2016 Minnesota State Champs

[youngace89]

What if we counted extra events, but team's events after their first one didn't give teams as many points? So being a semifinalist at your second event would be the same number as points as being a quarterfinalist at your first event.

We couldn't take the average of the two events here, because going to a second event could hurt a team's chances, so the team's score for state would be the better of their two scores.

This way the only teams that would benefit from attending a second event are those who are successful enough to be winners or finalists at their second event. 2175 and 3130 would have made it this year, and 2502 would have made it last year.

[jajabinx124]

Congrats to the 30 teams that made it in! While many great teams unfortunately didn't qualify for this event, I'm sure it'll still be a great event. It'll be my last FRC competition as a student on 2052 and I'm excited for it already.

[topgun]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned expanding the size of the field and the length of the tournament.

A lot of the current MSHSL tournaments (football, basketball, etc) starts out with every team in them. They play elimination games eventually getting to the "state" tournament. Usually they are single elimination games, you win you move on. The sport's state tournament will be a three or four day event. Right now in robotics you play one event and only the top few from each event are going on to the next play.

What is the restriction on making the Robotics tournament a two day event or even a three day event? People and schools have no qualms about pulling their kids out of school for 3 days for a basketball tournament. Would it hurt to expand the tournament to two days? We could even play Saturday/Sunday if people are concerned about volunteers missing work.

Idea for the future: Right now the MSHSL tournament results do not determine who goes to champs, so we could afford to have an elongated tournament season after Championships (would actually be good practice to see what a district model would look like). You could do 4 geographically-oriented regional tournaments with 52 teams in each. Top 60 teams with the highest OPR go on to the State finals for two or three days of robot nirvana.

I think there are options on how we work to get truly the best robots in attendance at the state tournament, and ultimately get more playing time for all of the teams.

One of the problems the RPC has in expanding to districts and more playing time for teams is the lack of volunteers. We need more trained volunteers so the same people aren't doing every tournament every weekend.

Also, I don't think CA teams should qualify for a state tournament that emphasizes robot performance. They are targeting a different award. Some teams do both well (eg. 2052) but I feel the State tournament should be about robot performance.

[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.

[NoahB4536]

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.

My idea for a fix would be to count the first regional in the team's home state. So if a team went to their first regional in another state and went to their second regional in their own state the regional they had in their own state would count. Of course if a team only had a regional in another state, then that regional would count. This structure would mean that the teams you competed against to get to your state championship would be teams in your state. The teams that have been mentioned previously as deserving to go to state didn't go because the we're competing mostly against teams who were not from their state.

[BenHildy]

To be honest, I'm just extremely happy that 2169 has a chance to continue our season. While we didn't qualify, I'm still going to try to get to the world championships to see what goes down. The fact that there's still a chance that we can make it to state is a heartwarming thought. However, much like everyone else is saying, just wish that other teams far more deserving had a chance too. Can't wait for the Minne Mini and Gitchi Gummi though!

[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.

[Andrew Dahlby]

QUOTE=youngace89;1571741]What if we counted extra events, but team's events after their first one didn't give teams as many points? So being a semifinalist at your second event would be the same number as points as being a quarterfinalist at your first event.

We couldn't take the average of the two events here, because going to a second event could hurt a team's chances, so the team's score for state would be the better of their two scores.

This way the only teams that would benefit from attending a second event are those who are successful enough to be winners or finalists at their second event. 2175 and 3130 would have made it this year, and 2502 would have made it last year.[/quote]

"A team winning a Chairman’s Award at any Regional competition automatically goes to the State Championship. " from the MSHSL



We currently allow teams 2nd regional to qualify them for the Mn State Tournament. If a team win CA at their second regional, they have earned an automatic bid to the state tournament. If we only count a teams first regional event, why in this case to we count the 2nd regional for team which can afford a second try?

[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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.