Question: Championship Divisions

[Rob]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Here you go.
http://www.thebluealliance.net/cmp09/

Thanks for putting this together again Tom. You really put the "TB" in "TBA"!

[Andrew Schuetze]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

No, they rerun the rankings after the State Championship (multiplying by State Champ points by 4 to give it a 2/3 weight). If one of the teams that earns a qualifying spot for Champions is already registered or can't attend, they offer it to the next team in the ranking (making 18 guaranteed new spots). I am pretty sure this is how it works but I can't confirm because I can't access the Michigan Rules Supplement today (for some reason I get a 403 forbidden error).

So I had not really followed the Michigan district plan much until now. Guaranteed 18 advancing teams plus any that won at outside regionals or recieved an open bid.

Hijacking this thread a bit here, so why would other high FRC team number states not want to adopt this pilot program for their state? Michigan has 132 teams, New York 122, California 145, Texas 91 ...

As of 1:30 CDST April 2nd Texas has 13 registered with maybe a couple more finding the cash to pay for their winning bid by Friday. So maybe it is a non-issue. Texas has 2 regional events as of this year so without a team(s) winning both that gives 3 champions, 1 Chairman, 1 Engineering Inspiration, 1 Rookie All-Star at each for a dozen teams guaranteed to World Championship if they are all Texas teams as we do have several veterans who like to come to Texas for some strong competition.

What are the con's for adopting the Michican district model?

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri

Here you go.
http://www.thebluealliance.net/cmp09/

I hope it ends up like the Serpentine division algorithm. Curie is a nice field with that one. Easier with the Normal algorithm.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schuetze

Hijacking this thread a bit here, so why would other high FRC team number states not want to adopt this pilot program for their state? Michigan has 132 teams, New York 122, California 145, Texas 91 ...

[...]

What are the con's for adopting the Michican district model?

California has more regionals than MI did (4), but all the teams are concentrated in 4 places (2 for all you folks who don't know CA geography very well--they're farther apart than you think): Los Angeles, San Diego, the Silicon Valley, and Sacramento. There are pockets in other areas, namely the central coast, home to 973 and 1388, and the desert areas. (Not sure if 399 goes with the L.A. grouping or the desert grouping...)

However, the teams already play each other almost exclusively. L.A. doesn't get many out-of-state teams (other than 188, 1726, and 69--the only repeat out-of-state teams I know about in recent years), but is always full. SVR and Sacramento are more of the same. SD gets more, but not very many. To put it frankly, you'd pretty much be doing the same thing as normal.

The question is, where are you going to put the districts? If you split each regional into two, you get 8 district events in 4 areas. And then you get the MI UP dillemma: Do you leave the district zone and go to Vegas (or Oregon, or AZ), or do you travel to your closest district event (which requires staying overnight)?

The only way to make the district system work in California would be to also include Nevada and Arizona. This is to avoid the MI UP dilemma (as now Vegas is in the district area, and AZ, which supplies many teams to Vegas, is as well) and give a bit of a "buffer zone". But now you need more districts, maybe about 10-12, and that increases costs. And where on earth do you hold the "Zone" championship? How about the number of qualifying teams?

Con #1, though, is the district system is still "buggy" in some respects. The point system is the notable one, though that seems to be working (mostly). But, before the district model goes nationwide, I for one would like to see the pilot program run for one more year with changes to verify that any bugs are out.

It may be that the district model only works in MI, but certain aspects like event format can work elsewhere. I'd like to see the parts that work implemented nationwide, but the parts that don't work removed.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schuetze

What are the con's for adopting the Michican district model?

The one big negative I see is that teams outside the region are not allowed to participate in any of the district events. A smaller negative is that teams inside the region are strongly constrained in their ability to participate in other regional competitions.

As a member of a team with a strong goal of visiting new places and meeting new people, I would find those restrictions uncomfortable. Whether or not the reduced expense would make up for it is a matter of debate.

[AdamHeard]

Originally Posted by EricH

California has more regionals than MI did (4), but all the teams are concentrated in 4 places (2 for all you folks who don't know CA geography very well--they're farther apart than you think): Los Angeles, San Diego, the Silicon Valley, and Sacramento. There are pockets in other areas, namely the central coast, home to 973 and 1388, and the desert areas. (Not sure if 399 goes with the L.A. grouping or the desert grouping...)

However, the teams already play each other almost exclusively. L.A. doesn't get many out-of-state teams (other than 188, 1726, and 69--the only repeat out-of-state teams I know about in recent years), but is always full. SVR and Sacramento are more of the same. SD gets more, but not very many. To put it frankly, you'd pretty much be doing the same thing as normal.

The question is, where are you going to put the districts? If you split each regional into two, you get 8 district events in 4 areas. And then you get the MI UP dillemma: Do you leave the district zone and go to Vegas (or Oregon, or AZ), or do you travel to your closest district event (which requires staying overnight)?

The only way to make the district system work in California would be to also include Nevada and Arizona. This is to avoid the MI UP dilemma (as now Vegas is in the district area, and AZ, which supplies many teams to Vegas, is as well) and give a bit of a "buffer zone". But now you need more districts, maybe about 10-12, and that increases costs. And where on earth do you hold the "Zone" championship? How about the number of qualifying teams?

Con #1, though, is the district system is still "buggy" in some respects. The point system is the notable one, though that seems to be working (mostly). But, before the district model goes nationwide, I for one would like to see the pilot program run for one more year with changes to verify that any bugs are out.

It may be that the district model only works in MI, but certain aspects like event format can work elsewhere. I'd like to see the parts that work implemented nationwide, but the parts that don't work removed.

Yup, 1717, 1388 and us are all central coast (Santa Barbara through San Luis Obispo approximately). If district events were made, we'd have to stay overnight anywhere it'd make sense to have one. If they made one at the central coast, if it was near 1717 we'd have to stay overnight, and vice-verca. Not to mention all other teams attending would have to stay overnight.

The only Pro I see for the district event (to my specific team, not evaluating the program as a whole) is going into champs with WAAAAAAAAAY more matches than everyone else.

[Jon Jack]

IF the district system did go nationwide, it would probably look very different than it does now. For example, what about smaller states like Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana? You can't run a district system in a state with 3 teams, can you?

I would imagine larger states like CA, MI, TX, etc would become their own district systems and then large groups of smaller states like the ones listed above will become their own.

The western region would probably look something like:

• CA
• Pacific Northwest (WA, OR, ID, MT, AK)
• Southwest (NV, AZ, NM, CO, UT)

Each group would have their own district systems until the need for district realignment came up.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schuetze

What are the con's for adopting the Michican district model?

No full practice day at venues.
Events with an "off-season" feel (though team spirit of a regional).
A complete restructuring of the infrastructure.
More volunteers needed.
Not a viable option in most states/regions.

[Josh Goodman]

I'm glad that before even the regionals end.....1114, 217 and 148 are in the same division they were last year....It's always a comforting thought.

[Fe_Will]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

IF the district system did go nationwide, it would probably look very different than it does now. For example, what about smaller states like Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, Montana? You can't run a district system in a state with 3 teams, can you?

Last time I checked there were more than 3 teams in several of the states listed. Does the rest of FRC not see what we do up here? Sometimes I wonder...

[Jon Jack]

Originally Posted by Fe_Will

Last time I checked there were more than 3 teams in several of the states listed. Does the rest of FRC not see what we do up here? Sometimes I wonder...

Obviously Oregon has more than 3 teams. I think you guys have one of the biggest growth rates in FIRST since the 2006 season. I wasn't trying to say that Oregon only had 3 teams. However, the 28 teams in Oregon are not enough to do a district structure. I suppose you could do a very small state championship, but most likely I could see places like Oregon (28 teams), Washington (49 teams), Montana (4 teams), Idaho (9 teams), Alaska (3 teams) and the Dakotas (5 teams) being lumped together into one district system.

IF districting went nationwide, FIRST isn't going to leave the smaller states like MT, ID, AK, ND and SD out in the cold. This means that at least in the beginning they will be lumped with other states.

However, I think this thread should be returned to it's original topic.

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by Jon Jack

However, I think this thread should be returned to it's original topic.

Thank you!

Usually, are the TBA algorithms correct? And which algorithm is used ecah year? Normal or serpentine?

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Thank you!

Usually, are the TBA algorithms correct? And which algorithm is used ecah year? Normal or serpentine?

I think they alternate. Some years Serpentine is used and some years the normal one is used. As to what one will be used, your guess is as good mine.

[Jon Jack]

If I remember correctly, the last few years have been A,B,C,D,A,B...

However TBA has it set up, it's still pretty far from being settled. There are still 12 teams from the MSC that have yet to receive invites, as well as 12 teams from the two MN regionals this weekend. I imagine there are also several teams that will get their payment in at the last minute and be added to the list.

[Travis Hoffman]

I still wouldn't mind seeing an AAAA, BBBB, CCCC, DDDD ...... arrangement.