|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ng-System-2014
Quote:
Points system here Some changes from MAR/FiM of year's past: The way Elim points are given out; it's basically the same as the past, however it seems to be worded differently so that if a backup is called in, you get points for what you play. Also, IIRC 2nd picks/backups got different points based off finish; this is now eliminated 10 points for Chairmans, 8 for EI/RAS, 5 for judged awards. Interestingly with this, Chairman's still grants auto-bid Age-based points, 10 for Rookies, 5 for second-years Last edited by Steven Donow : 31-10-2013 at 15:08. Reason: added "changelog" |
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
I would love to hear Jim Zondag (or any of the Michigan district folks) chime in on the merit of the Rookie and 2nd year team points. I know they have done a lot of work in showing what makes the point structure good, and am curious how that moves things. I would imagine this probably has its largest effect in teams near the make-it cut off.
EDIT: Or perhaps there is a "valley of death" in rookie and 2nd year team goodness where they either have already made it on their own merit or are out of contention. Last edited by Ian Curtis : 31-10-2013 at 15:15. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Wow, rookies get extra points for being rookies. I understand the desire to get rookies into district championships, but there already was a mechanism to give rookies extra help in rookie awards. Being a rookie is now just as important as winning the Chairman's Award, winning 5 qualifying matches, or winning an extra round in elims; at least in terms of qualifying for DCMP.
Does anyone know where this idea came from? I've never seen it suggested or implemented at any particular region before. I'm interested in hearing the rationale, I imagine it will make more sense to me then. I'm also a little bugged by this line: Quote:
Last edited by Chris is me : 31-10-2013 at 15:19. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Quote:
2. Wow. I missed that in my initial skim. On one hand, it seems kind of wrong for it to count against the district in the case of a team not going to the District Championship, and still technically getting one of that District's spots. On the other hand, I'm sure the FIRST justification for that is to at least somewhat mitigate the "more bids than spots" issues. |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
I knew that they were going to value all awards the same. FIRST values culture change as much as they do robot performance.
I was also pretty sure that they would give the same points to all teams in the elimination alliance. Honestly I don't know how I feel about that. EDIT: my math was wrong (I was so excited that I read through it too fast!) Last edited by Caleb Sykes : 31-10-2013 at 15:28. |
|
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
I'm mostly okay with this system, and glad to see we have a uniformed system. I'm still going through and analyzing, however there is one thing I am strongly against that did pop out.
Quote:
I don't think this is exactly a fair system. I personally believe that a District's allotment of teams should not be affected by it's teams earning slots at events outside of that District's competition structure. I hope FIRST might consider changing that policy going forward. Edit: Chris most of wrote his post while I was working on mine as I didn't see it before posting. Never the less I hope me brining this up adds to the point that this particular policy should be revisited. Last edited by dag0620 : 31-10-2013 at 15:31. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Last edited by EricDrost : 31-10-2013 at 20:32. |
|
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
Edit: I'm not wild about the large bonus for rookies and 2nd year teams, but I can see where it's coming from. Allotting points for the Chairman's Award is also questionable, but I definitely approve. It doesn't make a difference in district CMP qualification, but it does grant District (but not district cmp) Chairman's Awardees a preference in FRC Championship qualification. If a team has a better shot at going to the Championship if they won a team spirit award at a district, the same should be true for district Chairman's Awardees. Last edited by Basel A : 31-10-2013 at 15:43. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
From an initial reading of the system this seems a good compromise on some of the change proposals I'd heard.
Congratulations to all the people who worked on this and to FIRST for identifying and heading off the risk that different point systems could have on the coherence of FRC. I'm looking forward to seeing how the unified points system plays out in 2014 and to opportunities for inter-district play in future seasons. Now on to my quibbles: I am a little disappointed that points in Elimination matches only go to the winning Alliance for each series. One idea originating on CD was to reward alliances that push a series to a third match. It's a small benefit but would help a strong alliance that meets the ultimate winning alliance in the quarter finals. But the issue that concerns me most is that it seems there are no further points for a team that withdraws during elimination matches. This would mean that there are potentially divergent motives between individual teams within an alliance. Does team X continue with a barely functional robot and possibly keep scoring points or call for backup and get nothing? Last edited by MikeE : 31-10-2013 at 16:01. Reason: More positive tone; my training is in identifying problems first! |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Quote:
On one hand, I think this is a negative change. On the other, I completely understand FIRST's intentions (at least, what I'm assuming to be their intentions), of trying to mitigate the "more bids than slots" issue as much as possible, but on the other hand, I'm sure this would affect <10 teams, meaning the only real impact this would have is in regards to less waitlist teams being able to go to Championships, something which is already extremely limited. |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
Regardless of the inevitable merits or faults of a points system (let's face it, nothing is going to make everyone happy), I'm particularly encouraged by the promise of inter-district play. The concept of teams like 469, 67, 341, 195, and the rest playing on the same field, pre-Champs, is absolutely thrilling.
Just about as thrilling as Waterloo 2014... |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: FRC Blogged-Standard District Point Structure
^^ This!
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
I noticed that they did not state the number of championship slots that would be allocated at each of the regionals. Did I miss that somewhere else?
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|