|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
#166
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
With the caveats that the Indiana State Championship was an inaugural event, so we were looking for survival rather than a spectacle. We also host conferences in October, so there's not a real need to duplicate that at this level. But, yes, the spectacle was roughly equivalent to a regional event. However, if we work closely with HQ and their resources, it could certainly rise to the occasion. |
|
#167
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
These are the kinds of questions that should have be asked:
Quote:
No regardless (again, for me). Bringing the two alliance together is irrelevant to my championship experience unless I'm one of those winning alliance teams. Otherwise, I have still attended a championship with only half of the teams that inspire me. |
|
#168
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
|
#169
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
I certainly can't speak for Sean, but IMO, the DCMPs can & should serve as the "championship experience" in their regions, and it would be to FIRST's benefit to do what they need to make sure all of the districts they work with end up looking at least as consistent across the country as regional events do.
|
|
#170
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
I would hope that a "two winning alliances" event is televised and hyped for that. |
|
#171
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Obviously the consistency isn't there however, and it needs to happen. As Libby said, DCMPs should be held to at least Regional consistency that they were supposed to be as originally envisioned, if not at a higher value. |
|
#172
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
- There were so many fields I had little to no insight to how all the other teams were doing. At MSC with two fields, I knew how most people were doing and how the rankings were shaping up. - Competition was fierce through the top 75% of teams at MSC, when it was only fierce around the top 25% at champs. Granted champs had more elite teams, MSC was deeper. -Televised commentary from Dave and Dan was fantastic and awesome shots from the boom cameras at MSC, footage at champs missed the mark. Champs did have a little better production/viewing experience for people in the stands. But you could only see your fields action. I might be a little biased based on where I'm from, so maybe an outsider can chime in that attended MSC. I absolutely think district champs would be the perfect thing to replace the championship feel, and it's scaleable. |
|
#173
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
I find this year to be similar. Yes, the #1 alliance at MSC had the highest scores in Octo/Quarter/Semi, but any alliance there could have beat them if they made a mistake. If the blue alliance had grabbed that one RC 1711 spent the entire match trying to get, they would have won. The can wars wasn't as intense as it was on Einstein, but I feel like that made it more exciting to watch. The winners weren't determined in the first second of the match. Einstein, however, was determined by the can wars. Every alliance there could score 250+ points (some even 300+), but you knew who would win 5 seconds into the match. TL;DR DCMP's can be just as competitive and exciting to watch as Einstein. |
|
#174
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
The 2014 and 2015 NEDCMPs were the best events I attended over the past two years. Why? Because there was a level of production value but as you hinted to above the field at a DCMP is more competitive than a division. You really feel like you take a step back when you are on your division after experiencing your DCMP a few weeks prior. Yes there are powerhouses and even teams from your district on the field but it doesn't start topping some of the districts until further in the elimination rounds and Einstein. |
|
#175
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
I'd love to see MAR CMP reach the production quality of MSC, but as of now, it feels more like a large district event than a championship, or even a regional. Last edited by EricDrost : 18-05-2015 at 15:52. |
|
#176
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
I personally love the way MSC handled things this year. They had 102 teams compete, so to keep everything on time they went to the FTC-style system of having two fields. This and the Octo-finals made this event better than champs to watch IMO. There was only one team at MSC that didn't have an average above 100. Alliances at MSC were the best alliances at MSC, while alliances at worlds were the best alliances according to who was randomly paired together. Could you imagine if worlds had one single pool to pick from for eliminations? |
|
#177
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
![]() |
|
#178
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
True, but if the size of worlds was the same size of MSC, it would be a bit easier. I was aiming for a pool of the best 100, not a mix of all 600. That would be hell for everyone attempting to scout.
|
|
#179
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
Last edited by Siri : 18-05-2015 at 17:04. Reason: fixed link again |
|
#180
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: [FRC Blog] Two Championship Survey Results and Path Forward
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|