The Divisions...

[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.

[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).

[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.

[ExTexan]

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 like keeping in mind "can it be better?" Along with that comes "let's define better".

I agree that if each field had an identity, i.e. Big 12, Big 10, it would mean something and that part would be better. If the end result was that a lot of better teams (significantly more than now) consistently didn't go to Einstein because of the depth of quality of a particular field then it may not be better, or even fair for that matter. That happens in the various college conferences. Also the college conferences rise and fall in quality and depth of quality.

I don't have a ready idea for creating a lasting identity for each field but I will think about it. It would be a nice affect assuming the repercussions were not bad.

I wonder how it would be possible to assign teams to an Atlanta (St. Louis) field at the beginning of the season? It would give somewhat of a one year identity in which you could know who you may be playing against, plan, have discussions and rivalry throughout the season and build a little identity.

Obviously the qualifying, attending, etc. implications are huge but just another thought. I am not a fan of a regional situation (for the four fields) being in Michigan for all the reasons stated. Michigan needs to be spread out in my opinion.

[HashemReza]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

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.

Absolutely, we're taught that it's through iteration that our creations become more perfect. In the end, if there is room for improvement, I believe it's our duty to strive for it.

Now, my only criteria for an improved system is that it doesn't cause some incredible powerhouse alliance guarantees. By this, I mean that if, for example, 2056 and 1114 are in the same division each year by virtue of whatever method used to "lock" teams to a division, I would be quite worried of the two teaming up each year. What would the harm be? History has shown that those teams consistently seed high. What's stopping them from making a pact that each year they'll always choose the other? Who's to stop them?

Perhaps that's a moot point, but I worry about some of those elite teams forming championship alliances that last a lifetime.

Originally Posted by Rob

4) What if you play all your qual rounds against teams from your division but your elimination matchups are against other divisions?

I must say, that's an interesting idea. It would certainly complicate scouting, which I don't really appreciate (as the manager of scouting for my team) .

Inevitably, decisions regarding the placement of teams will result in some griping about fairness towards one person or another. It might be better to consider leaving the means by which divisions are created, and instead mess around with some creative bracketing like what Rob proposed.

[J_Miles]

Well, I quickly thought of two ways to organize such a thing:

1:
Organize geographical divisions, based solely on region. Based on the number of divisions, they would be distributed randomly between the four divisions at FWC, this way there would be some type of random aspect involved, but it wouldn't be entirely random.

2:
Organize divisions based on performance. Use an international points system to view the international rankings of qualifying teams, and then divide divisions up by ranking. Once this has been done, the teams from each division could be evenly distributed throughout the divisions at FWC. This way, you'd have an even mix of teams of every caliber throughout the entire competition, no one field would be "stacked," and the possibility of a close, if not necessarily even, match-up on Einstein would be improved.

The issues with that idea are that placing top ranked teams in every division would very possibly take away any chances for some certain teams to compete in the division, but even if there weren't top-ranked teams in every division, these less-powerful teams would simply be routed at Einstein anyways. It's the best system I could come up with.

[sammyjalex]

I really like a lot of these ideas. I'm hopeful that they would at some point be implemented.

My favorites include having teams locked into divisions thus in this way networking for students across the world at CMP becomes much more convenient having seen the same teams year after year for getting to know and recognize the members and also the idea of allowing winning teams for that year to draft their alliance thus encouraging scouting across regionals for the entire team and getting involved in FIRST on an international level more than just a team level; learning more design techniques than just those discussed as a team that build season.

These are striking to me because I know many teams struggle to get their students to watch matches other than those their team is in and a draft may encourage this and also simply because a great tool FIRST offers that is not utilized enough is CD; it's the networking between students and teams which is not utilized enough. Adolescents (and adults) inherently find some difficulty meeting people in large social atmospheres like regionals and CMP but it is a fantastic advantage of FIRST to make friends all over the world and a lock on divisions someway would provide this.

For this reason of inter-regional scouting and mingling, I am against the idea of regional divisions. The best ideas I have heard with regards to who make up the divisions have been the idea of a draft using winning teams as division captains in charge of socials etc. as well as incentives like a divisional trophy passed around from year to year. It is my belief that if there will be better teams around strategically when inter-regional scouting is done than just that one you know locally thus preventing dynasties of nearby powerhouses as Cameron mentioned.

Jiust my $.02

Sam Alexander

[BHOP]

I would definetly second the effort for better stuff for winning alliances at the "after party" (VIP, food(steak haha),etc...)

After winning you are tired from yelling, screaming, and changing batteries. All you want is some decent food and a place to sit. Now you have to go back, pack up the crate, pack up the trailer, then walk over to the championship celebration thing. You arrive only to see old food that is left out, and no good seats left in the house for that nights entertainment. The party is even practically over.

Teams "stuck" on einstein should definetly get some sort of reward, because both times I've done it, the after part sucked.

[JackG]

After giving this some thought, I've realized that plenty of the suggestions people are proposing stem from varying priorities. I think we can sum up the priorities people have in mind.

• Equal distribution of power/ balanced arrangement of powerhouse teams
• Regional representation/ regional pride
• Divisional pride/tradition/rivalries
• See/play teams from other parts of the world/country
• Not being stuck permanently in a division
• Creating an event out of the selection process
• Teams being able to select their own divisions
• Teams being able to select other teams for their own division
• No hurt feelings for drafting, nobody being able to know who was picked last
• Playing for permanence (i.e. winning to become part of a certain division)
• Division-wide prize for winning division

The "best" idea will probably incorporate as many of those as possible, so as to placate the most people. Many of the systems that people are proposing have aspects that are not mutually exclusive, so taking parts from one system and adding them to another might produce a good idea that (almost) everyone can get behind.

[ExTexan]

Fifth and finally, it would be a hoot. I think that it would really be fun to be a part of the game.

Joe, there is a whole lot that I like about your idea. I think it does accomplish the initial goal of emphasizing some divisional pride.

I think it would accomplish filling a void in larger First teams. There is only so much building a robot that can be done by only so many people. There is only so much award work, website, etc. that can be done and not everyone likes to do either. This offers a lot of creative opportunities in developing scouting systems and new ways to perfect processes and systems. And the students are doing something with huge benefits to the team and having their efforts and results displayed weekly (unlike many of the functions performed by students).

And, win or lose, it's a competition in itself. Not every team can build a robot to compete on Einstein. But every team can do this very well. I think we need more competition opportunities not involved with building the best performing robot. And it would be great fun! Great thoughts!!

Also, I think some posters missed the intent of another suggestion, additional rewards, i.e. VIP party stuff etc. I did not interpret the initial suggestion to go to Einstein competing teams but to every team on a particular field. Divisional pride. Winning Einstein has its own rewards!

[Dancin103]

BTW we usually know divisions by now. I don't remember having to wait this long in the history of FIRST.

Oh, this is my 365 post, go Moe.

Cass

[davidalln]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

BTW we usually know divisions by now. I don't remember having to wait this long in the history of FIRST.

Oh, this is my 365 post, go Moe.

Cass

Yeah, tonight was definitely a terrible night for the divisions to "supposedly" come out. Why do I find myself constantly refreshing the 2010 Championships web page hoping to see "Team List" links under the four divisions when there is an unopened textbook and all of World War II to study for tomorrow's test...

[Joe Johnson]

Originally Posted by ExTexan

Joe, there is a whole lot that I like about your idea.<snip>

Thanks. Everyone likes complements (me especially ;-)

I have been thinking more about this and I think that it may be a very cool aspect of the game. Suppose just before we got the match started, you revealed the predictions? It would be another thing to motivate teams to do well to "prove em wrong" as well as something to kill time during a time out.

Imagine if there was an iphone and android app to allow teams to enter data about there robot -- "just got our hanger working" "drivetrain whacked" etc. I am thinking about some sort of Twitter/Facebook/Hot or Not/Google analytics mash up that would let teams track the various players on the chess board.

It would be a huge effort, but FIRST IS ALREADY a huge effort. This would be building in a new direction.

I also have been thinking about the "Second Chance Bracket" idea.

I think that is probably worth a new thread. Stay tuned...

Joe J.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Joe Johnson

Imagine if there was an iphone and android app to allow teams to enter data about there robot -- "just got our hanger working" "drivetrain whacked" etc. I am thinking about some sort of Twitter/Facebook/Hot or Not/Google analytics mash up that would let teams track the various players on the chess board.

Joe J.

Hmmm.... This just gave me an idea totally unrelated to whether this division thing gets off the ground or not.

Thanks Joe!