2016 Minnesota State Champs

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by DareDad

The teams invited are invited using the same formula that districts use to select who's invited to district championships. The formula applies to the first event only.

This is false. Among other things, the district formula does not have the potential to award 10 points to teams who spend 15 minutes writing an essay they don't care about.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by hutchMN

This really needs to be fixed, 2175 and 3130 both deserve to go. This happens every year, and it's time to fix it. We can't call it a state championship if it doesn't have the best teams in the state.

I'm open for recommendations on how to fix it - any you send me will be presented to the rest of the RPC. We've looked at it from every angle we can think of, analyzing what the changes would be if we counted second events (as an average with the first event), analyzing the differences between teams that earn a spot at States versus those that earn a spot at Champs... We haven't found a better way that's fair to every team.

Counting a second event simply gives an unfair advantage to those teams that can afford more events. And for the record, that's 42 teams out of 208 this year - 20%. Allowing those 20% to count their second event gives them a benefit over the other 80% of teams in the state. This is the same decision that was made in districts - there, they count a team's first two events, because every team gets two events. If you sign up for a third? Well, that's some more practice and experience for you, but it doesn't count towards your ranking.

2175 and 3130 did really well at North Star, it was fun watching them play. But that was their second event. It's tough, but that's the only fair way we've found to make it work.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

This is false. Among other things, the district formula does not have the potential to award 10 points to teams who spend 15 minutes writing an essay they don't care about.

I agree, if you spend 15 minutes on your Chairman's essay/presentation/video no one will care about it. Or at least no one will care for it.

[Ginger Power]

Another interesting question relating to the state qualification system is should Chairman's team qualify automatically? The fact that my team qualified via CA and wouldn't have otherwise doesn't change my opinion on this topic, because I haven't formed an opinion as of yet. I've heard good arguments from people on both sides. Those arguments always boil down to:

If you qualify CA winners, you have to have some kind of overall CA award or recognition, something. It wouldn't necessarily have to be MSHSL sponsored which would obviously be ideal.

If you have no such award/recognition, why qualify the teams?

Obviously the Chairman's Award is the most significant in FIRST, but should that mean they qualify to compete in a competition designed to determine the best robots? It does for champs, but they compete to become Hall of Fame teams there.

I'd love to see something done with CA at the state championship, even if it isn't MSHSL sponsored.

[BumblingBuilder]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I'm open for recommendations on how to fix it - any you send me will be presented to the rest of the RPC. We've looked at it from every angle we can think of, analyzing what the changes would be if we counted second events (as an average with the first event), analyzing the differences between teams that earn a spot at States versus those that earn a spot at Champs... We haven't found a better way that's fair to every team.

Counting a second event simply gives an unfair advantage to those teams that can afford more events. And for the record, that's 42 teams out of 208 this year - 20%. Allowing those 20% to count their second event gives them a benefit over the other 80% of teams in the state. This is the same decision that was made in districts - there, they count a team's first two events, because every team gets two events. If you sign up for a third? Well, that's some more practice and experience for you, but it doesn't count towards your ranking.

2175 and 3130 did really well at North Star, it was fun watching them play. But that was their second event. It's tough, but that's the only fair way we've found to make it work.

I'm very much on the fence about this issue. I really wouldn't mind whether or not a second event is factored in, but I really like defense Jon provides here.

One of the arguments for counting a second regional is that it rewards teams that took the time to improve their bot. But doesn't that still inherintely and indirectly hurt teams that can only afford one event? This improvement ideology still hinges on the fact that teams with more money are given an advantage. We'd be fooling ourselves if we thought teams that can't currently afford two regionals do not want to improve their robot. Factoring in a second regional rewards the opportunity to improve the bot, not the actual action of doing so. Every team would strive to improve their robot for their second regional if they could afford it. Sometimes the opposite happens (our first day at North Star this year for example, and us in 2008), but regardless, factoring in a second regional is more of a reward for the opportunity to improve the robot rather than a reward for the drive and motivation of doing so.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by DareDad

I agree, if you spend 15 minutes on your Chairman's essay/presentation/video no one will care about it. Or at least no one will care for it.

But you'll still get your 10 state qualification points and you'll still take up judges time and energy

[Ginger Power]

Sorry for all the posts, I'm very opinionated on this topic... actually I'm very opinionated in general

Using only 1 event for state qualification rankings also provides incentive for teams to avoid early events. It is unfair to those teams located in the Duluth area that can't afford to travel. They only get 1 week after build season ends to make improvements (with no reference) while teams in the Twin Cities area that can't afford to travel, get over 6 weeks and the opportunity to see 254 and 1114 play, as well as many of their competitors who go to Duluth.

It's not fair no matter how you do it. I just think we should reward hard work rather than worry about being fair in a single aspect.

[Aren Siekmeier]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Using only 1 event for state qualification rankings also provides incentive for teams to avoid early events. It is unfair to those teams located in the Duluth area that can't afford to travel. They only get 1 week after build season ends to make improvements (with no reference) while teams in the Twin Cities area that can't afford to travel, get over 6 weeks and the opportunity to see 254 and 1114 play, as well as many of their competitors who go to Duluth.

Or do the Duluth teams have an advantage because they're not playing against anyone who has already played? Not clear cut either way. Making it "fair" is not straightforward.

We appreciate the sentiment and regret missing the event. It's always fun to compete up close and personal with MN friends again.

The qualification rules have been the same since the event was established in 2012. The 30 teams that performed best at their first events, according to district points, compete at state champs. We all know this, and try our best to make the cut. (Indeed, district teams still only count two events for points, any additional plays don't help ranking.) Both 2175 and 3130 have been lucky to attend in the past, and wish the best of luck to the very worthy competitors this year.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

But you'll still get your 10 state qualification points and you'll still take up judges time and energy

The 10 points for a chairman's submission has done amazing things for our state over the past 5 years. Back in the good old days, not too many MN teams submitted Chairman's. I'm afraid I don't have exact numbers, but I know it was single digits at each event when we first started MSHSL. Where I do have exact numbers, though - in 2014, 40 MN teams submitted for Chairman's, out of 186. This year, we're almost DOUBLE that number, out of 208! Sure, some of them may have been thrown together at the last minute just for those 10 points, but for the most part team's are taking note of what Chairman's actually celebrates, and submitting for the award is making them evaluate and improve their programs.

That said, It's certainly open for debate at this point - has that benefit served its purpose enough that we can take it away? Have we created a sufficiently focused culture in the state around the Chairman's award that teams will continue to strive for it in the levels they did this past year, and not just make it "all about the robot"? Tough questions to answer.

[BumblingBuilder]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Sorry for all the posts, I'm very opinionated on this topic... actually I'm very opinionated in general

Using only 1 event for state qualification rankings also provides incentive for teams to avoid early events. It is unfair to those teams located in the Duluth area that can't afford to travel. They only get 1 week after build season ends to make improvements (with no reference) while teams in the Twin Cities area that can't afford to travel, get over 6 weeks and the opportunity to see 254 and 1114 play, as well as many of their competitors who go to Duluth.

It's not fair no matter how you do it. I just think we should reward hard work rather than worry about being fair in a single aspect.

I would argue against the claim that this is unequal, at least as much as other sources of unequality. Every team at a singular regional has had the same amount of time to improve, and State qualifications are based on how they perform against all those other robots that have had the same amount of time to make necessary improvements. So while the performance at the Minneapolis regionals may be more impressive, teams are not exactly getting more points from it.

And a large majority of those teams that qualified had their first regional in Duluth, so the results actually seem in favor of early competitions.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Aren Siekmeier

Or do the Duluth teams have an advantage because they're not playing against anyone who has already played? Not clear cut either way. Making it "fair" is not straightforward.

This is an interesting view, and one that actually seems to be born out by the numbers from this year's rankings. Ignoring the 4 Chairman's teams, 22 of the teams that earned a spot at states competed in Duluth. 1 from Wisconsin, and only 3 from Minneapolis. Now, many of those also competed a second time (most in some combination of Minneapolis, Iowa, and Duluth) - in fact, 16 of the teams attending states attended multiple regionals this year.

Honestly, it's a crap shoot when picking a regional to attend as your first event. Some years, you'll be in a regional where the winning alliance is made up of all team's from out of state - that's a LOT of potential points that aren't awarded to anyone. Other times, there's practically no one from out of state. Sometimes a team that wins Chairman's earns a boatload of points that don't really matter anymore, taking them out of the equation for other teams. And, of course, sometimes it's second-play teams that eat up the available points.

[hutchMN]

another way too early prediction
1. 5172, 2052, and 4009 (W)
2. 2502, 2512, and 1816 (F)
3. 5434, 2883, and 4539 (SF)
4. 4778, 2823, and 2220 (SF)

[Chief Hedgehog]

Yes, this current system is now flawed. However, if you look back to pre-2012 when the formula was put into place, MN FIRST and the MSHSL had to come up with something - and it worked for a while. I do think it needs to be revisited.

I have an interesting vantage point. My team has made many contacts the last 4 years throughout greater Minnesota and I have been hearing of the problems with the current system. 4607 has been fortunate enough to qualify for the State tournament 3 of our 4 years - but not without help.

As a rookie team in 2013 we won the North Star Regional outright as the 2nd pick on the alliance (thank you 2175 and 967). We ended up winning the State Tournament with 2175 and 2052.

In 2014, the 5 points awarded to us as being a 'Second year team' helped us to edge out other VERY deserving teams (again at NS we were allied with 967 and 2175 - I still cannot watch that Semifinal match). However, at State we did lead the alliance (with 2530 and 3018) that ended up as Finalists - so that kind of validated our being there. In a weird turn of events we had to face off against 2175 and 2052 (and 4778) - our alliance partners the previous year. As much as I would have liked to win the State Tournament - we took the fact we had to face off against 2175 and 2052 as a major bookmark in our team's history.

This year we qualified based on RCA (I am still trying to come to grips with this). We will see how it ends up.

Now to my thoughts...
As a coach of many sports for more than a decade, I can attest to the fact that the greatest improvement for ANY team happens between the first and second event/match/game. No matter the competitive sport, there is a significant advancement following a team's first event. I am all in favor of having each team's last regional event as the qualifier for the State Tournament. I do understand the situation of low-budget teams, because my team is one. Becker does not have a large industrial/commercial base and even though our school provides the space, they do not provide any funding. Contrary to popular belief, Xcel does not provide any unusual tax base to Becker - Xcel Sherco tax base is spread out among all school districts in MN (Thank you Jesse Ventura). This last year we lost funding from our founding sponsor and it has been a great struggle as we attended two regionals. We are now in a situation where we face a negative balance and we face a $25,000 bill for worlds. We will most likely go back to 1 regional for the foreseeable future.

And contrary to most stats, we actually finished lower at our second event than we did at our first.

I am also very opposed to the gratuity points allotted to Rookie and Second year teams (even though my team benefited in the past). If we run a state tournament without Judges Awards, there should be no reason that these bonus points are allowed. Even if there were judges, there should not be bonus points based on years.

As for Chairman's Awards submissions, MN FIRST had a reason for this and I believe Jon Stratis laid this out effectively in his post. Many of the teams that I have talked to have expressed great disdain for the 10 points that are attached to CA submission. Now that MN FIRST has seen a significant rise in CA submissions, I think that their goal has been realized. However, since CA is the top award in FRC, I do believe that a team that wins this at ANY regional should be granted a spot in the MSHSL Tournament. I know that many of my colleagues disagree - but this must still be a part of the qualifications for state.

Man this is a long post. I will wrap it up with this:

In my opinion, qualifications for the MN State Tournament should go as such:

1. RCA's automatically qualify (no matter the regional)
2. MN Regional (Duluth or MPLS) Winners automatically qualify
3. The rest of the field is based upon a system where the LAST regional is the qualifying regional.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

This is an interesting view, and one that actually seems to be born out by the numbers from this year's rankings. Ignoring the 4 Chairman's teams, 22 of the teams that earned a spot at states competed in Duluth. 1 from Wisconsin, and only 3 from Minneapolis. Now, many of those also competed a second time (most in some combination of Minneapolis, Iowa, and Duluth) - in fact, 16 of the teams attending states attended multiple regionals this year.

Honestly, it's a crap shoot when picking a regional to attend as your first event. Some years, you'll be in a regional where the winning alliance is made up of all team's from out of state - that's a LOT of potential points that aren't awarded to anyone. Other times, there's practically no one from out of state. Sometimes a team that wins Chairman's earns a boatload of points that don't really matter anymore, taking them out of the equation for other teams. And, of course, sometimes it's second-play teams that eat up the available points.

Another great post from Jon. This was one of the reasons we (4607) went to Duluth - a venue filled with teams cutting their teeth for the first time. 4607 knew that going to Duluth was (in Jon's words) a crap shoot. A gamble that we lost in humiliating fashion.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by Aren Siekmeier

Or do the Duluth teams have an advantage because they're not playing against anyone who has already played? Not clear cut either way. Making it "fair" is not straightforward.

It seems to have played out in a way that Duluth teams had a significant advantage, with 22 of the 30 not counting CA from there. Not a single team from the Iowa regional... wow. I know there are more than a few who are deserving. My point still stands, things are never fair.

I really like Chief Hedgehog's suggestions, and I agree with CA winners qualifying automatically. Taking the last event or taking an average of 2 events, I don't think it matters, we can figure that part out. I do think something needs to be done.