2016 Minnesota State Champs

[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.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Chief Hedgehog

3. The rest of the field is based upon a system where the LAST regional is the qualifying regional.

I have to disagree there. It needs to be the first regional, not the last. By using the first, it benefits teams that come prepared rather than teams that react and have the funds to react. This is something all teams can do regardless of finances they can design and build something unique.

Or to put it more simply, at the first regional the robot is the one the team built. At the second regional the robot has had bits grafted on based on what they saw worked for others.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by DareDad

I have to disagree there. It needs to be the first regional, not the last. By using the first, it benefits teams that come prepared rather than teams that react and have the funds to react.

What about teams that specifically build for the tournaments they're attending? I've seen several teams show up to their first tournament with major subsystems that are intentionally left off. Early season tournaments are generally less competitive than tournaments later in the season, and planning to scale your robots ability to the tournaments you're attending is one method to build a robot that you don't have the resources to finish in six weeks. I don't see this as not coming prepared, but rather strategic planning.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Knufire

What about teams that specifically build for the tournaments they're attending? I've seen several teams show up to their first tournament with major subsystems that are intentionally left off. Early season tournaments are generally less competitive than tournaments later in the season, and planning to scale your robots ability to the tournaments you're attending is one method to build a robot that you don't have the resources to finish in six weeks. I don't see this as not coming prepared, but rather strategic planning.

You're arguing that teams that have the money to extend their build season through competition should be given an advantage over teams that actually build robots in six weeks.

Using the first regional puts everyone on a level playing field. If a team decides to not build a functional robot before bag and tag then that's their problem, they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by DareDad

If a team decides to not build a functional robot before bag and tag then that's their problem, they shouldn't be rewarded for it.

Then I guess several teams should give back their world championships...

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by DareDad

You're arguing that teams that have the money to extend their build season through competition should be given an advantage over teams that actually build robots in six weeks.

Please explain how teams who go to multiple events don't "actually" build their robots in six weeks.

Iteration is a key part of engineering and it should be praised, not condemned.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Ginger Power

Please explain how teams who go to multiple events don't "actually" build their robots in six weeks.

Iteration is a key part of engineering and it should be praised, not condemned.

I'm condemning nothing, nor am I saying teams shouldn't attempt to improve on their robots over the season. In the context of a competition all of the participants need to be judged on a level playing field. Just like in a foot race you don't give the rich kids a head start, for the context of determining the ranking you shouldn't give the rich teams an advantage.

If a team wants to rank highly to qualify for the Minnesota championships, then they should make deliver a quality robot to their first event.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by DareDad

I'm condemning nothing, nor am I saying teams shouldn't attempt to improve on their robots over the season. In the context of a competition all of the participants need to be judged on a level playing field. Just like in a foot race you don't give the rich kids a head start, for the context of determining the ranking you shouldn't give the rich teams an advantage.

If a team wants to rank highly to qualify for the Minnesota championships, then they should make deliver a quality robot to their first event.

Alternatively, if we want to encourage teams to attend multiple events, we should count two events for our rankings.

[Peyton Yeung]

When Indiana first started to have a state championships they used the following metric for who got in.

Indiana team rankings have been determined based on the previously announced point system. (Best event, win-loss, draft performance, elimination performance, awards, Tie-Breakers).

If it were me I'd add the score of the 2 regional teams and double the score of the 1 regional teams. If you can qualify via chairman's at 2 events you should be able to get points at 2 events.

[cadandcookies]

Originally Posted by Peyton Yeung

When Indiana first started to have a state championships they used the following metric for who got in.



If it were me I'd add the score of the 2 regional teams and double the score of the 1 regional teams. If you can qualify via chairman's at 2 events you should be able to get points at 2 events.

Personally, I think the double or two system is the best balance between being "fair" (lets face it, any way we cut it, the rankings are going to be unfair to someone), and actually getting the best robots in the state.

[Chief Hedgehog]

Originally Posted by cadandcookies

Alternatively, if we want to encourage teams to attend multiple events, we should count two events for our rankings.

100% agree.

As I stated earlier, Becker is not a well-funded team. We are by no means a poor team either. Yet within our budget we have to make really difficult decisions each and every year.

If any team would like, we have an open door policy. We will share any and every bit of knowledge to anyone who asks. As one of my own professors used to state: "Knowledge is free, you just have to bring your own bucket."

I think I am going bat crap crazy right now.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by DareDad

In the context of a competition all of the participants need to be judged on a level playing field.

It's not a level playing field now, nor will it ever be. Life isn't fair. The teams located next to a John Deere R&D facility will always have an advantage over teams that are in the inner-city with 4 other teams within 10 miles.

Similarly high school football teams that recruit players from all over the country play teams who can barely recruit from their own school. We don't change the way football games are scored, or the way the tournament is set up to balance everything out, and make things fair.

The good teams qualify for State, the bad teams don't. It's the way competition works. There isn't anything wrong with that.

[Knufire]

Originally Posted by DareDad

You're arguing that teams that have the money to extend their build season through competition should be given an advantage over teams that actually build robots in six weeks.

This wasn't the core of my argument, though I do agree with that assertion. Simply a difference of opinion there.

Right now, during the official tournament, teams that have the money to extend their build season ARE given an advantage. I was trying to suggest that there are scenarios where these teams could be put in a position where they have to make decisions that could make them less likely to qualify for the world championship but more likley to qualify for the MSHSL tournament, or vice versa.

[Ginger Power]

Originally Posted by DareDad

I have to disagree there. It needs to be the first regional, not the last. By using the first, it benefits teams that come prepared rather than teams that react and have the funds to react. This is something all teams can do regardless of finances they can design and build something unique.

Or to put it more simply, at the first regional the robot is the one the team built. At the second regional the robot has had bits grafted on based on what they saw worked for others.

That reaction that you are talking about is called engineering. It takes a lot of hard work, and yes, money. Money takes a lot of hard work to get too. Why are we more concerned with creating a fair environment (which we've already determined isn't actually fair), rather than rewarding hard work. As a byproduct of rewarding that hard work, we get to see more competitive teams at the state championship.

This is an engineering competition. Engineering isn't necessarily building "unique", and "fancy". Engineering is systematically determining the best way to approach a problem, and then doing so in a scientific way. Engineering within FIRST certainly isn't contained within a 6 week week period. The most significant improvement in performance for most teams happens at competitions. The idea that this would looked upon in a negative way by some is mind-blowing.

My team may have competed in 2 events this year, but it'll be tough to do so every year. I'm not making these arguments out of self interest.