2011 Greater Toronto Regional

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by EricH

(though I must say, most of the GTR teams would probably love it if 1114 was in East and 2056 in West, or vice versa).

I'm undecided on this. Geographically speaking, they both belong in GTA West.

I'm just as tired as the next guy of watching 1114 or 2056 seed #1 and choose the other, HOWEVER, I don't think there should be anything to stop them from doing so. FURTHERMORE, I'd hate to beat them because of silly rules, or because they went easy on the rest of us.

Their utter dominance is inspiring, and I only want to see them defeated by a legitimately better robot/strategy.

[dtengineering]

Congratulations to the GTR team on ten years of excellence. It would be great to see the champion alliances from each field play off against each other... perhaps the schedule can be amended to permit it. However there is another way to do it...

When we set a double regional VEX tournament for the BC championships, we clearly marked an "A" division and a "B" division. Teams that had won awards, or been to the finals at a previous event that season were placed in the "A" division automatically. Other teams got to choose which division they wanted. It took a bit of guidance and cooperation but we ended up with pretty much a 50-50 split.

The teams in "A" got to experience the top-level competition that they would expect at the World Championships, while for many teams in "B" they got the experience of advancing through the playoffs, or captaining an alliance for the first time.

So I'd suggest that the double regionals should run an "A" division and a "B" division... in "A", both the winners AND runners-up qualify for the Championships. In "B", only the chairman's winner and rookie inspiration do.

The number of qualifying spots for the championships stays the same, but you likely end up with more deserving teams qualifying, and those that qualify will be better prepared as they have survived a gruelling test against the best in "A" division. There should be no complaints about 1114 and 2056 alliances, as if you're playing in "A" the whole point is that you're playing against/with the best. If you don't want to do that, then sign up for the "B" divsion.

No matter how it works out, it will be a great competition, but we had a very positive experience in VRC by differentiating teams by ability/aspiration and letting the "top dogs" go at it flat out while giving some of the newer and less well resourced teams a chance to experience the thrill of victory and gaining some Saturday afternoon experience for when they advance up the competitive ladder a notch or two. There would be some challenges in porting this model to FRC, of course, but it might be worth trying at some point.

Jason

"We've experienced victory, and we've experienced defeat. Both have been great learning opportunities for our team... but I know which one was more fun."

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by EricH

Jonathan, Bill's Blog stated that teams could sign up for any regional, but FRC reserved the right to equalize the double regionals such that they weren't all rookies, or so that the regionals had about the same number of teams. (From http://frcdirector.blogspot.com/2010...efore-you.html )

As regards having a "championship" match at double regionals, Alex is correct. By the time awards are over, teams just want to get out of there. The only people that want to get out of there more than the teams are the volunteers, and the FTA and teardown crew don't leave until the truck is being loaded, or in the FTA's case, has left fully loaded. If half the crew has to stay an extra half-hour or so due to teams playing more, I don't think the road cases, and therefore the truck, will get loaded as fast.

As it is, teams wanting pictures on the official field have to do it quickly, because the field is coming down around them as they do it.

Build it into the regional agenda. It's already been done once before, to an extreme.

In 2004, at the first Canadian Super Regional, there were 16 full alliances and a complete set of eighth finals. Is that not the exact number of alliances and match series required to determine the "Uber Champion" between GTR East and West?

From a worst-case time perspective, it's been done before. At the same venue. And I wasn't worried about packing up and leaving at the end in '04 - I was busy watching Finals Match 1-3.

[Racer26]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

In 2004, at the first Canadian Super Regional, there were 16 full alliances and a complete set of eighth finals. Is that not the exact number of alliances and match series required to determine the "Uber Champion" between GTR East and West?

No, its not. An uber-champion of GTR East/West would only require one additional set of Finals matches, with 6 teams total. Eighth Finals is 8 sets of matches.

EDIT: Oh, DUH. Yes, Travis. You're right. I'm an idiot, and misunderstood what you meant.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

No, its not. An uber-champion of GTR East/West would only require one additional set of Finals matches, with 6 teams total. Eighth Finals is 8 sets of matches.

The quarters, semis, and finals of each GTR regional this year would be equivalent to the eighths, quarters, and semis of the 2004 Canadian Regional.

The Uber Championship of the GTR E/W Regionals this year would be equivalent to the 2004 Canadian Regional finals.

The only question of difference is whether elimination matches at the GTR regionals this year would occur on both fields concurrently vs. the alternating match method used in 2004 (with setup for the next match taking place on the idle field while the match on the active field was in progress).

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman

In 2004, at the first Canadian Super Regional, there were 16 full alliances and a complete set of eighth finals. Is that not the exact number of alliances and match series required to determine the "Uber Champion" between GTR East and West?

It's the same number of matches, but that way they were all done one after another. It took almost as long as the 2010 IRI elimination rounds. :-P

Instead of adding eight match series at the beginning of the process, the proposed Champions' Match would add only one series after the rest of the matches were done in two simultaneous 8-alliance brackets. So it's not adding much additional match time...but it's doing it in a very inconvenient way.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

It's the same number of matches, but that way they were all done one after another. It took almost as long as the 2010 IRI elimination rounds. :-P

Instead of adding eight match series at the beginning of the process, the proposed Champions' Match would add only one series after the rest of the matches were done in two simultaneous 8-alliance brackets. So it's not adding much additional match time...but it's doing it in a very inconvenient way.

Think of it this way. 1114, 48, and 1006 and 33, 639, and 1112 each had to win a regional's worth of matches to get to the 2004 Canadian Regional finals. We did not see each other until the final matchup - we each competed in a separate full regional bracket to get to the finals.

GTR East Winning Alliance and GTR West Winning Alliance each have to win a regional's worth of matches to get to the GTR E/W Uber Championship. The alliances will not see each other until the final matchup - they each competed in a separate full regional to get to the Uber Championship.

You would only have to append the one final series of matches after the 2 separate GTR E/W elimination structures to achieve it. This one series of matches could be held immediately after the champions for each regional were determined (provided logistics and scoring software allow for it to happen quickly).

My only point is the exact same process needed to determine a GTR E/W Uber Champion has already been played out once before, at the same event, in 2004. There is a precedent. That is my point - it's not like anyone has to reinvent the wheel. The event staff knows how to make it work. The only question is whether they feel it worth the additional time and resources.

Was the 2004 Canada elimination process more of a marathon for everyone? Sure, it was, but that's the point - the alliances who reached the finals had to work harder to be declared the ultimate champion of that event. It meant something more than being a "regular" regional champion. Even though we came up just short, the whole experience was one of the highlights of my FIRST career. I think it's worth doing and would add to the spectacle and history of an already great regional.

[EricH]

The major difference between 2004 and 2011 is that 2004 was a single regional played on two fields. 2010 is two separate regionals that just so happen to be in the same building at the same time. As such, any champion between the two would be entirely unofficial, instead of the regional winner.

However, I have a proposition to make. Instead of having the Uber Champion of a given double-regional at the event, have it at the next offseason that all 6 teams attend (and offer incentives to get them there, if needed). Have it before the event, or during a lunch break.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I wonder to what extent they will do this. Is it just a "okay a few of you go over here" kind of thing, or drastic measures like "we're splitting up 1114 and 2056, have fun kids"? The latter I'd be much less okay with; if my team was going to an event with a friend team we'd like to compete with them...

I guess I'm skeptical of the precedent.

If the Minnesota events in the past are any indication it is more like the former than the latter. I find it odd that Bill stated that they haven't done any balancing before, he must not be aware that there was at least one veteran team last year that was asked to move from Northstar to 10K Lakes (note: I don't know the entire story, but from what I understand it was indeed asked and not told).

[Vince lau]

Looks like GTR west and east have a total of 17 rookies so far, hopefully I'll have time to volunteer this year as an inspector.