|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Where in Seattle would they put 4+ fields? I know of no building with enough room to do all of this xD
|
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Quote:
Also: Epicot is not the only center large enough in FL to hold the championships ![]() Wouldn't mind one in san diego either... Any place that can keep my floridian blood warm is good ![]() Last edited by thatprogrammer : 27-04-2014 at 00:44. |
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Quote:
As another option, the Tacoma Dome is about thirty miles south, and it is a giant domed field. It also has hotels nearby, though the transportation to/from the airport is a bit more difficult. (Our public transportation isn't that bad, as long as you're only trying to get in and out of Seattle. Elsewhere, it gets a bit spotty.) More general pros: SeaTac airport is a decent sized hub, and there's no danger of either tornados or hurricanes (though April might be the wrong time of year for hurricanes anyway). Cons: We're kind of all alone in our little corner of the country, and teams from elsewhere might have some trouble getting here as easily as they would to a more central (read: midwest) location. Anyway, just the $0.02 of a local. Last edited by dictionaria13 : 27-04-2014 at 01:28. Reason: Talked it over with my dad, who's lived here longer, and has a better idea of how things are laid out. |
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Midwest is usually best when it comes travelling for everyone. I think FIRST would like to keep it that way in order to make robot transport easiest.
|
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Quote:
-edit- just saw the other post above about this and i agree the tacoma dome could potentially work (though it's still fairly small compared to the venue in st.louis) Last edited by RC3 : 27-04-2014 at 03:29. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Pits
The pits for FRC take up about 2 and 1/3 of 6 halls. So, pits could double to 4 2/3, leaving 1 1/3 halls for the displays and stores. Fields While the Field could physically hold 8 fields, the issues are: 1) Spectator viewing of the fields; and 2) Traffic lanes. You could have 2 fields on each end like Newton/Archimedes for 4 fields; and 2 fields on the far side from Alley; and Possibly one more field on the side with the Alley. While more fields could fit, it would be hard to get spectators (in the center of the field), or one would be right in front of the Alley. Maybe the Center is reserved for the Einstein field and stage. Volunteers About the only staff you could "share" with an adjacent field are the Refs and some of the Field Reset people. The FTA's, queuing, announcers, and others, are needed for the entire play and staging time. Divisions Assuming there are 7 fields, I think there should be dedicated divisions for: 1) Rookie teams. A rookie team that made it through winning a region/district could chose to compete with the rookies or in the regular divisions. 2) Teams that did not win a regional/district. Let's say that leaves 4 divisions made up of solely Regional/District winners. Those would be the ones to compete on the Einstein field. In this configuration, the 4 Competing division fields would be the two on each end of the stadium. The other fields could be done by Friday night, and be torn down and out of the way for the Einstein finals, leaving a lot of seating with a view of the center of the stadium. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Quote:
1. Where do you put the teams who qualified under the district system that didn't win there district championship or even a single district such as 1640 our Einstein Finalist 2. Do wild card winners go in the non-win division or the winner divisions like 1477 our Archimedes winner or 2848 our Einstein Winner I am just going to say that splitting divisions by how you got here is a slippery slope and should not be done. |
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Quote:
2) 1477 was the reigning world champion. There NEEDS to be a split at the championship, or there will never be a TRUE championship. The fact that there are teams that cannot control a game piece or positively contribute to an alliances overall effort really lowers the overall caliber of an event that is considered to be our 'Championship.' With that being said, we are fortunate enough to have crowned the best teams for the past few years, but not without a lot of undo stress along the way. A team doesn't need to 'Win' to qualify for the championship, they can qualify however they make it work. But to truly play for a championship, that team should at least be able to complete the game objective. There are a bunch of ways to make this work, one is putting them in their own division, with creates a lot of its own issues - mainly being that many of these teams will never get to interact with some of the most inspirational teams in FRC, but at the same time, ruining a top teams season isn't all that inspirational either.... An off the wall idea is to use some portion of load in day to give each team a chance to show their stuff on an open field... Those who cannot actually complete the game objective at some basic level are put into the match schedule differently, in a different 'class' or something, and any matches that are played with them (or an unbalanced amount from one alliance to the other) are treated as surrogate matches for the teams that are truly there to compete for the championship.... Now they're interacting with the top teams, and being inspired by the best, and at the same time those 'best teams' aren't being punished by the luck of the schedule at our 'Championship' event. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: New Championship Layout 2015
Isn't there already a split where you go from 100 teams on a division down to 32?
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|