|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools |
Rating:
|
Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Not to cause too much contention, but my thoughts concerning team 216 earning a spot in the state tournament was based only on their being the winning alliance captain. To clarify, I do not believe that the first or second pick teams from the winning alliance should get an automatic spot, just the captain. This is just my $.02.
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Quote:
I agree with you on this. If I remember correctly when you won a Regional in the past did that not give you a place in Atlanta? I think the winning captain should get a spot at state. But of course I have a vested interest in wanting it that way But the way it looks right now 216 will not be going to state. That is sad for all the students |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Dan - I believe that there will be at least 8 teams above the cut not going to state. That should be known at the end of the day.
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Quote:
Thank you for the information. If we are able to go that would be great, but all the teams above us deserve the spot before 216. Also a big THANK YOU to you and all the other people from this past weekend that made WM the best Regional we attended. You guys did a great job in making it work great. Dan |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Ok, got to say this on what was said above about captain/first pick/second pick differentiation.
There should be little to none. Some teams get to be the alliance captain out of luck. You end up making excellent choices for your two picks and you will have a win. In other words, all three could be achieved by luck. Also, the second pick is perhaps the most important pick in forming an alliance. The first pick is usually rather obvious. Pick a team that is ranked highly that works well with your team. The second pick involves so much more. It requires you to know more about all the teams then the other captains. Being able to pick the team that everyone overlooks. In all honesty the rank does not matter at all. If you end up getting picked by an amazing team that ranked 1 and 2 in the qualifications, you too are an amazing team. You didn't prove it by winning matches in the qualifications, but you did prove it in other ways. You just did a great job networking, your robot must be pretty good, your entire drive team must be great to work with....The list goes on. In all honesty, there will always be luck in the game. If I recall they mention somewhere that they put luck in on purpose for excitement. But get used to it. If a team that was "carried"(your term not mine) gives up their spot out of "GP", that would be completely ridiculous. They put in so much work, regardless of how their robot itself did. Your team won that spot, not your robot, so what? A true form of GP would be to send out a congratulations to all the teams that made it, regardless of whether or not you think they should have. PS: I know nothing of the Michigan ranking system, but I do know something about life and people. Please read my remarks above as an honest assessment of what is posted here alone. |
|
#6
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
drhall,
I understand that you are disappointed, but your team should compare to if you competed last year instead of this year: This year, for $5,500 registration you received: 49 matches and three events. Last year for $6,000 you would have received: 8 or 9 matches (at GLR or West Michigan). Based on your first event performance this year, that is all the matches you would have had. Or looking at it from a three events standpoint: This year = 49 matches and $5,500 Last year (Assume GLR, Detroit, and Midwest) = 39 matches and $14,000 not including travel. While I hope 216 gets in (I think you will), your team should be very glad your non-rookie first year (that is just wierd to me) was this year and not last year. Paul P.S. - To just assign the alliance captain an automatic berth is silly. If you want my reasons, I will list them in a PM as the list is too long for a normal post. |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
The problem is that because 216 was one of the few lucky teams to be able to go to a third event for $500, if the points or results were able to be counted, isn't that not fair to other teams that could not go to a third event (due to no slots available), even though they improved their robot significantly in their second event (830 comes to mind)?
I commend 216 on their improvement and think it's great that they did so well at WM. But they had the pleasure of a third event for $500 which is AWSOME in it's own right. Some of us that want a third event have to pay $4000 for that... |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
I am sure there are other threads concerning this issue, but this one seems to be near the top. Please do not take offense if your team is mentioned in the following. I am only using team numbers to reference what I see as a potential FIM point system problem. 67, 216 and 1918 have all competed exceptionally this year.
Quote:
In retrospect, I think that you may have hit on the real issue. If you look at the competitions this past weekend, there was a significant impact by teams entering their third competition. 67, 216 and 1918 are just a couple examples of teams that 'took' points out of the system that other teams near the middle of the pack could have used. Consider what these two events in particular would have been like without teams competing in their third event. At West Michigan, there were over 90 points (30 each for the win and 15 each for the 2 seed captain/selection) removed from the system by 1918 and 216 alone for their victory. Right now I feel that FIM should seriously consider not allowing a third event for any team because of this impact. |
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Quote:
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Quote:
Now I want to bring this part up. With the teams that competed at West Michigan Regional this weekend, I believe a majority of them have already competed in 2 events. I can not get an exact number of the ratio but I am sure their was a significant amount that have so don't take me for granted with the number of teams. My point is if teams were only allowed to compete in two events. Most of the events in weeks 4 and 5 would be a lot smaller and therefore teams who compete in the later weeks have less teams to compete against and therefore have a more likely chance to place higher and score more points. Then therefore have an advantage of teams that compete earlier on in the season. All in all, this was the first year for the Michigan District regional events and state championship and I believe it ran pretty well for the first year. I am sure that if FIRST continues with this structure we will see changes in the program to try and even out the playing field. But one thing we always have to remember is this event is not about winning and which teams get to go to state, but increasing the knowledge of students and have them learn the aspects of science, technology and Gracious Professionalism. ~Jake Last edited by GVDrummer : 30-03-2009 at 13:47. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Quote:
|
|
#12
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
[quote]Now I want to bring this part up. With the teams that competed at West Michigan Regional this weekend, I believe a majority of them have already competed in 2 events. I can not get an exact number of the ratio but I am sure their was a significant amount that have so don't take me for granted with the number of teams. My point is if teams were only allowed to compete in two events. Most of the events in weeks 4 and 5 would [/QUO
There were 16 teams that had 3 district events. Six of them were at Troy: 67, 68, 247, 910 are the teams I remember off the top of my head. |
|
#13
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
[quote=Paul Copioli;843192]
Quote:
|
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#15
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Michigan rankings
If you bumped it up from 40 teams to 44 teams you would get everyone 2 comps with 6 events. You might not get 12 matches but 10 or 11 is still WAY better than 7.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Rankings | XXShadowXX | Scouting | 8 | 27-02-2009 15:20 |
| Regional Rankings | Docter_t | Regional Competitions | 4 | 09-03-2005 23:41 |
| Rankings | archiver | 2001 | 3 | 24-06-2002 03:25 |
| NATIONAL RANKINGS! | archiver | 2001 | 1 | 24-06-2002 03:18 |