New Championship Layout 2015

[Cory]

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. St Louis does not seem to have the infrastructure to support another 200 teams.

It also seems questionable whether there are another 200 teams that deserve to be at Champs.

[Basel A]

Originally Posted by Cory

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. St Louis does not seem to have the infrastructure to support another 200 teams.

It also seems questionable whether there are another 200 teams that deserve to be at Champs.

If I were FIRST, I'd go to 8 divisions of 60 teams. 80 more teams means Championship won't overflow (which it was probably going to). Fewer teams per division means there'll be easily 12+ matches/team.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Basel A

If I were FIRST, I'd go to 8 divisions of 60 teams. 80 more teams means Championship won't overflow (which it was probably going to). Fewer teams per division means there'll be easily 12+ matches/team.

Thats exactly what I was thinking.

And Justin, I dont think the EJD can handle 8 full FRC fields. Can it?

[Hallry]

If I'm not mistaken, this is what the footprint layout will look like. The yellow line is about 1 mile, as-the-crow-flies from the entrance to the Dome to Union Station.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by dodar

Thats exactly what I was thinking.

And Justin, I dont think the EJD can handle 8 full FRC fields. Can it?

It can house ~10 FRC size fields around the perimeter the floor (assuming 40x80 allotments). The problem is noise pollution from adjacent fields, as they're pretty close together.

Personally, I think 4x doublefield divisions are more likely than 8x singlefield.

Using doublefield divisions reduces the noise pollution issue (since 2 fields share a common audio feed), doesn't add a round to Einstein (which is already pinched for time), doesn't need as many volunteers as 8 divisions (but DOES need *some* more than 4x singlefield).

Additionally, doublefield divisions have much higher match throughput. 8x singlefield gives more matches/team by reducing the number of teams playing in a division. 4x doublefield improves utilization.


Also: I don't understand why people say scouting a doublefield division is too difficult. The fields are adjacent to one another, you can sit centrally and watch both. In 2004 and 2006 the Canadian/Toronto regional did exactly this, and it worked just fine. They played with 12 and 16 Elims alliances too.

[Hallry]

Originally Posted by Racer26

It can house ~10 FRC size fields around the perimeter the floor (assuming 40x80 allotments). The problem is noise pollution from adjacent fields, as they're pretty close together.

Eh, I don't know about 10 fields...I don't even know about 8. Chief Dephi users have argued about this in the past:


(Image credit: Patrick Flynn)

Originally Posted by Racer26

Using doublefield divisions reduces the noise pollution issue (since 2 fields share a common audio feed), doesn't add a round to Einstein (which is already pinched for time), doesn't need as many volunteers as 8 divisions (but DOES need *some* more than 4x singlefield).

Are you expecting the FTAs, Refs, Field Reset, Game Announcers, Emcees, and Queuing Volunteers to constantly run between the two fields?

Originally Posted by Racer26

Additionally, doublefield divisions have much higher match throughput. 8x singlefield gives more matches/team by reducing the number of teams playing in a division. 4x doublefield improves utilization.

If a single field has one division of 120 teams with 10 matches each, and a double field has two divisions of 60 teams each with 10 matches each, wouldn't it still result in the same amount of matches played per team? A doublefield may decrease the wasted time between matches though, which could increase the total number of matches player per team.

Originally Posted by Racer26

Also: I don't understand why people say scouting a doublefield division is too difficult. The fields are adjacent to one another, you can sit centrally and watch both. In 2004 and 2006 the Canadian/Toronto regional did exactly this, and it worked just fine. They played with 12 and 16 Elims alliances too.

The 2006 Greater Toronto Regional only had 72 teams total, while having a doublefield division at Champs could be almost double that. Seating is already cramped as it is with 100 teams per division. I don't see having two fields with 150 teams total cramped together working out. Only a small majority would be able to actually sit centrally to both fields, most spectators will probably be towards the end of one of the two fields.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Hallry

Eh, I don't know about 10 fields...I don't even know about 8. Chief Dephi users have argued about this in the past:


(Image credit: Patrick Flynn)

Depends entirely on how much space you allot per field. Double field divisions allow you to put them a bit closer together.

I calculated several years ago (2011 IIRC) that you can fit 10 FRC fields (I think I calculated on 40'x70' plots), on an NFL Football field. Both Georgia Dome and EJD have floors considerably larger than an NFL field (EJD is bigger).

Originally Posted by Hallry

Are you expecting the FTAs, Refs, Field Reset, Game Announcers, Emcees, and Queuing Volunteers to constantly run between the two fields?

IIRC, when it was done in Toronto (in 2004, 2006, and to a lesser extent 2011), you needed less than two regionals worth of nearly every volunteer type.

Instead of doubling the number, you increase it by some (say, 30-50%), and give the people (who will be working harder due to the non-stop nature of a double field event) more breaks more often.

Remember: We're getting a new control system (and likely upgraded/new FMS to go with it). There is no reason that it couldn't be designed to support 2 sets of field hardware from a single scorpion-case-replacement.

Originally Posted by Hallry

If a single field has one division of 120 teams with 10 matches each, and a double field has two divisions of 60 teams each with 10 matches each, wouldn't it still result in the same amount of matches played per team? A doublefield may decrease the wasted time between matches though, which could increase the total number of matches player per team.

That's exactly what I was getting at. The time that field reset is doing their job is wasted for teams. Double field divisions significantly reduce that. 2x Single Field Divisions to replace one singlefield division will give twice the matches in the same time, sure. But it does so at the cost of doubling ALL of the field equipment PLUS all of the volunteers.

Doublefield divisions don't need to double SOME of the field equipment (mostly the computers) and don't need to double the volunteers, just increase it some. They don't generate quite 2x the throughput though. They get maybe ~85-90% of the way.

I worked out last year, that each of our four divisions could go up to 140 teams/division, 12 matches per team by doublefielding the divisions, without extending the schedule at all. Additionally, doublefield divisions allow you to run a 16-alliance elimination bracket in approximately the same time frame, which gets more teams into CMP elims.

Originally Posted by Hallry

The 2006 Greater Toronto Regional only had 72 teams total, while having a doublefield division at Champs could be almost double that. Seating is already cramped as it is with 100 teams per division. I don't see having two fields with 150 teams total cramped together working out. Only a small majority would be able to actually sit centrally to both fields, most spectators will probably be towards the end of one of the two fields.

While I agree seating is a bit of a challenge, you're comparing seating 140-150 teams to watch two fields, regardless of whether its 2 divisions or 1. Most spectators are not scouts, and thus aren't as picky about vantage point.

Toronto used to be played in an OHL Hockey Arena (Hershey Centre) with 5,500 seats. From what I recall, there were plenty of open seats still. EJD seats 66,000. (AFAIK, we stick mostly to the 1xx series sections, which represent maybe 40% of EJD's total, still ~6x bigger than Hershey Centre for an event a little over 4x the size).

[221Sarahborg]

Having three separate venues compared to even two sounds crazy, which just tells you how quickly the expansion of FIRST is going. Maybe the growth rate thing on the Top Ten this year may not be so crazy if they're doing that next year. They'd probably move to a more legible city to accommodate for how many teams go to Nationals for how many there are in just a matter of years.

[Banderoonies]

I would love to see a Rookie Division so that a rookie champion can be crowned each year

[cadandcookies]

I'm more curious about how the extra teams will be chosen. More than six qualifying awards? Just more wildcards? Quantity of regionals increasing that much?

Very much looking forward to it. I'm sure we'll hear more once plans are solidified. I wouldn't be surprised if FIRST was still deciding what the setup will be. I'll have to wait until we get more detailed plans, but on paper this looks like a seriously good thing for the program.

I'm also curious about how much FLL/FTC visiting will be eliminated by this change. One of the cool things about Champs has been being able to visit teams from the other programs. I'm guessing separate venues will severely reduce that.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

I'm more curious about how the extra teams will be chosen. More than six qualifying awards? Just more wildcards? Quantity of regionals increasing that much?

Very much looking forward to it. I'm sure we'll hear more once plans are solidified. I wouldn't be surprised if FIRST was still deciding what the setup will be. I'll have to wait until we get more detailed plans, but on paper this looks like a seriously good thing for the program.

I'm also curious about how much FLL/FTC visiting will be eliminated by this change. One of the cool things about Champs has been being able to visit teams from the other programs. I'm guessing separate venues will severely reduce that.

The 2014 regionals/districts combined were already sending >400 teams.

Several new regionals are coming online each year.

As more district regions come online, you can dial up or down the amount of teams sent to CMP based on team density and available space at CMP easily. Plus in the early years of increased capacity, you simply go to the waitlist again.

[DonRotolo]

Originally Posted by Basel A

I believe it's FLL in the Renaissance Grand, with JrFLL and FTC at Union Station. The latter venue seems a bit far, doesn't it?

There's a convenient train system that takes a total of 2 blocks walking - a station at EJD and (of course) Union Station.

2 fields per division? Really? Why not just 8 divisions?

As for 8 (or 9) fields on the floor, no problem. Plenty of room.
Or maybe smaller fields...

[coalhot]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

2 fields per division? Really? Why not just 8 divisions?

Wouldn't it be nice to have 8 alliances on Einstein? It would be more of a traditional elimination, with a standard schedule (no need for a mandatory 6 minute timeout between matches).

[dag0620]

I'm gonna be that guy to interject for a moment and say, just because they're moving the other programs to other venues, doesn't mean FRC is expanding.

A. In terms of in the Dome, we're only really losing FTC, so space doesn't become that available. Einstein will still have to be there. Yes we could physically fit in more, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want too. Noise pollution, and just the feeling of being butted up against another field would detract from the experience.

B. In terms of pits, yes this opens up space for a lot more teams. But also this allows FIRST to add a lot more features utilizing that space, including displays, a practice field for each division, space to make an epic Finale, and other things like that.

I think this move is more about letting the other programs grow their championships/Festivals, and less about FRC getting to grow. I could be wrong, but that's my $0.02.

[Joe G.]

Originally Posted by dag0620

I'm gonna be that guy to interject for a moment and say, just because they're moving the other programs to other venues, doesn't mean FRC is expanding.

A. In terms of in the Dome, we're only really losing FTC, so space doesn't become that available. Einstein will still have to be there. Yes we could physically fit in more, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want too. Noise pollution, and just the feeling of being butted up against another field would detract from the experience.

B. In terms of pits, yes this opens up space for a lot more teams. But also this allows FIRST to add a lot more features utilizing that space, including displays, a practice field for each division, space to make an epic Finale, and other things like that.

I think this move is more about letting the other programs grow their championships/Festivals, and less about FRC getting to grow. I could be wrong, but that's my $0.02.

Also, space for more involved ceremonies and other such things. FIRST got a lot of backlash for putting a concert stage in the dome in 2011 at the expense of 2 FRC fields, and now does not have to make such compromises.