2004 Championship Eligibility Criteria!!!

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by JVN
Mike and Joe-

You ARE representatives of 250 and 384 respectively. When you are on here, you are representing your teams. Just as I am representing 229, Andy Baker is representing 45, and Tytus Gerrish is representing 179.

The disclaimers in your signature... do not take away from this.

I do not want these "Whatever comes out of my mouth is the responsibility of no one" disclaimers to become a trend.

This is not the case. People make judgements all the time based on much less, regardless of how wrong they are. The things you say, can and WILL influence the opinions of people concerning your team.

John

When it has gotten to the point when people start to put my own personal opinions and connect them with my team, then it's become a problem. This forum is for press releases, but for a place where we can chat about FIRST. Our teams are just a reference, not a form of controll.

*backs off*

[Matt Leese]

Originally posted by Jeremy_Mc
how is that possible? we never went to nat's therefore we should drop into the 6th tier, that is if you're looking at it in the same light as everyone else that tier 6 gets a chance to go to nat's first?

It's possible because the Tier you are in is based on how long you've been "waiting" to go to the championship. If you're a rookie, you've been waiting for zero years. If you haven't been to the championship for three years, you've been waiting for three years. It's pretty clear to me that it's more fair for the team that's been waiting longest to go.

Matt

[Wetzel]

Originally posted by Amanda Morrison


1. It amazes me that people in the FIRST community are people who can create something from nothing, but relentlessly criticize the helping hands that let them create.

2. Don't be skeptical and criticize when you haven't even tried it out. Once it's been played out and you don't like it, then you can post and give reasons. If you are just skeptical and pointing out why you don't like something, it has little emphasis.

4. Until we get through this year and see how the process works, deal.

Part 1 is part of the design process, if you don't look for the flaws before hand, they will only show up later when it is more painful/expensive/to late to fix.
Same with part 2, if I don't think something won't work/isn't right, I will point it out. I may not have a solution, but there are alot of other people that read this, and they might take bits here and there and find a solution.

Part 4, indeed. While I will voice my concerns, I will voice them and then move onto the game.


Wetzel
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You can either spend lots of energy complaining about it and whining or you can try to figure out how to make a positive experience from the whole thing." ~Dave

[Mike Soukup]

Every announcement by FIRST is met with praise, joy, criticism, complaining, whining, and bickering, sometimes all from one person. So why would the reaction to the new Championship eligibility criteria be any different? Why would we react differently than we did 2 years ago (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...p?threadid=664. Read that thread and see what issues we had with the system that was in place the for past two years.

I guess I'll make my post useful and give a very brief opinion. I was disappointed to see the four major technical awards loose their status as qualifiers to Nats. Teams that work hard to build robots worty of technical awards are an asset to FIRST. It's a shame to see that FIRST doesn't hold the awards in such a high regard anymore.

Now go back to your bickering.

Mike

[Jon Reese]

every one should chill out!!!!!!!!
this probably isnt Forever!!!!!!!
dont forget, we helped them come to this! they got alot of their stuff off the delphi thread on this probably!!!!
this does make this more of a championship to probably. And dont freak out about those teirs. If those teams have not gone in a long time its likley that they wont go now! They may not go because they dont have the resources to go (ie MONEY!!!!!!!)
This also makes you wanna build another robot huh?
ive said my 2 cents

steps off soap box

[Argoth]

I haven't been here for the other system but if you ask me ya'll seem to be cryin about not gettin a free ride. The championship is what it should be now it is a compitition of champions. So stop whining build a bridge and either get ove4r it or build a better robot.

[Andy Baker]

Some people "feel" that the system is unfair. They either think that the FIRST Championships should be a competition or a celebration. It is apparent that FIRST is doing their best to appease both. While they really didn't want to change things, it was necessary that the change took place.

I have certain "feelings" about these changes also, but before I post my opinions, it would be nice to see some hard facts. Let's look at the numbers:

Pre-qualifying teams:
--------------------------
6 sustaining teams from '92 (although I have heard of a 7th)
12 Chairman's Award teams
3 Champions from 2003
XX teams who received 5 points from last year (PQ5)

It would be nice to know how many PQ5 teams there are. I assume that there are 70. If we know this number, then we know the total number of pre-qualified teams (PQ). Let's assume that PQ5=70, therefore PQ=91.

2004 qualifying teams (merit-based qualifiers):
----------------------------
78 Regional winners (at the most)
26 Chairman's Award winners
26 Engineering Inspiration winners
26 Rookie All-Stars

This total is easy. However, there is going to be some overlap. Some of the PQ teams may win one of these spots in 2004. I am guessing that 30 PQ teams will do well enough in 2004 to qualify as merit-based (MB) teams. So, the total of MB teams who are not PQ teams would be this: 156-30=126

Open qualifiers:
--------------------
AA tier 6 teams
BB tier 5 teams
CC tier 4 teams
DD tier 3 teams
EE tier 2 teams
FF tier 1 teams

It is apparent that FIRST likes limiting the Championships to about 290 teams. Expanding that number, I am assuming, is not an option for the near future. In a perfect world, it would be nice if that number was bigger, but demanding to make that number much bigger is unrealistic.

So... looking at the above numbers, about 220 PQ and MB teams will be going to the 2004 Championships, before FIRST begins with the open qualification process. That leaves about 70 open qualifiers (OQ).

It would be really nice to know how many tier 6, tier 5, tier 4, tier 3, tier 2, tier 1 and PQ5 teams there are. There has gotta be people out there who know these numbers. Anyone?

In the mean time, here are some opinions. My first reaction is that FIRST is giving more awards to "good teams" as opposed to "good robots". This is due to the removal of auto-births for technical awards and the addition of auto-births for Rookie All Stars and EI awards. However... if my assumptions above are true, then 220 "qualifying" teams will go to the Championships along with 70 OQ teams. Of those 220, 96 teams (many of who will qualify in 2 or more ways) are qualifying by being "good teams" and might not have "great robots".

It is apparent to me that there will be a good mix of "good teams" with teams who have "good robots"... at least for 2004. All in all, I like the new system. There are bits that I don't like about it. I still don't like the '92 sustaining teams getting a auto-birth, but that is just my opinion. I do feel that those teams deserve it, but it is my mission as team leader on one of those teams to never depend on that grandfather clause. This rule really does put these grandfather teams in a tough spot, but that is a topic for another thread.

Sorry to be so long, as I yet again broke my concise rule.

Andy B.

[Amanda Morrison]

Question posed: Why does the fact that some of the awards can't get you a ticket to Nats make them less prestigious?

Are teams going to complain and get angry? "If only we'd won that other award..." ? Because no matter what, you've got a ticket in... it just might not be good for a couple years.

I've seen teams in the past get awards and be excited over them, if only for the point value. It's a little unnerving to think that teams might begrudgingly take the awards presented to them, because they aren't a free chance to compete.

I think I like this system best simply because it gives everyone a chance, and mainly the people I see complaining about who gets a seat are the teams that would normally qualify to go anyway.

Maybe I'm only seeing this because of my tendency to like the non-competitive side of FIRST a lot more than the hard-driven competitive side. I think some people are overreacting to this. It's new, yes; but it's not permanent. Changes will occur, and systems will work themselves out. I'm sure it wasn't smooth sailing when the point system first debuted.

I also understand that a large part of the design process is criticism, but this is getting a little out of hand by some. I'm not asking for everyone to shut up and take the hand that FIRST is giving them, I'm asking for everyone to cut FIRST a little slack and let things smooth over, work out for themselves. Coming on a message board, saying that you don't represent your team, but still slamming FIRST is a little offensive... myself saying 'give FIRST a break, they're trying their hardest' is not.

[rees2001]

Thank you Andy.
I have been sitting by for four days watching this tennis match waiting for something positive & FIRST-like to appear. I know from experience that your team and many other of the "grandfathered" teams will earn their way to the Championship Event. For the others that don't earn it, maybe you are just having an off year. If the grandfathers of FIRST haven't earned it in a while, it may be time to circle the wagons.

For those of you that are arguing against them attending, you may be on to something, but just relax, its only a couple of teams.

As for the 2 awards that do get you to the Championship, they are exactly what FIRST is promoting. Chairmans & Engineering Inspiration are great awards that can't just be given to anybody. This keeps teams from getting an award at a regional sponsored by thier team's sponsor just so they can go to the Championship. Nobody likes to see a team win an award they don't deserve just to qualify them.

As for the planning & travel prep, do it ahead of time. You may not be able to buy the tickets and hotel rooms ahead of time, but line them up. Raise the money ahead of time. Last year, we didn't. We won at J&J and I had to tell my team that we couldn't go because we hadn't done any planning for it. If we had planned for it & not won we would be that much farther ahead this year. BTW last year was the first year our team did not attend the Championship in our 4 years. We didn't blame FIRST, we blamed ourselves.

That's my 2 cents.

[Andy Grady]

One point that has been made countless times that makes alot of sense to me..."We will not know how it works until it happens." (i.e. Alliances, Autonomous Mode, etc...). One thing is for sure...there is not, and will never be a perfect system. There will be teams who get left out every year, there will be deserving teams who do not get to go. With the growth of FIRST, it is nearly impossible for a perfect system to be created. Fact of the matter is, FIRST is trying the best they can to make something work so the fewest amount of teams get the shaft, while holding onto the integrity of the Championship status that this competition is supposed to uphold. For that to happen, they have to use good ol' trial and error. I applaud FIRST for at least realizing that the old system maybe wasn't the right way to go, and trying something different in hopes that it will work. I have my own intitial guesses and opinions about the criteria...but frankly, I have been wrong about FIRST wayyyyy too many times to pass judgement at this point.

Have fun!
Andy Grady

p.s. To those people who are critical of the auto entry of 1992 teams, take a minute to think about exactly how long you have been in FIRST, then think about how hard it can be to keep comming back with enthusiasm as you get older and more tired. When you have been in the competition for 10, 11, 12 years, it gets harder and harder to find the strength to compete every year...these 6 teams still manage to do it, year in and year out. I do agree with Joseph M. in the fact that "Why just these 6 teams." Heck, if I had it my way, I would give auto entry to teams from 92-94. But, more than anything else, the auto entry of these teams is symbolic...kind of a reminder to teams that yes, you can keep fighting to come back and do it again...these teams have done it for 12 years. Of course, maybe I'm just biased.

[BandChick]

Originally posted by KenWittlief
if you are a rookie team this year, and another team has been around for 5 or 6 years

then which team has put more work into FIRST, one that has been here for 6 years, or a new team?

if the championship is a reward, which team has done more to earn it?

clearly the team that has 6 years of effort behind it, over a new team.

There are many things in life that you have to work towards. Somethings take years to acheive.

I disagree with this, I am mostly happy with the rules in place, but I do not think that a rookie team has worked any LESS hard in the season than a veteran team. True, that veteran team has more experience, and more work behind them, but who's to say that a rookie team did not work just as hard, if not HARDER as a veteran team the first year they compete?

What I am trying to say is, for example if in 2003 a veteran team decided that because they had corporate sponsorship they could slack off, not apply for the Chairman's Award and just simply slide into the Championship competition based on their merit from last year, but a rookie team that struggled all year to find sponsorship, had a completely student built robot, no engineering help, and still managed to do fairly well in the competition against these veteran teams, does this mean then, that the rookies STILL haven't put enough work in?

Championships should be based on a year-to-year basis. Yes, the first 6 teams should be grandfathered to the competition, and yes, I think it is fair to let veteran teams be merit accepted to the competition, but it feels like the rookies and last years rookies are being overlooked.

People seem to think that because they don't have the experience, they deserve less notice and less eligibility, and I think that is unfair.

[Michael R. Lee]

Originally posted by rees2001
As for the 2 awards that do get you to the Championship, they are exactly what FIRST is promoting. Chairmans & Engineering Inspiration are great awards that can't just be given to anybody. This keeps teams from getting an award at a regional sponsored by their team's sponsor just so they can go to the Championship. Nobody likes to see a team win an award they don't deserve just to qualify them.

Those are the FIRST awards that really matter and are the ones you should strive for. Yes the "smaller" awards like Motorola Quality award, Spirit, and others mean something but in the overall scheme of things its these two awards that mean something. For the past two years, I don't think any team that won championship actually also won the Chairman's Award too. You could have the worst season ever and still win Chairmans because you are deemed the best representative of FIRST ideas and values, a model for other teams. Just read the criteria for all the awards and you'll find that Chairmans and Engineering Inspiration are the top two.

Originally posted by Andy Grady
To those people who are critical of the auto entry of 1992 teams, take a minute to think about exactly how long you have been in FIRST, then think about how hard it can be to keep comming back with enthusiasm as you get older and more tired. When you have been in the competition for 10, 11, 12 years, it gets harder and harder to find the strength to compete every year...these 6 teams still manage to do it, year in and year out.

Its nothing to be biased about. Just look through the competition listing of teams particpating and look at all the gaps inbetween team numbers, especially the lower digits. They deserve to go. Its hard to keep on coming up with the money to keep on going, especially with today's economy.

But for tha past two years, its been a quick fix to the problem of Championship elgibility. This is a result of their two years of going through the engineering design process. Is it perfect? Maybe not. But like was the 2 v. 2 perfect in 2000, not really the best method, but they fixed it for the 2002 and last year. But believe me, if FIRST had it their way, we'd all would be allowed to go but there simply isn't a venue big enough for all of us. Just look at the 2002 Championships..... we pretty much maxed out that Disney parking lot!

[Madison]

Originally posted by Amanda Morrison
Question posed: Why does the fact that some of the awards can't get you a ticket to Nats make them less prestigious?

See this week's QotW (and please, please answer!)

In the past, FIRST had said that the Engineering Inspiration Award was second only to the Chairman's Award -- yet it didn't qualify a team to attend the Championship. Similarly, FIRST also said that building an amazing, competitive robot was comparably less important, but those awards qualified for Championship attendance.

So -- which had a greater impact? FIRST's actions -- letting technically notable teams attend the event; or FIRST's words -- telling those teams that they should be striving for something better -- the Engineering Inspiration and Chairman's Award?

My feeling is that their actions have far greater impact upon teams than their words ever will. The changes effected that make different awards eligible for Championship attendance are a loud action that suggest, to me, that FIRST is reminding teams of that which is most important.

I don't believe teams should have any reason to think of a technical award as being something less valuable than the Engineering Inspiration Award, for example, but it's clear that FIRST does.

[Jon Reese]

i feel that rookie teams should get a greater shot at going to nationals!
either creating an 8th tier or making like a rookie division at nats!
rookie teams have so much more they have to do than a set team! mabye they should have a rookie chairmans award?

[Chris]

[quote]Originally posted by Michael R. Lee
Those are the FIRST awards that really matter and are the ones you should strive for. Yes the "smaller" awards like Motorola Quality award


People are entitled to their own points of view of course, but i believe that this weeks UFH said it best

“Do NOT forget that this is a competition. Of course it is much more, BUT it is competition that brings out the best in people. The desire and drive to be the best is what motivates people to work hard, come up with new inventions, figure out better ways of doing things, and discover new things. It is the desire to be the best that forces people to think, “this might not be good enough, I need to work harder, research more, learn more, achieve more.” A good competitive spirit drives people to exceed their own expectations, which is where real inspiration comes from – this is when students say, ‘Hey, I can do anything if I have the drive to do it. Just look at what we just did for proof.’” - Chris Hibner


I for one would rather win a Regional Motorola Quality award, and sit out nationals then go by winning a Engineering Inspiration award..and know that teams like Wildstang and Beatty (who isn't qualified for this year) missed their chance to go and compete to be the best.

As an activity i looked up how many of the bots in last years Divisional winning alliances wouldn't be at nats with the new qualifications and its kind of scary.

Chris Team 229

Proud participant in the FIRST Robotics COMPETITION