[FRC Blog] Frank Answers Friday: Championship Slots

[Ginger Power]

One thing I'd really like to see happen is a way for the best individual team at a regional to get to champs. The way things currently stand, districts do a much better job of getting the top robots to champs than do regionals. Whether that happens through an existing slot like Engineering Inspiration, or some other method I don't care.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

One thing I'd really like to see happen is a way for the best individual team at a regional to get to champs. The way things currently stand, districts do a much better job of getting the top robots to champs than do regionals. Whether that happens through an existing slot like Engineering Inspiration, or some other method I don't care.

Best robot or best team, and how do you define either of those other than as the winner of the regional or Chairman's/EI?

[ATannahill]

I find it interesting that according to the survey about two championships the most important element of the championship is 'Seeing and competing with the teams with the best robots in FRC' yet we are currently discussing how to distribute the championship slots fairly among district regions and regional regions?

Do people feel that we can have both of these? Can we properly represent all regions while still having the experience of seeing and facing the best robots in FRC?

Please don't turn this into a discussion about two championships. That horse has been beaten twice already.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

Do people feel that we can have both of these? Can we properly represent all regions while still having the experience of seeing and facing the best robots in FRC?

I think so. The big issue is getting the "representational adjustment" slots TO the best robots in FRC in any given year. For example, getting MN's adjustment slots to the best MN teams.

Of course, solving that issue is a fairly "interesting" "little" problem...

[Richard Wallace]

I wonder if the FRC community should change our expectation of how CMP slots ought to be allocated?

For example, would it be more effective* if CMP slots were allocated to states, or district systems that combine states, in proportion to the total number of official event matches played in each state or district before CMP, rather than to the number of teams?

-------
*I expect that reasonable people will disagree on how "effectiveness" ought to be defined and measured.

[dodar]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

I wonder if the FRC community should change our expectation of how CMP slots ought to be allocated?

For example, would it be more effective* if CMP slots were allocated to states, or district systems that combine states, in proportion to the total number of official event matches played in each state or district before CMP, rather than to the number of teams?

-------
*I expect that reasonable people will disagree on how "effectiveness" ought to be defined and measured.

So then you would unjustly give more spots to district areas. Districts, on average, play more matches than regionals.

Until all teams are under the District System, the regional slot allocation should be what we stay with.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Best robot or best team, and how do you define either of those other than as the winner of the regional or Chairman's/EI?

Make it another judge's award. "Best on Field Robot Performance" or something along those lines. Or give EI to the best engineered robot, which is likely one of the be one of the best on the field. There isn't a simple solution like there is with Districts.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Make it another judge's award. "Best on Field Robot Performance" or something along those lines. Or give EI to the best engineered robot, which is likely one of the be one of the best on the field. There isn't a simple solution like there is with Districts.

I've judged at an event, and I wouldn't trust Judges to pick the "best robot".

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I've judged at an event, and I wouldn't trust Judges to pick the "best robot".

My thing isn't that we need to get the absolute best robot out of regionals. Any robot good enough to be in the conversation is better than the status quo.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

I've judged at an event, and I wouldn't trust Judges to pick the "best robot".

They aren't supposed to.

And most of the times judges don't get to watch many of the matches.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

They aren't supposed to.

And most of the times judges don't get to watch many of the matches.

Agreed. I wasn't criticizing the people, it's just that the process isn't currently setup to identify the best robots (as that's not the current goal of the process). Identifying the best robot would require a large shift, or addition of more judges, to allow substantial match view time by more than a single judge or two.

[MechEng83]

Originally Posted by AdamHeard

Agreed. I wasn't criticizing the people, it's just that the process isn't currently setup to identify the best robots (as that's not the current goal of the process). Identifying the best robot would require a large shift, or addition of more judges, to allow substantial match view time by more than a single judge or two.

FYI, when there are enough judges, some are actually designated as "match watchers" to feed back some on-field performance observations to the other judges doing interviews in the pits. All judges are encouraged to watch matches as time allows. Your judge experience mileage may vary.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

FYI, when there are enough judges, some are actually designated as "match watchers" to feed back some on-field performance observations to the other judges doing interviews in the pits. All judges are encouraged to watch matches as time allows. Your judge experience mileage may vary.

Yes, but this is only a few judges. You'd want more discussion and input than that.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by MechEng83

FYI, when there are enough judges, some are actually designated as "match watchers" to feed back some on-field performance observations to the other judges doing interviews in the pits. All judges are encouraged to watch matches as time allows. Your judge experience mileage may vary.

That's entirely up to the Judge Advisor/Judge Coordinator. Most think it's important but this is a relatively new change. And, we ran 2x Match Observers at NEU with only 13 judges, it just meant a little extra work for the other judges.

Edit: Also, the big issue with talking about how judging 'is' is that it varies from event to event because there's a fair bit of freedom in how exactly to get things done. In short, there's no One True Way.

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

They aren't supposed to.

And most of the times judges don't get to watch many of the matches.

I had a student complain to me once that since most judges weren't FRC people, they generally didn't know how to objectively judge for awards.

And I just said "That's the point." Having judges do what they do isn't about objectively determining who the "Innovation in Controls" award winner should be- it's about exposing industry leaders who are often judges to these amazing students and exposing these students to industry leaders.

Ex: I talk to Team A and Team B, and Team A's students tell me in detail about their sloppy control system for their mechanism, while Team B wins the regional with their tightly and highly controlled mechanism but can't discuss it with the judges. I, as an FRC person who understands what these students are doing, might still award the award to the winning team, whereas an outsider judge will award it to the team who can talk about what they built better. That is (I think) an intentional part of the system. I place more focus on results, whereas a non-FRC person will place more emphasis on the attempt and the innovation than the results, while also learning about what FIRST-er's do.

I think the main problem with the regional system is when finalists aren't invited to championships or when the second best robot at an event loses in the semifinals because they were on the wrong side of the bracket or something.

What if (bold idea), before week 7, FIRST polls a number of experts on who the best 20 or so teams to not make championships are (kind of like this, but two weeks earlier) and invites them to the championship event.