Round Robin on Einstein

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by JVN

Do you really believe you are the target audience? I have a feeling I'm not.

Ed may not be the target audience, but he certainly isn't the only one I've heard complaining either. To nobody's surprise, high schoolers would much rather watch robots than people talking. I like most of the speeches, and I think they're very important, but increasing the ratio of talking versus robots when the students are already fidgety does demonstrate a lack of understanding of the audience.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by JVN

Do you really believe you are the target audience? I have a feeling I'm not.

I mean the kids, John.
Parading an assortment of adults in front of over stimulated kids while anchoring then to the seats with the promise of even further excitement and then talk at them for long periods of time has not proven to be a popular choice amongst the masses.

[dlavery]

After hearing about the passing of Randy Pausch earlier today, I spent most of this morning re-reading "The Last Lecture" (I suspect a lot of other folks have been engaged in similar pursuits - www.thelastlecture.com with the video of his lecture has been swamped all day long). As I was reading through, one chapter in particular made me think of this discussion. The chapter refers to an incident in which his wife manages to back one of their vehicles into the other, impressively denting both. Then follows a discussion about the value of things, and how we perceive what is important. The chapter closes with the following admonition:

"Not everything needs to be fixed."

-dave






.

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by dlavery

After hearing about the passing of Randy Pausch earlier today, I spent most of this morning re-reading "The Last Lecture" (I suspect a lot of other folks have been engaged in similar pursuits - www.thelastlecture.com with the video of his lecture has been swamped all day long). As I was reading through, one chapter in particular made me think of this discussion. The chapter refers to an incident in which his wife manages to back one of their vehicles into the other, impressively denting both. Then follows a discussion about the value of things, and how we perceive what is important. The chapter closes with the following admonition:

"Not everything needs to be fixed."

-dave






.

Are you referring to the tournament structure, the time at events that the speakers take, or both?

[Ian Curtis]

Originally Posted by Cory

I agree with Joe. The last two years, the two best alliances faced each other in the Einstein semi finals. The finals were almost anticlimactic, in some ways. I would greatly prefer this method. It would produce a more deserving champion, rather than having one alliance make it to the finals by playing a weaker division.

I assume you mean finalist? Wouldn't the champion be the same irregardless? That said, I think this model probably needs to tested before FIRST would adopt it. It's a pretty large change strategically, as scouting teams now need information on 3 other alliances, rather than one. I'd imagine that would create even more stress in what is already a stressful time.

That said, I think it would make for a more interesting final field, because their always seems to be unexciting matches on Einstein, and this way we should get more even (and thus more exciting) matches.

So, would an off season be willing to test this with their final four? IRI would've been a very interesting trial of this.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

I assume you mean finalist? Wouldn't the champion be the same irregardless? That said, I think this model probably needs to tested before FIRST would adopt it. It's a pretty large change strategically, as scouting teams now need information on 3 other alliances, rather than one. I'd imagine that would create even more stress in what is already a stressful time.

That said, I think it would make for a more interesting final field, because their always seems to be unexciting matches on Einstein, and this way we should get more even (and thus more exciting) matches.

So, would an off season be willing to test this with their final four? IRI would've been a very interesting trial of this.

I meant both, really.

[Alex Cormier]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

It's a pretty large change strategically, as scouting teams now need information on 3 other alliances, rather than one. I'd imagine that would create even more stress in what is already a stressful time.

I would figure many teams would do what SparX did in 2004 and 2006 when they were on Einstein. We would acquire scouting from other teams in each division on the robots coming form each division. So this change would not have much a problem for most teams that do this type of scouting.

[Joe Ross]

Originally Posted by iCurtis

I assume you mean finalist? Wouldn't the champion be the same irregardless? That said, I think this model probably needs to tested before FIRST would adopt it. It's a pretty large change strategically, as scouting teams now need information on 3 other alliances, rather than one. I'd imagine that would create even more stress in what is already a stressful time.

It is hard to play someone you've never seen before. However, I don't think this is any worse then the current system in that regard.

You'd play one alliance in which you don't have any information. Before you had your second match, you'd see the other two alliances play, so you'd have information.

As long as the rotation was set a head of time, it shouldn't be a problem. In fact, with the current system, it seems like there is a lot of confusion over who plays who first.

Originally Posted by Alex Cormier

I would figure many teams would do what SparX did in 2004 and 2006 when they were on Einstein. We would acquire scouting from other teams in each division on the robots coming form each division. So this change would not have much a problem for most teams that do this type of scouting.

We've done the same thing when we were on Einstein.