New Championship Layout 2015

[StillDefective]

On the point of noise pollution, FTC had 2 divisions with two fields RIGHT next to each other, and Curie next to those and it wasn't much of a problem. Whoever did the sound setup knows their stuff, because if you sat in the right place, you would only notice the field that you were watching and not any of the adjacent ones.

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by StillDefective

On the point of noise pollution, FTC had 2 divisions with two fields RIGHT next to each other, and Curie next to those and it wasn't much of a problem. Whoever did the sound setup knows their stuff, because if you sat in the right place, you would only notice the field that you were watching and not any of the adjacent ones.

I wasn't in the stands for Archimedes and Newton for very long, but I can imagine that it gets pretty confusing as you get closer to where their stands blend. That kind of crossover (of both seats and sound) would be significantly more common if we wedged another 2 fields into the dome.

[Calrobe]

Originally Posted by ZehP

I wasn't in the stands for Archimedes and Newton for very long, but I can imagine that it gets pretty confusing as you get closer to where their stands blend. That kind of crossover (of both seats and sound) would be significantly more common if we wedged another 2 fields into the dome.

As a member of Archimedes queuing, I can say that both sound and seating might be a problem if you sat between the two fields. If you are worried about not to hear, you could have sat behind the red driver station, since no one was over there.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by ZehP

I wasn't in the stands for Archimedes and Newton for very long, but I can imagine that it gets pretty confusing as you get closer to where their stands blend. That kind of crossover (of both seats and sound) would be significantly more common if we wedged another 2 fields into the dome.

It wouldn't be any more of a problem than sitting in the corner between Curie and Archimedes or Newton and Galileo. Adding two more fields isn't insane, especially if you take out Saturday morning quals and start alliance selections first thing in the morning to turn Einstein into a round robin.

[tindleroot]

Seeing that only one part of the dome is moving next year (FTC), I feel that for FRC First should make a rookie team division. Given a solid influx of new teams each year, FIRST could add a division of 50-100 rookie teams that qualify from rookie all-star, etc. Even though this division would not compete in Einstein, there would still be 3 (or 4) World Rookie Championship teams. Plus, the competition would not be as rough for rookie teams, so rookies would have a solid chance to win compared to relatively little chance as it stands now. Teams would feel more inspired by other rookie teams as well as the prospects of being in one of the major divisions the following year. More non-rookie teams would also be able to fill in spots at nationals that rookies currently have. I feel that if First played this right, adding a rookie division would make a better experience for all teams with more competitive divisions, giving rookies easier competition, and still trying to provide that inspiration to work harder in the future. However, I am not sure how successful rookie teams (winning regionals, etc.) would work; maybe they would just qualify like the rest of the veteran teams.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by StillDefective

On the point of noise pollution, FTC had 2 divisions with two fields RIGHT next to each other, and Curie next to those and it wasn't much of a problem. Whoever did the sound setup knows their stuff, because if you sat in the right place, you would only notice the field that you were watching and not any of the adjacent ones.

I agree, being in Curie myself. Maybe also if they set up curtains in between each field like the ones behind the screens it would help isolate each division without making them farther apart. You could still see other divisions simply by walking over to them.

[dcarr]

Originally Posted by tindleroot

Seeing that only one part of the dome is moving next year (FTC), I feel that for FRC First should make a rookie team division. Given a solid influx of new teams each year, FIRST could add a division of 50-100 rookie teams that qualify from rookie all-star, etc. Even though this division would not compete in Einstein, there would still be 3 (or 4) World Rookie Championship teams. Plus, the competition would not be as rough for rookie teams, so rookies would have a solid chance to win compared to relatively little chance as it stands now. Teams would feel more inspired by other rookie teams as well as the prospects of being in one of the major divisions the following year. More non-rookie teams would also be able to fill in spots at nationals that rookies currently have. I feel that if First played this right, adding a rookie division would make a better experience for all teams with more competitive divisions, giving rookies easier competition, and still trying to provide that inspiration to work harder in the future. However, I am not sure how successful rookie teams (winning regionals, etc.) would work; maybe they would just qualify like the rest of the veteran teams.

By suggesting this, you are implicitly saying that rookies are guaranteed to be less capable than veteran teams and should not even be given a chance to play (win?) with & against veteran teams. I think this is an incorrect assumption.

There are so many counter examples of rookies that outshine veteran teams.

[tindleroot]

Originally Posted by dcarr

By suggesting this, you are implicitly saying that rookies are guaranteed to be less capable than veteran teams and should not even be given a chance to play (win?) with & against veteran teams. I think this is an incorrect assumption.

There are so many counter examples of rookies that outshine veteran teams.

This is not quite my point. I know some rookie teams can be successful; there was one who made it to Einstein this year. However, it has shown over the years that veteran teams by nature have more success since they have more experienced coaches who understand the logistics of first. There are exceptions; I agree there should be a way to address them and give rookie teams a chance to win. However, history has shown in general rookie teams are not up to the caliber of the veterans. I agree this is the flaw in my idea and I believe some modified implementation of this idea will make the championships a better experience for all teams.

[PayneTrain]

Originally Posted by thefro526

There NEEDS to be a split at the championship, or there will never be a TRUE championship.

Isn't there already a split where you go from 100 teams on a division down to 32?

[MarcD79]

Originally Posted by Chris Fultz

one option could be two fields per division, side by side. some volunteers move back and forth between the fields, others are set to one of them - that way you don't need 2x the volunteers - maybe 1.5x. More matches, faster cycle times, faster pace for the crowd. almost no down time.

Well Chris, have you worked as a volunteer this year? I have. Your theory of sending volunteers back & forth between fields is insane. If you have noticed, not all volunteers are young. If you didn't have these multi-aged volunteers, you would not have enough volunteers for any FIRST event. After 6 weeks of District & Regionals most volunteers are getting a little tired. It IS a rewarding experience, but we as volunteers can only stretch ourselves so much. I am all for adding more fields to CHAMPS, but add more volunteers to make it work right. I leave those thoughts to all who have made it possible this year. Thanks & I'm looking forward to be beside all those great people next year.

[Dustin Shadbolt]

Originally Posted by MarcD79

If you have noticed, not all volunteers are young. If you didn't have these multi-aged volunteers, you would not have enough volunteers for any FIRST event. After 6 weeks of District & Regionals most volunteers are getting a little tired. It IS a rewarding experience, but we as volunteers can only stretch ourselves so much. I am all for adding more fields to CHAMPS, but add more volunteers to make it work right...

This. I'm definitely looking at volunteering next year, and I can't wait to see how the new layout works out.

[Dominick Ferone]

Being a mentor of a rookie team and alumni from a veteran team I can say rookies can put up a hard fight. As 1511 may be able to tell you ( as I may have some numbers wrong). 65 rookie competed out if the 410 new ones. 16 of them were alliance captains with 5 of them being as hgh as second seed. I was apart of one of the 5 and when I told teams were second seed they would say "oh you had an easy schedule" and it isn't true. We played the part we were supposed to and so did our alliance members and when it comes down to it rookies only differ from veterans some times in just terms of overall budgets. I know veteran teams with less man power and mentors than rookies. We also had many judges, volunteers, spectators and teams say to us you don't look like rookies with how our Bot was made. Rookies have won before and continue doing so and some rookies are sister teams of big names and can be a deadly force. Don't discount them for being first year teams. Between 4 mentors we had 25+ years of first experience.

[Rebecca Wasmer]

Originally Posted by Dominick Ferone

Being a mentor of a rookie team and alumni from a veteran team I can say rookies can put up a hard fight. As 1511 may be able to tell you ( as I may have some numbers wrong). 65 rookie competed out if the 410 new ones. 16 of them were alliance captains with 5 of them being as hgh as second seed. I was apart of one of the 5 and when I told teams were second seed they would say "oh you had an easy schedule" and it isn't true. We played the part we were supposed to and so did our alliance members and when it comes down to it rookies only differ from veterans some times in just terms of overall budgets. I know veteran teams with less man power and mentors than rookies. We also had many judges, volunteers, spectators and teams say to us you don't look like rookies with how our Bot was made. Rookies have won before and continue doing so and some rookies are sister teams of big names and can be a deadly force. Don't discount them for being first year teams. Between 4 mentors we had 25+ years of first experience.

This, this, and more this.
Being a mentor for rookie team 4930 this year we played our very first match at championship against 33 and won. Our coach was also an alumni of a veteran team, 340, so our drive team was guided by capable hands. Our robot could do some things that veteran teams we played with could not do. Although the thought of a rookie division is something that has crossed my mind, being able to play against and with some "big name teams" is inspiring and also a great experience. Throwing the rookies in their own division makes it so they don't get to see teams who have been doing this for a while unless they specifically go to another division. Our students spent a lot of their time at Championships scouting the teams we were going to play with and against so we could figure out the best strategy. I feel like they would have learned a lot less had they not had to watch the veteran teams compete.

[scooty199]

I heard some mention of Round Robin.

I'm against a Round Robin after the past 2 years watching VEX attempt at one. With the possibility of more fields and teams, I think things are better off in groups of 4 or 8 than a round robin.

[Andrew Schuetze]

Originally Posted by dpbuttram

We had thought it would be awesome to see 8 divisions of 75 teams. 75 teams x 12 matches per team = 900 team/matches divided by 6 teams per match = an even 150 matches per field. No more unwieldy extra matches for some teams or a couple teams not getting the same as most other teams.

150 matches per field can be done over Thursday and Friday.
The winning alliances from all 8 fields move on Saturday for an Elite Eight type setup.

Field names?
1. Archimedes
2. Curie
3. Newton
4. Galileo
5. proposed - Pythagoras
6. proposed - Hubble
7. proposed - Euclid
8. proposed - Kepler

Any other suggestions?

How about some serious research and suggestions for naming potential new divisions after famous females? Is Marie Curie the only famous female in STEM? Seriously
Do some research on these and others and then post some suggestions:
Lise Meitner (1878-1968)
Emmy Noether (1882-1935)
Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin (1900-1979)
Barbara McClintock
Ada Byron (Countess of Lovelace)
...
The Curie curse has been broken so bring on more female division names.