[FRC Blog]2017 Updates

[bkahl]

Tbh I kinda like the round robin.

Every alliance has to play eachother, so it will likely bring more strategic depth to play. I would have loved to see more of this year's Einstein alliances play each other. The two (four) deepest and best alliances will likely be duking it out on (both) Saturday(s).

Also, not only will we have a better idea of when the day will be over, the afternoon will also be shorter than Einstein has been in the past. We all know that's a blessing.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Tbh I kinda like the round robin.

Every alliance has to play eachother, so it will likely bring more strategic depth to play. I would have loved to see more of this year's Einstein alliances play each other. The two (four) deepest and best alliances will likely be duking it out on (both) Saturday(s).

Also, not only will we have a better idea of when the day will be over; the afternoon will also be shorter than Einstein has been in the past. We all know that's a blessing.

The length of the Saturday will most likely depend on how many speakers FIRST rolls out than how many matches they play.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Also, not only will we have a better idea of when the day will be over; the afternoon will also be shorter than Einstein has been in the past. We all know that's a blessing.

I wouldn't say it'll be shorter.

A 6-team round-robin tournament is 15 matches in total. Add in the 2-3 match finals, and you'll have 17-18 matches in total. (average of 17.5 matches)

Compare that to last year, where you had 8-12 matches in the quarters, 4-6 in the semi's, and 2-3 in the finals. That gives you a range of 14-21 (Average of 17.5 matches).

So, on average, we'll have the same number of matches on Einstein with 6 divisions as we did with 8 divisions. The variance is just less, which hopefully makes for a more predictable day, even if the match schedule doesn't make it any shorter. As Koko Ed pointed out, though, there's more time spent between matches on Einstein than in matches. If we really want a shorter day, we need to tackle that time block, not the matches themselves.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

I wouldn't say it'll be shorter.

A 6-team round-robin tournament is 15 matches in total. Add in the 2-3 match finals, and you'll have 17-18 matches in total. (average of 17.5 matches)

Compare that to last year, where you had 8-12 matches in the quarters, 4-6 in the semi's, and 2-3 in the finals. That gives you a range of 14-21 (Average of 17.5 matches).

So, on average, we'll have the same number of matches on Einstein with 6 divisions as we did with 8 divisions. The variance is just less, which hopefully makes for a more predictable day, even if the match schedule doesn't make it any shorter. As Koko Ed pointed out, though, there's more time spent between matches on Einstein than in matches. If we really want a shorter day, we need to tackle that time block, not the matches themselves.

FIRST likes to make Einstein a big production, often at the expense of Einstein itself.

[dirtbikerxz]

Could someone please explain what Round-Robin is, and how the two "best" alliances are selected out of that?

[wesbass23]

Originally Posted by bkahl

Every alliance has to play each other, so it will likely bring more strategic depth to play.

But they only play each other once, leaving no room to adjust your strategy if you lose to an alliance.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by dirtbikerxz

Could someone please explain what Round-Robin is, and how the two "best" alliances are selected out of that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin_tournament
A six team round robin tournament schedule would look like this:

[Taylor]

Originally Posted by Karthik

In 2013, 96 teams made the elimination rounds at the Championship (4 divisions, 8 alliances per division, 3 teams per alliance).
In 2017, 384 teams will make the elimination rounds at the Championships (2 Championships, 6 divisions per championship, 8 alliances per division, 4 teams per alliance).

In essence, this is the approximate equivalent (384/400) of every team from the 2013 Championship making the elimination rounds. Some people will really like this change, some will really dislike this change. An interesting decision to say the least.

(All this assumes that the alliance format stays the same for 2017)

This is an interesting take. I'd put myself in the first group of 'some people' for the simple reason that in 2017, almost 400 teams get to come home to their schools/communities and brag that they were (at least) quarterfinalists at the world championship. This can lead to great press, great community support, great feelings back home in general.

I understand the traditionalist argument of this making the event watered down, and I don't disagree with that. But for the larger goal of changing the culture through grass roots, getting people back home excited about a local's team success goes a long way toward celebrating STEM.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Taylor

This is an interesting take. I'd put myself in the first group of 'some people' for the simple reason that in 2017, almost 400 teams get to come home to their schools/communities and brag that they were (at least) quarterfinalists at the world championship. This can lead to great press, great community support, great feelings back home in general.

I understand the traditionalist argument of this making the event watered down, and I don't disagree with that. But for the larger goal of changing the culture through grass roots, getting people back home excited about a local's team success goes a long way toward celebrating STEM.

Yup, my letting more teams go to Champs and more teams into the elimination rounds (and more teams with a reasonable shot of making the elimination rounds, you're definitely going to have more happy customers. Of course you'll have those who don't like the further dilution of the product, but numerically that looks to be a minority, albeit a vocal one. (I'm a member if this minority, however I totally understand why FIRST would cater to what I perceive to be the majority here)

--

As a few people have mentioned, VEX has been running a Round Robin since 2013. Here's a link to an archive of the 2016 Round Robin.

http://livestream.com/vrctv1/2016-wo...osing-ceremony (Starts at 17:30)

You'll probably get a better idea of how it flows from watching the full Livestream archive instead individual matches on YouTube. It's taken a couple of years for us to educate the community on exactly how it works and to get them into the action. It is definitely not the most intuitive format, especially when you factor in tiebreakers, to an audience who is used to a standard best 2 out of 3 bracket. When done well, it's the most exciting hour (would take much longer in FRC) of robotics; match after match of the best teams in the world facing off. However to someone who's not robotics junkie, it could drag on, especially if lots of delays/speakers are introduced between matches.

In general I'm a big fan of this format, especially for the strategy that it introduces. I'm sure teams on Einstein will enjoy the opportunity to play against every other alliance. Many time when 1114 was on Einstein, we almost forgot about the alliances we never had a chance to play. In 2010, both us and 2056 were on Einstein, a fact that I forget regularly since we never played them, and were busy strategizing while they were playing.

[Doug Frisk]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Yup, my letting more teams go to Champs and more teams into the elimination rounds (and more teams with a reasonable shot of making the elimination rounds, you're definitely going to have more happy customers. Of course you'll have those who don't like the further dilution of the product, but numerically that looks to be a minority, albeit a vocal one. (I'm a member if this minority, however I totally understand why FIRST would cater to what I perceive to be the majority here)

Just exactly what do you see as "the product"?

Me, I see the product as a generation inspired in STEM by participation. More participation is more inspiration not dilution.

[wilsonmw04]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Just exactly what do you see as "the product"?

Me, I see the product as a generation inspired in STEM by participation. More participation is more inspiration not dilution.

It depends on how you look at FRC. Some look at FRC as merely robotics competition. Some look at it as a change agent. Others look at it as both with various weights on the two sides.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by DareDad

Just exactly what do you see as "the product"?

Me, I see the product as a generation inspired in STEM by participation. More participation is more inspiration not dilution.

I would say that FIRST sells a product (the competition) designed for inspiration. In this sense, diluting the product means diluting the competition. The inspiration derived from the competition, on the other hand, may well increase. It's like the supply/demand curves in economics - supply, demand, and price are all intertwined, to define your profit. Here, it's competitiveness, number of teams, and inspiration per team that defines overall inspiration. Increase the number of teams and you decrease the competitiveness, but you may be able to increase the inspiration... but there might be a "break even" point where increasing the number of teams decreases the competitiveness to a point where overall inspiration actually decreases. I won't even pretend to know where that point is, or if it actually exists!

[BrendanB]

The gap between a district Championship and a division grows again.

[efoote868]

I don't see it, but why assume we'll have the traditional 8 alliance bracket (for 32 / 67 teams), instead of 6 or fewer alliances in division elimination rounds (and perhaps a round robin?)

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-robin_tournament
A six team round robin tournament schedule would look like this:

I'm guessing there's nothing too special about the order of each round?

If not, by switching 3v4 and 6v1 within Round 2 and switching 6v2 and 4v1 within Round 4, you could avoid having a team ever play a match back-to-back.