2005 Regional Events from FIRST

[Cory]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

1. If FIRST would add divisions, how many divisions would there be? Would it be 5? Would it be 6?

2. If there would be additional divisions, then how would the winning alliances of each division be matched in the finals? With 4 divisions, that is easy. With 5, that is hard.

3. We already have 16 robots running around on the floor of the Georgia dome at the same time, all under wireless remote control. Can the IFI field controllers handle more robots running simultaneously without having crossover or interference?

There are many things to ponder here.

Andy B.

Excellent points Andy. As soon as I posted I realized that 5 divisions would make no sense. You'd have to run some wacky scheme during the divisional playoffs. 6 would make much more sense from that standpoint, but like you said, there's numerous other issues.

Guess we'll have to wait and see till March or so (as usual )

Cory

[George1902]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a year that had 4 divisions running on 5 fields. The 5th field held matches from each of the 4 divisions alternately. Friday morning it did some matches from Newton, then it held some from Curie after lunch, etc.

Even if my memory is failing me, this could be a good way to increase the total number of matches that can be run. Also, it would allow everyone to play on Einstein at least once.

[Greg Needel]

Originally Posted by George1083

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was a year that had 4 divisions running on 5 fields. The 5th field held matches from each of the 4 divisions alternately. Friday morning it did some matches from Newton, then it held some from Curie after lunch, etc.

Even if my memory is failing me, this could be a good way to increase the total number of matches that can be run. Also, it would allow everyone to play on Einstein at least once.

they haven;t done this since the last year at disney (2002) i also think that this will add some major confusion

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I had the same thought. But I wonder how the "playoffs" would work with five divisional winners.

With a one-on-one-on-one-on-one-on-one game it would be really easy.

-dave

[Steve W]

Originally Posted by dlavery

With a one-on-one-on-one-on-one-on-one game it would be really easy.

-dave

Trouble maker!!!!!

[Rich Kressly]

Originally Posted by dlavery

With a one-on-one-on-one-on-one-on-one game it would be really easy.
-dave

Nooooooo. Who let him in? Don't you have some rovers to redirect or something Dave?

[Ken Loyd]

Originally Posted by Rich Kressly

Nooooooo. Who let him in? Don't you have some rovers to redirect or something Dave?

Dave,

Don't listen to the "Boo Birds"! Team 64 loves you!

Ken

PS Do you have any spare KK donuts....our neighborhood store doesn't open until the spring of 05

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by dlavery

With a one-on-one-on-one-on-one-on-one game it would be really easy.

-dave

Silly me I thought we would do 3 on 3, or maybe 8 qualifying fields this year. Oh well Dave's comments on the forums this far have peaked my interest in a different game this year. At this point I only expect the same controller from last year.

Also I'm glad to see that the Championship doesn't fall on the same weekend as the NCEES scheduled the Fundametals of Engineering Exam and Professional Engineering Exam this year. That was a PITA for some of us young engineers in the last few years. I hope first continues to avoid this conflict next year when I plan to sit for the PE.

Pete