How about eight divisions on four fields

[rick.oliver]

To address a few of the issues raised: (and isn't this fun? CD is great )

I agree, it adds more time. I'm not sure how much net real time is increased because there would be some time recovered as most of the wait time between matches that currently occurs after the Quarter Final round would not be required.

I understand the concern about the "quality" of the alliances formed if a higher percentage of the teams attending participate in the elimination rounds. I'm not sure where that ranks on the list of criteria used by F.I.R.S.T.; personally, I prefer to see the best teams leading the alliances and able to be paired together.

Another consideration for me is the quality of the match play. I think folks would agree that elimination rounds match play is generally more exciting than qualifying rounds match play. In part, I think it is bacause the "higher quality" teams are allied together. I also think that it is because teams are working together for a common purpose; specifically they are not trying to showcase their own robot, rather they are supporting the goal of the alliance. Which is the more valuable lesson?

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by rick.oliver

Another consideration for me is the quality of the match play. I think folks would agree that elimination rounds match play is generally more exciting than qualifying rounds match play. In part, I think it is bacause the "higher quality" teams are allied together. I also think that it is because teams are working together for a common purpose; specifically they are not trying to showcase their own robot, rather they are supporting the goal of the alliance. Which is the more valuable lesson?

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The goal of the alliance is to win the match, isn't it? That's what every team on the field ought to be working toward, in qualification matches as well as elimination matches. If a team values "showcasing" above playing to win, and thus loses a match, I would seriously question their strategic judgement.

Are you suggesting that some teams go out there just to grandstand, don't really think about the effect of that attitude on their alliance partners and the match results, and thus end up selecting themselves out of the elimination rounds?

[cziggy343]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

I don't understand what you're trying to say. The goal of the alliance is to win the match, isn't it? That's what every team on the field ought to be working toward, in qualification matches as well as elimination matches. If a team values "showcasing" above playing to win, and thus loses a match, I would seriously question their strategic judgement.

Are you suggesting that some teams go out there just to grandstand, don't really think about the effect of that attitude on their alliance partners and the match results, and thus end up selecting themselves out of the elimination rounds?

i think that he is trying to say that some robots may try to do something(s) during the qualification rounds that may not necessarily be to their strengths, but it helps them to be more noticed. this doesnt mean that that robot is a total detriment to an alliance in quals, but it does mean that a team MAY be more prone to look after onesself in order to be noticed by the picking alliances.

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by cziggy343

i think that he is trying to say that some robots may try to do something(s) during the qualification rounds that may not necessarily be to their strengths, but it helps them to be more noticed. this doesnt mean that that robot is a total detriment to an alliance in quals, but it does mean that a team MAY be more prone to look after onesself in order to be noticed by the picking alliances.

That has been my experience on occassion; especially on Saturday morning as teams are vying for a spot on an alliance. It is also true that teams are trying to accomplish what they designed their robot to do. It has been my experience that, on occassion, the agreed roles and strategy are not executed in a qualifying match and for reasons that have excaped me.

Oh, and Lil' Lavery, thanks for taking us through the math. I should have remembered to "do the math". Well done.

[Chris is me]

I think it would be easier and in my opinion much better if two alliances from each field advanced rather than just one. (That's how it's done, right?)

[rick.oliver]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I think it would be easier and in my opinion much better if two alliances from each field advanced rather than just one. (That's how it's done, right?)

I don't understand what you propose. Could you say more to help me understand?

[EricH]

Right now, only one alliance advances from each division. He's suggesting sending two. This might be a workable idea, assuming that you skip divisional finals. But why would you do that?

[Alan Anderson]

You'd do that in order to give twice as many teams the opportunity to play on the Einstein field.

It would more than double the number of matches on Einstein, while saving only the [simultaneous] divisional final matches. It would also complicate the divisions' award ceremonies -- would there actually be a divisional champion, or would twice as many teams end up as divisional finalists only?

[Chris is me]

I was thinking that the division championship would play out as normal, and one team would be crowned the champion of each division, but that match largely doesn't matter except maybe for seeding or something. Just an idea.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

I was thinking that the division championship would play out as normal, and one team would be crowned the champion of each division, but that match largely doesn't matter except maybe for seeding or something. Just an idea.

And so you're practically doing the same thing as currently. You're just adding another 8 matches without subtracting any.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by EricH

And so you're practically doing the same thing as currently. You're just adding another 8 matches without subtracting any.

Minimum of 8, could be up to 12 (or more with ties).

[jgannon]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Are you suggesting that some teams go out there just to grandstand, don't really think about the effect of that attitude on their alliance partners and the match results, and thus end up selecting themselves out of the elimination rounds?

I don't think that's quite it. Imagine that you're playing your seventh and final qualifying match at the championship. Your current record is 3-3, so you are mathematically eliminated from becoming an alliance captain. You're facing the legendary team 46, and your best hope to win the match is to pin them against the wall while your partners try to score. You'd be surprised to find that many teams in that situation would sacrifice the good of the alliance to take advantage of their last opportunity to demonstrate their own offensive capabilities, in the hopes of being noticed by another team doing last-minute scouting. I can't say I'd fault them.

[Jared Russell]

I would rather see 4 divisions and 8 fields (9 with Einstein). Each division could have a "double field", two fields right next to each other. Matches wouldn't be played on both at the same time, but you could have one field getting ready while the other plays. Thus even matches are played on field "A" while odd matches are on field "B". The wait between matches could be reduced to a minute or two and we could actually get more than 6 or 7 matches per team.

FIRST definitely has the fields, but I don't know if (a) the wifi will play well or (b) there would be too much of a strain on the announcers and referees with such a hectic pace.

[ScottOliveira]

I'm not sure if there would be space for 8 fields in the Georgia Dome. Sure it's a large area, but keep in mind you need to try to keep all of the fields visible to the stands, while leaving room for all of the extra materials they have (spare balls, etc), paths for travel, space for queues. It would be a very difficult fit. And think about how much trouble it would cause in the stands if you had to move seats to get a good angle to see your team play for the next match

[Brian C]

Well after reading through all of the interesting discussions here I wanted to just add a couple of observations.

The main floor of the Dome is already pretty “busy” with the 4 division fields, the FTC field, the Einstein field along with the support equipment for each one. ( as Scott points out above)

I would love to see more divisions added as it would be great to give more teams the opportunity to be in elimination rounds. However I think realistically you need to look at the logistics of the whole operation.

The current capacity of approximately 400 FRC teams gives us a pit area that is already a very busy place. More teams may be accommodated by using more of the Georgia Convention Centers facility such as where the auto show usually is. However the trade off would be a much longer walk to the Dome floor for teams.

8 championships divisions would likely lead to less teams per division, let’s say approximately 60 teams just for arguments sake. This would lead to less time between matches for teams coupled with the “commute” back and forth to the fields makes it difficult for teams to perform necessary maintenance/repairs.

Now as far as 2 fields per division that sounds a lot like Double Trouble in 1999 where we had 2 smaller fields next to each other allowing for a quick turnaround between matches. While this would certainly allow for matches to cycle quicker you’re still going to be limited by wireless connectivity, scoring system limitations and items to that effect.

At the Long Island Regional we were down to 5 minutes cycle time between matches. 46 teams played 11 qualifying rounds each. I can tell you that we were VERY busy and worked hard to get the matches cycled through as quickly as possible. If it’s possible to move things along more quickly and maintain accuracy we’re always looking for ideas.