take many more than 400 teams to a single city to compete due to the physical limitations of the city itself, I can't think of very many places that can handle a regular population influx of 25,000+ people in one week. Instead of increasing the size of CMP I think the only solution (as previously mentioned) is adding another layer of qualification, e.g. super regionals. Looking at other highschool sports their qualification ladder goes something like this:

divisions --> sections --> regions --> states --> nationals --> worlds.

FRC could adapt a similar method with districts --> regionals --> CMP.

I hope I'm not being redundant but I'm just casting my vote.
What [US] sport(s) actually follow that format all the way through a national tournament, let alone a world championship event? For the most part, there aren't "official" high school sports championships beyond the state level, and only rarely are there actual competitions/tournaments to decide them. For instance, the High School football national champion is typically decided by a poll.

While the appeal of that format is obvious, there are significant challenges that it poises as well. The financial costs and time comittments to teams, volunteers, and FIRST/planning comittees increase with each level of competition added. For many teams, it's simply not feasible to compete four or five times in a single season.

The appeal of that structure is obvious, and the logic behind it is easy to follow. But there should also be a parallel discussion. Rather than adding layers of competition, when is it time to start removing them? At what point is a "champioship event" simply not feasible? At what point is it no longer the best return on investment for the time and cost sunk into it by the participants, sponsors, and volunteers? Would FRC benefit from more of a "world festival" event similar to FLL?
Reply With Quote
  #118   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 17:06
Mr V's Avatar
Mr V Mr V is offline
FIRST Senior Mentor Washington
FRC #5588 (Reign)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Rookie Year: 2009
Location: Maple Valley Wa
Posts: 997
Mr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond reputeMr V has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Anderson View Post
That's an unwarranted assumption. I'm pretty sure the original district-based region quota was based on how many Regional competitions it replaced, not on how many teams it involved. Besides, what is true right now might not be true later. There are rumblings of a significant revamping of how merit-based qualification might change in the near future.
You are correct that the original system was that a district sent they same number of teams as did the traditional regionals that the district replaced. However in that time FiM continued to grow and grow, so for the 2013 season they and Mar got a percentage of the available slots (less those dedicated for pre-qualified teams, I assume) based on the percentage of teams their district represents.

That is why FiM had sent 18 teams until the 2013 season when they sent 27 teams. Mar sent 12 teams their first year based on replacing 2 regionals but for the 2013 season they sent 14. I am expecting to see something similar happen this season so I don't expect that the districts will know exactly how many teams they will send until after the payment date.
__________________
All statements made on Chief Delphi by me are my own opinions and are not official FIRST rulings or opinions and should not be construed as such.




https://www.facebook.com/pages/Team-...77508782410839
Reply With Quote
  #119   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 20:09
Patrick Flynn Patrick Flynn is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Rookie Year: 2010
Location: Churchville Ny
Posts: 178
Patrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond reputePatrick Flynn has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racer26 View Post
Examining dual-field divisions a bit further:

Is an NFL-football field (large rectangle, 360x160ft), with 12 FRC-field sized areas (40x70ft) drawn on it. The truth of the matter is that the floor of both the EJD and the GD are significantly larger than an NFL field, so things wouldn't be quite this cramped.

While Einstein is being used for FLL, it could be curtained off from Archi and Curie to reduce noise pollution. Then for the Einstein rounds, some of the Archi and Curie seating can serve dual-duty with the curtains dropped.

In 2013, we played 134 matches per division, with an average cycle time of 7:03, with 100 team divisions.

Each team played 8 matches, except 4 per division who each played a surrogate match.

With a match cycle time of 7:03, there is no reason to believe that achieving 200% of a single field's matches is impossible, but for sake of argument, lets say you achieve 194%. 260 matches, at 6 teams/match, and 130 teams/division = 12 matches per team. 520 team CMP capacity AND everyone gets 12 matches, without extending the length of the event. For what its worth, 7:03 cycle times is the longest cycle times CMP has had since 2008.

Everyone cites a limited number of volunteers as a sticking point for a bigger CMP. I don't see that as a problem. Bigger CMP, means more teams, means more people to volunteer.
I think your missing a couple things here, First yes bigger CMP means more teams, but that doesn't necessary mean more volunteers. Many of the people that volunteer are coming regardless of if their team does or not.

Now about the adding more fields,
Einstein there leaves no VIP area to see the field. Thats been addressed here before, the VIPS will get the good seats so that doesn't work.

Where is the stage and floor seating going?

Yes you've managed to cram the fields in but you've left less than 10ft between fields assuming the stadium is 50ft longer than the football field.

The tunnel to the convention center isn't centered on a long side so that spacing doesn't really work out.

Here's a map of the dome floor from last year. Laying the fields out the way you have just isn't reasonable
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/at...8&d=1366812834
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 08-10-2013, 20:37
Racer26 Racer26 is offline
Registered User
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Beaverton, ON
Posts: 2,229
Racer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond reputeRacer26 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Championship Location Announced

I think you're forgetting that I've oversized the areas by a fair margin. An FRC field is 27x54ft, and the area I allocated for each field was 40x70. Additionally, an NFL football field is 57,600 square feet. The Georgia Dome advertises 106,000 ish square feet of floor space.

Yes, it would be tight. I think its possible.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 13:40.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi