|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#31
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Only if you win the event.
|
|
#32
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
|
|
#33
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Another nice part is that if they're finalists they don't eat the wildcard spot from their alliance partner either.
|
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
OK. I just reread and get it.
In the recent past, we won the 1st event, no wild card generated. we won the 2nd event, it generated a wild card because we won the 1st event. we won the 3rd event, it generated a wild card because we won the 2nd event. Based on this year's rule, if we win the 1st event, now a wild card is generated for being a HOF team. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Quote:
Awesome note about Florida finals though, hopefully that continues as 744 seems to have gotten good at making finals lol |
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
The word "earned" makes me wonder about this. It depends on how you squint at it. In the past we were told that being pre-qualified didn't count as having "earned" a spot to Championship. Is that still true?
|
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
I mostly like the changes but have an observation:
It seems simplistic to get one waitlist chance in the hat per year not attending champs. Consider that you get 1 chance in 2015. If you don't make it, ignoring more non-wait list slots the next year) your chances of getting selected off the wait list doubles to two chance the following year. However, if you still don't make it, your chances only increase by 50% (from 2 to 3) the next year. As each year passes, your odds go up by a lesser percentage. Combine that with increasing numbers on the wait list and your chances might actually go down at some point. Should the scale between years not attending and chances given be non-linear? I'll admit, I'm biased, as our team has never been to champs (come close several times!) since our rookie 2008 year. |
|
#39
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Quote:
The whole pre-qualified example really caught my attention. To be honest, with championships increasing to a 600 capacity, I would much rather see all winners and finalists being eligible and not having to go through all of this trouble. This keeps it consistent for all regionals. As mentioned earlier, going to a later regional or to a regional where more pre-qualified teams are present, will have advantages. |
|
#40
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Take for example this year's FLR. Say through some miracle, the 341-2791-4930 alliance made it to the finals against the other side of the bracket, 3015-340-3044. Under the old rules, if the 340 alliance won, one wildcard would be generated through 340's prior CA win, which would be "spent" on 341, a prequalified team. Under the new rules, not only would that wild card be passed down to 2791, 340 would generate a second wild card by winning EI at Finger Lakes. (This wild card would be "wasted" as 4930 had already won Rookie All Star) There's also more opportunity to qualify at earlier events. Take TVR, a first event for nearly every team attending. When 20, 1126, and 229 won the event, no wild cards were generated. However, under the new rules, 20 would generate a wild card upon winning, allowing team 250 the chance to attend the Championship. I'm very happy with this change. |
|
#41
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Not quite true. Our alliance captain and second pick had qualified through winning and R.A.S, respectively, at previous regionals. Under the new rules, 1741 would have qualified from 1629's Win+RCA. Had the Finals matches gone the other way, 2 wildcards would have been generated in both systems. The only difference is that 1629's RCA would have pushed the wildcard down to your 2nd pick robot.
|
|
#42
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Last year Michigan had 10.3% (329 out of 3195 according to the first website) of of all teams, and I saw some semi official prediction somewhere that predicted much more growth next year. If we get to the point where 10.7% of all teams are in Michigan, then all 64 teams at MSC would qualify for worlds under this blog's rules. Even if the percentage stayed the same and 60 or so qualified, I could see this as being an issue. The obvious solution is get a bigger state championship, but EMU's convocation center probably can't hold any more teams. Are there any larger possible venues? Maybe two separate state championship events? I guess we'll see pretty soon when they release the dates for registration.
|
|
#43
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised to see each division with 80 teams in 2015 with an increase in the number of matches played. This allows for an eventual increase to 100 teams per division over the next few years to accommodate growth. |
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
Quote:
|
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] 2015 FIRST Championship (and beyond) Eligibility
The search page on usfirst.org (http://www.usfirst.org/whats-going-on) has some inconsistencies, teams that never competitive, things like that.
Navid Shafta of GameSense/1983 has this spreadsheet up that seems to have more accurate numbers: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...H_E/edit#gid=0 MI was 10.22% of FRC in 2014, having 277 of 2710 teams. This would be 61 spots with a 600 team championship. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|