Smaller Nationals = Bigger Regionals?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

...for a number of teams N there must N/40 regionals...

You have an unstated assumption regarding the number of matches played at a regional. If you're going to do a mathematical treatment, you need to make that assumption explicit. Better yet, derive it based on more basic parameters like the duration of the regional, the average time between matches, the number of teams playing each match, etc. The average time between matches depends in turn on match duration, field reset and robot synch time...and the number of fields being used. I think the 2006 Greater Toronto Regional was doing about four minutes between match starts, alternating between two fields so one match could be setting up while another was still underway.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

You have an unstated assumption regarding the number of matches played at a regional. If you're going to do a mathematical treatment, you need to make that assumption explicit. Better yet, derive it based on more basic parameters like the duration of the regional, the average time between matches, the number of teams playing each match, etc. The average time between matches depends in turn on match duration, field reset and robot synch time...and the number of fields being used. I think the 2006 Greater Toronto Regional was doing about four minutes between match starts, alternating between two fields so one match could be setting up while another was still underway.

Good points, I'll redo the calculations tonight when I have more time. Thanks.

[Chris is me]

I read this thread and got scared that FIRST made an announcement about a smaller Championship...

[Chexposito]

who says nationals will be smaller?

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by Chexposito

who says nationals will be smaller?

It was an announcement made back in 2001, do you not remember?

[Justin Montois]

I've always felt that the Championship event should have more of an IRI field of teams. I understand that the Championship event is an amazing experience and to 'punish' teams that struggle to build even a robot that runs isn't fair but I wish the Championship event was the best of the best.

Give teams something to strive for. Do some kids in college football play 4 years without ever playing in a bowl game, yup. And yeah that kinda sucks but I think our Championship event should have the best teams in the world, not just the teams that can afford it.

I'm not trying to be rude to the teams that were there and didn't have great seasons but let's be honest, there were teams there that didn't win a match at their regionals. That to me is a sign the system is a bit flawed. I'll be the first one to say that our robot probably didn't deserve to be at the Championship Event a couple years if it weren't for Chairmans. IDK i'm just thinking out loud.

[kjolana1124]

Originally Posted by 340x4xLife

I've always felt that the Championship event should have more of an IRI field of teams. I understand that the Championship event is an amazing experience and to 'punish' teams that struggle to build even a robot that runs isn't fair but I wish the Championship event was the best of the best.

Give teams something to strive for. Do some kids in college football play 4 years without ever playing in a bowl game, yup. And yeah that kinda sucks but I think our Championship event should have the best teams in the world, not just the teams that can afford it.

I'm not trying to be rude to the teams that were there and didn't have great seasons but let's be honest, there were teams there that didn't win a match at their regionals. That to me is a sign the system is a bit flawed. I'll be the first one to say that our robot probably didn't deserve to be at the Championship Event a couple years if it weren't for Chairmans. IDK i'm just thinking out loud.

I have to agree here. As I recall they're going to begin cutting back on the amount of "automatic" spots allowed. I'm for this. Well, sort of.

In 2009, our team didn't even make eliminations during Hartford. We still went to Atlanta. It was an amazing experience unlike any other, and we made it to the quarter finals. I know I would've been really upset if our team didn't go. But still, in the end, Championships are Championships.

I still want there to be a way for teams that maybe don't quite make it all the way to get to experience the thrill, however. After all, it was only after going to Atlanta the first time that I really fell in love with FIRST. To deprive that from students just because their team may not be the best of the best would be detrimental to the program. Maybe have two divisions? Like, a field or set of fields for regional winners only (Chairman's winners can come play too ), and another for the other people? There is a downside in that the "others" wouldn't get to really experience the thrill of playing with some of the top teams. But it would allow them to go to Atlanta and give the top teams the matches they more deserve.

I don't know, like Justin I'm also just thinking out loud and my thoughts aren't 100% organized at all times.