The Divisions...

[TKM.368]

For any given year, let the previous four Championship Chairman's Award Winning teams serve as Division Captains for a draft. It's an added bonus for the CA winners and there would be rotation through the years as to who is Division Captain...

[Cartwright]

This may seem odd...

But, what if division were by major sponsor type. Like what if there was aerospace, automotive, military, construction, uncategorized, etc. It could get interesting; plus, it might be a way to get sponsors more involved...just a little competition perhaps? I think it would definitely give some sentimentality to the divisions. Think of all the hype. You might get completely GM alliances. Or perhaps the Big Three might join up. I think that would make the Championship very exciting.


There would have to be a process for teams with more than one type. Some sort of lead sponsor status or something. Also, some teams might go into an uncategorized category if they have lots of small sponsors.


just a concept.

- Jamie

[dtengineering]

To be fair, I've been to Atlanta once... so I'm probably not as fired up about this as those for whom it is an annual spring ritual.

However when I went, I had no problem knowing who I wanted to cheer for on Einstein. It had nothing to do with their division, and everything to do with the team and their machine. So, based on my one experience there, it seems to be that there are lots of great solutions here... but I just don't seem to see that there is a problem.

FIRST tried a few years back to play around with the match scheduling algorithm for regionals, reducing the randomness by pre selecting qualifying alliances based on team number.

I think we all agreed after that, that randomness was a good thing. So I'd be very careful about reducing randomness in Atlanta.... even a little bit.

Jason

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by dtengineering

FIRST tried a few years back to play around with the match scheduling algorithm for regionals, reducing the randomness by pre selecting qualifying alliances based on team number.

I think we all agreed after that, that randomness was a good thing. So I'd be very careful about reducing randomness in Atlanta.... even a little bit.

Jason

Jason,
I'm with you on this on. The only problem is that the divisions now weren't really random also.
I always joke with Mark from 358 that we never get a chance to be in the same division because of our no. and its not random.
Its also hard for us to be in the same division as 368 when the only consistent team between us attending is MOE.

[Jared Russell]

Let each team "bid" on which division it wants to be a part of.

Then, assign teams based on their choices in a random order (which, assuming a roughly equal distribution of division selections, should result in most teams getting their wish). Alternatively, use some other metric for ordering the teams - a FiM-like points system, Regional Winners first, etc.

Why I like this system:
-Teams can talk amongst themselves (and on Chief Delphi) about their choices if they choose, so you will have a little bit of insight into who is going where ahead of time - much like when teams are picking what regionals to attend.

-There is still plenty of opportunity to play against teams from distant parts of the country/world.

-Over time, teams would come to associate with a particular division and a sense of history would develop naturally.

-A rough balance would naturally develop, as strong teams will maybe want to pursue other divisions if one starts to get "stacked" year after year.

-Teams can try and get a banner from each division (and I think that if you get one of each, your team should go into the Hall of Fame)

-Mentors/sponsors that support multiple teams could try and get them put with each other.

Possible downsides:
-It would require slightly more effort on FIRST's part to orchestrate this system.

-Powerhouse teams could coordinate bids to come up with "uber" alliances (though they then risk having to seed first/high enough to avoid playing against each other!)

[The Lucas]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Jason,
I'm with you on this on. The only problem is that the divisions now weren't really random also.
I always joke with Mark from 358 that we never get a chance to be in the same division because of our no. and its not random.
Its also hard for us to be in the same division as 368 when the only consistent team between us attending is MOE.

Divisions were most likely random last year. That's probably why you don't see people monitoring/predicting them closely this year.

Last year, your luck was poor in being the same division as 368 and 358. Every team from 358 to 368 was in Newton except you (Galileo). Better luck this year!

[Carol]

I think you are all looking for a solution in search of a problem. Beware of what you wish for. Remember the seeding algorithm that was supposed to make the competition "balanced". And how everyone screamed about it until they changed it? Any selection process based on strength, history, records, etc. is going to cause more problems that it solves.

[GaryVoshol]

I'm not thrilled with the idea of sticky divisions. I can see the point in making for divisional pride (I never understood the point of divisional cheers, for example). But any scheme for defining the sticky has problems.

Geographic is least desirable. Wildstang could never play with or against Poofs or Pink? I don't think so.

"Once you win, you're in" sounds somewhat reasonable, but still creates never-again matchups. If last year was used as a base, Wildstang and HOT would always be competing together, and never see ThunderChickens or Rhode Rage.

I think part of the appeal of CMP is getting the opportunity to compete with and against a variety of teams. That's one reason the A-B-C-D schemes for assigning were not fair. Adjacent team numbers never got to play together.

I think one way of assigning teams would be based on the regional they qualified from. For example, first take all the teams that pre-qualified (originals, HoF, past winners) and distribute them randomly in the divisions. Then take teams that qualified from BAE NH and divide them among the divisions. Then from San Diego, Washington, and the other Week 1 events. Follow through week by week. At the end, distribute teams that got there by means other than qualifying. This would tend to distribute the teams both geographically and strength-wise.

[TKM.368]

Originally Posted by TKM.368

... serve as Division Captains for a draft.

After a little thought, I'm going to contradict myself here. A draft will involve great teams being picked first, but what about for those teams picked at the end? That'd be a pretty disheartening way to start off a Championship. I have a feeling a lot of kids on a lot of teams know what being picked last is like.