The Divisions...

[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.

[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.

[GODUX123]

It's an ok idea, but i could see districts/ regionals will end up splitting according to division, and none of the teams could see eachother untill Einstein which could cause havoc. Also, the teams could still end up in a division of all "not so good" teams and the same problem could occur.

[Collin Fultz]

Dr. Joe - It's so funny you bring this up. Late last year I was surfing the Archives of CD (I lead such a glamorous life) and found your post (from around 1999?) highlighting your thoughts on how (at that time) Nationals needed to be restructured into it's current format. You even called the names of the divisions and naming the "big" field Einstein. I wish I could find that post again. It's incredible how many of your suggestions are now common rules and practices (I think in that thread you also advocated unlimited material usage).

I like the quasi-randomness of the way it currently is. I have been told that the GDC puts some thought into some of the division selection. I see it as similar to the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament. Your Regionals are your conference. You typically play against the same group of teams each year. Win your conference (in FIRST, by any of the auto-qualification methods), you're guaranteed a spot in the Championship tournament. If you don't win, you have to hope for at "at-large" selection to the Championships (in FIRST, you have some control over this).

But the Champsionships are like the NCAA Tournament. The Regions in the Tourney aren't based on geographic location of the schools (except for the #1 seeds) but are supposed to make the Regions as balanced as possible. I believe that the GDC tries to do this each year with the Divisions at Champs.

Cyber Blue has not yet made it to Einstein. But, if we did, I'd be willing to bet I'd be more excited that we made it there then that we had specifically won the Curie Division. And if we happened to win the Division that was considered "weaker" than another, it wouldn't really bother me either, because we made FIRST's Final Four.

I don't think this is a problem that needs to be fixed. It's fun the way it is now. I do, however, fully support Mr. Baker's idea (linked earlier in the thread) about televising the "selection" show. If we'll all gather around for three hours to see exactly what the game is on a Saturday in January, I'd be willing to bet we'd watch a webcast as a team of them announcing the divisions.

[Enigma's puzzle]

Originally Posted by The Lucas

Quick thoughts:
-You would have to start with the Original Teams and HOF teams since they qualify every year) and assign them to divisions. It would be good to have a mix of regions in these teams per division. These teams could act as division captains.
-Division Winners become a one year captains for their division.
-CA winners obviously become HOF teams and stay with their division.
-EI winner becomes a one year captain
-Some way to appoint permanent captians

-Each division captain submits an online draft list of their top 100 (arbitrary) registered teams to join their division that year.
-Computer program randomises a division draft order then randomises the captain order in each and assigns the top pick on that list. Moves to next division in the order (serpentine) makes a pick from a division captain in the that division. Repeats till a 100 (again arbitrary) teams are selected.
-Rest of the teams are randomly assigned
-This would probably even out the strength of the divisions in a decentralised manner, without anyone knowing who selected who or in what order.

-Captains are responsible for the pageantry and social events of their division. Division Hug anyone?

Issues:
-This is alot of power/responsibility for the captains, may make others feel left out. However this the only way to guarantee those teams will be there.
-Division winners need to be qualified for next year. (Should be that way anyway IMHO)
-Need other ways to appoint permanent captains
-Numbers of Captains in each division could become out of balance, as well as their regional alignment.
-Miss out on chances to be in division with different teams (anticipate that opposing captains will interact in friendly rivalries so that is perhaps better than being with them)

Thoughts?

What if the Divisional Captains were put in charge of freezing teams. There would be an number of alotted freezes, maybe equal to the number of HOF and Original teams. Each of these HOF and Original Teams make a selection of a team, that was in their division, to become FROZEN. Then the teams would be frozen for 4 or 5 years, depending how the numbers worked, and in the end of that time they are either let go, or reUped for another 4 or 5 years of service. All the left over teams would be added to round out the division.


I personally believe sorting geographically is an aweful idea, all the Michigan teams have already played at the state championship, and Canadian and Minnesota teams only have 2 regionals, so most of them have seen most of their neighbors already. However if they sorted the teams into geographic areas then distributed them into divisions evenly, so we got a great mix of teams from every area, fun would be had by all.

[Peter Matteson]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

Cyber Blue has not yet made it to Einstein. But, if we did, I'd be willing to bet I'd be more excited that we made it there then that we had specifically won the Curie Division. And if we happened to win the Division that was considered "weaker" than another, it wouldn't really bother me either, because we made FIRST's Final Four.

You pretty much summed up the way I always explain it and feel about. My team's goal every year is to make "the show" as we also refer to Einstein, division doesn't matter that much even though we would like to have a trophy from each one, as I'm sure the other teams who have won 3 out of 4 would like to (25, 217).

[Chris Hibner]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

Dr. Joe - It's so funny you bring this up. Late last year I was surfing the Archives of CD (I lead such a glamorous life) and found your post (from around 1999?) highlighting your thoughts on how (at that time) Nationals needed to be restructured into it's current format. You even called the names of the divisions and naming the "big" field Einstein. I wish I could find that post again. It's incredible how many of your suggestions are now common rules and practices (I think in that thread you also advocated unlimited material usage).

It was discussed in this thread in 1999, but it was also briefly discussed at the end of 1998 in some "predictions for 1999" type of thread. Chiefdelphi.com was a real small, tight community back in those days.

EDIT: The topic was revisited in 2000 in this thread.

A lot of ideas from these boards wiggle their way into the FIRST landscape. For example, Dr. Joe had the great idea of weaving the awards into the Einstein matches a number of years back, and that has stuck around for a while. That's the great thing about having a bunch of smart people on one message board - a good idea can be turned into an excellent, highly-refined solution. I'm so happy that Joe is back in his old form throwing out some great ideas again. I missed those days.

Sticky divisions is an interesting idea. I like the idea of divisional pride, yet I also like the play amongst different teams every year. That makes for a bit of a conundrum. Hmmmmmm.

[xzvrw2]

I love the idea of having divisions that are sticky. FIRST has already kindof done this with Michigan. Back in the day, I'm making it seem like I'm old here, when I was on my team, we knews tons of teams from around the country due to we traveled to the different regionals. But now with the Michigan Districts, we dont see or get to know any of these teams any more. Why should it be any different then at other compititions. Who is the best at this division is going to play who is the best at this other division. I think that if FIRST is going to have a district format at one place, why not have it for the rest. Do I think that it is the right way, maybe maybe not. But if we want to be FAIR like so many of us have said, than I think we should go this route.

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by Peter Matteson

You pretty much summed up the way I always explain it and feel about. My team's goal every year is to make "the show" as we also refer to Einstein, division doesn't matter that much even though we would like to have a trophy from each one, as I'm sure the other teams who have won 3 out of 4 would like to (25, 217).

Just to be clear, I am not saying that the current system is broken. I LOVE the current system. So to all those who say that this is fixing a problem that doesn't exist, you are correct but misguided.

I am proposing a thought experiment along the lines of "can it be better?"

I think perhaps it can. The idea came to me listening to Verbrugge talk about this or that team at the MSC having success in Curie or Newton in year X. It struck me that while Einstein means something, Curie, Newton, Archimedes or Galeleo are meaningless other than that they are CMP divisions and they are not Einstein.

I think it may be better if they actually developed an identity. Now the down side is that if they are identifiable, then they are not identical, which is bad news to the members of the Fairness Cult but perhaps there are enough positives to overcome this negative.

Let's keep the ideas and discussion going.

Joe J.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Collin Fultz

I do, however, fully support Mr. Baker's idea (linked earlier in the thread) about televising the "selection" show. If we'll all gather around for three hours to see exactly what the game is on a Saturday in January, I'd be willing to bet we'd watch a webcast as a team of them announcing the divisions.

That would be very very cool. What if, tonight, at 9:00pm, we all would gather to watch a webcast with Dean and Woodie describing each of the divisions. Better yet, we could have key people from around the country Skype-ing in with their assessment for each grouping. Looking Forward could chime in, wearing a ski mask. The amazing CarNack could even give his input. I would be willing to help make this work next year.

I think that 3 things would be needed to do this:
1. some broadcasting method (NASA, etc.) maybe multiple methods from various locations (dedicated website, etc.)
2. a committee to organize this
3. cooperation from FIRST (they give the committee the division teams, and then wait to publish after the selection show is done)
4. some minimal sponsorship

I would pony up some effort to help make this happen.

Andy

[DarkFlame145]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Think of the NFL's black and blue division (Bears, Packers, Lions, Vikings... ...and the Bucs)

Errrrrrrrrrrrr I know the bucs where in the NFC North when they first started.

But I think the biggest problem with using a regional division system is that some teams dont go to the world competition every year. Or what about that team that only goes every few years? The number of teams in each division would fluctuate from year to year