Michigan rankings

[Don Wright]

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...

[Springman]

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.

Originally Posted by Don Wright

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...

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.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Springman

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.

But those teams were needed to make the districts more 'even'. I don't know how many teams were competiting in thier 3rd event, but what if there were only 30 teams without them? I would be upset if I missed the elmininations at a 40 team event and then find out an equally talented team make it at a competition with only 30 teams. The various districts will never be perfectly equal, but I think the current system is best.

[GVDrummer]

Originally Posted by Springman

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.

I agree with what you are saying here in the fact that teams competing in a third event have no effect in their qualifying score for state. It does how ever affect other teams in the aspect of points being taken away.

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

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by GVDrummer

I agree with what you are saying here in the fact that teams competing in a third event have no effect in their qualifying score for state. It does how ever affect other teams in the aspect of points being taken away.

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

I'm all for allowing teams to have a 3rd event. On the other side, if they didn't allow 3 events, then a way to increase the # of teams in the later weeks would be to get rid of 1 or 2 of the 7 districts. 2 weeks in a row now we have had 2 events. If we took away 1 or 2 of those, the events would all be full.

[Paul Copioli]

[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.

[GVDrummer]

[quote=Paul Copioli;843192]

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.

Thank you for that clarification, so 10 teams at the WMR competed in 3 events taking up 1/4th of the roster at the tournament.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by GVDrummer

With the teams that competed at West Michigan Regional this weekend, I believe a majority of them have already competed in 2 events.

7 in WMD, 6 in Troy D were competing in their 3rd event. Far from a majority. There was also one team in Lansing that was the 3rd event.

Originally Posted by EricLeifermann

I'm all for allowing teams to have a 3rd event. On the other side, if they didn't allow 3 events, then a way to increase the # of teams in the later weeks would be to get rid of 1 or 2 of the 7 districts. 2 weeks in a row now we have had 2 events. If we took away 1 or 2 of those, the events would all be full.

With fewer districts, there wouldn't be enough spots for all teams to get 2. We needed 6.6 events to ensure every team could go to 2.

[EricLeifermann]

Originally Posted by GaryVoshol

With fewer districts, there wouldn't be enough spots for all teams to get 2. We needed 6.6 events to ensure every team could go to 2.

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.

[Molten]

I've been thinking about the 2771 dilemma. I really don't think they were rookies, but they are much closer to a rookie then a veteran. Of the two, they were in the right place. Perhaps FIRST should consider making a third classification. One that would be between the two ends of the spectrum.

[johnr]

Welcome to the big dance 3119, glad to see you make it. 58 and counting

[klrswift]

Originally Posted by johnr

Welcome to the big dance 3119, glad to see you make it. 58 and counting

Yes, glad to see you can make it, 3119. Remember that 910 is cheering for you every time you go out on to the field.

[Alex Dinsmoor]

Originally Posted by klrswift

Yes, glad to see you can make it, 3119. Remember that 910 is cheering for you every time you go out on to the field.

As well as your ex-alliance partners; Team 201

[Springman]

Originally Posted by GVDrummer

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.

~Jake

These are just some ideas to create equal opportunity for teams. I have probably already spent too much energy on this issue. Some real quick math offers some options:

Option 1:
132 teams * 2 districts each = 264

264/7= 37.71 about 38

*Cap the team limit at 38. Two districts would have 37 teams, the rest would have 38.

Option 2:

132 teams * 2 districts each = 264
*Eliminate one district. The remaining 6 districts will have exactly 44 teams each. (264/6=44)

[GVDrummer]

Originally Posted by Springman

These are just some ideas to create equal opportunity for teams. I have probably already spent too much energy on this issue. Some real quick math offers some options:

Option 1:
132 teams * 2 districts each = 264

264/7= 37.71 about 38

*Cap the team limit at 38. Two districts would have 37 teams, the rest would have 38.

Option 2:

132 teams * 2 districts each = 264
*Eliminate one district. The remaining 6 districts will have exactly 44 teams each. (264/6=44)

This does seem like the logical thing to do to give all the teams an even opportunity to compete in the tournaments.