**FIRST EMAIL**/2013 Championship Registration/2013 FRC Season Dates and Deadlines/As

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by akoscielski3

I believe the 2013 Championships will be the most competitive event ever. Maybe even bigger than IRI will be?

I have to AGREE on 2013 CHAMPIONSHIP...

Though, IMO that will change over the years when the District Model rolls across-the-land as the dominant competition format... UNLESS your District is like Michigan.

As for IRI, I don't agree... since I see IRI as a Championship-of-the-CHAMPIONSHIP with 90%+ of the _INVITED_ teams competitive (on the field) enough to make CMP Division Elims (should ALL fall-into-place over 3 days)... and 60%+ competitive enough to make it to Einstein (should ALL fall-into-place over 3 days)...

[Siri]

I like the idea, but I don't like the execution much either. First, I agree with IndySam that it has a very weird element of luck to it. (There's always luck, but be-at-this-event luck seems to push it to me.) It also seems to be rather arbitrarily limited: why doesn't it include other pre-qualified teams? What about double qualifiers from the same event: winner winning Chairman's? Or if one of the culture winners qualifies earlier? Someone gets a shot if I (haha) win Chairman's and then an event but not an event and then a Chairman's?

What might be the downsides to taking all/most/some of the double-qual slots and turning them into 1+ at-large wildcard/merit-ranked/lottery bids? Still less room for buy-ins,* but at least it avoids some of the win vs qualify and early vs late event issues.


*I still feel like there must be a better way to do the buy-in thing. Ok, maybe there's a case for the inspiration it can lend to less-winning teams, but shouldn't everyone have to do something? Write an persuasive essay, give a presentation, volunteer/liaison...something? Everyone's got something more than just a fast finger to offer. <<Crazy talk.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by IndySam

My response.


I don't like this idea at all. Why is a team who gets one of these slots just because they are lucky enough to be at a regional where there is a duplicate winner deserve the spot any more than a team that wasn't lucky enough to be at a regional with a duplicate winner? This will also favor teams who attend late season regionals.

This will also leave very few spots (if none at all available) for wait listed teams.

Please don't do this. But if you do, at least give the spot to the team who is the highest seed that didn't earn a spot by being lucky enough to win.

You bring up some discussion worthy points.
But we all know the current system isnt fair either.
Why should Hawaii teams who cant log in to sign up for CMP on the waitlist vs. US mainland teams, be penalized to fall further on the waitlist.

In the past, we waited almost 20-30 minutes of constantly trying to sign in to sign up for CMP.

Its definitely a step in the right direction.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Why should Hawaii teams who cant log in to sign up for CMP on the waitlist vs. US mainland teams, be penalized to fall further on the waitlist.

In the past, we waited almost 20-30 minutes of constantly trying to sign in to sign up for CMP.

Honest question: what's the difference between the mainland and OCONUS signups? We've had similar waits for TIMS, and we're in Pennsylvania. I thought it was just a location-independent server overload (or some much more technical term).

[Gregor]

So lets see if I understand the wildcard slots correctly.

If a team has won RCA, RAS, EI, or the regional at a previous regional, the alliance captain, first pick, and second pick will qualify in that order based on how many teams from the winning alliance have qualified by winning one of the aforementioned awards?*

If a team has pre-qualified in anyway, (i.e. HOF, pre registering), this is not applicable?

Is all this correct?




*that is the run on sentence of run on sentences

[Lil' Lavery]

The new wild card system is far from being perfectly fair, but show me a system that is fair. I can't believe anyone would actually object to that change, as it's clearly more "fair" (in terms of allocating spots to deserving/succesful teams) than the previous system. I don't see how anyone could argue that it's not an improvement over previous years.

And I'd hardly categorize attending an event where you have to compete against a team good enough to earn multiple bids to championship as "lucky."


That being said, I did propose something similar in another thread, but with a caveat.

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

My thought on that was to draw from teams who attended either event. So, for your example, both the teams at Chesapeake and Connecticut would be eligible to fill 181's extra spot and would be sorted by whatever criteria is selected.

Obviously, this does increase the chances of ties in a point-based system. Additionally, any biasing in the ranking system towards running more qualification matches (FiM/MAR rankings reward 2 points per qualification win) or larger events (FIRST's proposed ranking system would award 50 points to the #1 seed at a 50 team event but only 35 points for a #1 seed at a 35 team event) would have to be considered as well. But I think this is a less fundamentally flawed system than encouraging later season events.

[Michael Blake]

I've been told by very reliable folks that the District Model is coming here to Texas in the next 2-3 years... and that the number of Texas teams, as it stands now, that will qualify for CHAMPIONSHIP is 16 based upon an accumulation of points...

The TOP 16 Texas point accumulators go to the WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP!

This new approach, adding teams from the Regional FINALIST pool, seems like a "bridge" to start to laying track for the coming District Model for the rest of FRC FIRST.


IMHO... when the District Model becomes dominant, IRI will rise even further in relevance and prestige... UNLESS Districts are able to build a stable of super-capable teams to feed to CHAMPIONSHIP like they've done in Michigan.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

The new wild card system is far from being perfectly fair, but show me a system that is fair. I can't believe anyone would actually object to that change, as it's clearly more "fair" (in terms of allocating spots to deserving/succesful teams) than the previous system. I don't see how anyone could argue that it's not an improvement over previous years.

And I'd hardly categorize attending an event where you have to compete against a team good enough to earn multiple bids to championship as "lucky."

You can't imagine? I know you have a better imagination than that Oh and I never use the word fair.

My biggest objection is not to giving those extra spots out on a merit basis it's more about giving it to the runner-up alliance, I just don't think that would be the best way. How are they really anymore deserving of the spot than any other alliance that the regional winner defeated? They just had better timing.

I would much rather see them reward teams that did well during the qualifying part of the tournament. That would at least give some extra emphasis to doing well in qualifying.

Heck I would prefer they eliminate the automatic rookie seeds and give those spots out on a merit basis also.

[waialua359]

Geez, with all this talk about district models and how they'll be popping up in more and more regions, that sure leaves the rest of us at greater disadvantage every year.

**We better start doing more than 2-3 regionals per year......otherwise, they'll be none left to compete in away from home, and way less chances to meet/play with other teams and qualify.

[Michael Blake]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Geez, with all this talk about district models and how they'll be popping up in more and more regions, that sure leaves the rest of us at greater disadvantage every year.

**We better start doing more than 2-3 regionals per year......otherwise, they'll be none left to compete in away from home, and way less chances to meet/play with other teams and qualify.

You know, Glenn... ANOTHER thing that _kills me_ on this District Model is that ONLY Texas teams are proposed to be able to compete in the Texas District?!


Aloha... hope all is well !! ;-)

[mwmac]

Originally Posted by waialua359

Geez, with all this talk about district models and how they'll be popping up in more and more regions, that sure leaves the rest of us at greater disadvantage every year.

**We better start doing more than 2-3 regionals per year......otherwise, they'll be none left to compete in away from home, and way less chances to meet/play with other teams and qualify.

If, as expected, the district model comes to the west coast soon, you should expect to see YYC (Calgary), SLC (Salt Lake), PHX (Phoenix) and DEN (Denver), on your boarding pass.

[Bongle]

The new wild card system is an improvement, but it's only half-fair. Not sure how to make it better though.

An elimination tournament is good at determining who the best competitor is, but is pretty poor at determining who the second-best competitor is. The final pits the winner of the "left" elimination tournament against the winner of the "right" elimination tournament. You can say that the two teams are the best alliances of the "left" and "right" sides, but you can't say that the finalist alliance is better or worse than any of the teams in the winning alliance's branch, since you have never really compared them. In fact, it is possible that all the alliances in the winner's elimination bracket were better than the finalist alliance.

The finalist team can be said to be the best of their branch of the elimination tree, but there's no way of telling if they're better than any of the teams that the regional winners defeated on their way to the final.

So now everyone will really want to be on the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, or 7th alliance I guess

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Mark McLeod

What do you think about the adoption of Wild Card Slots for the 2013 FIRST Championship for Regional Finalist teams?

I like it. Last year we won two regionals, facing 1208 in the finals of both. They made it to champs on an open registration, but in this system would have earned a wild card spot at the St. Louis regional. A tremendous boost to groups of regionals which have a large number of teams in common.

If a team who wins a Regional in 2013 – in other words, if a team who is a member of the Winning Alliance – has already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013, a ‘Wild Card’ slot is created at the Regional which they just won.

I wish each regional could ensure 6 unique qualifiers, but that is not how Frank's teaser reads on the blog. For example when we won both the regional and EI in Kansas City last year (a week 1 event) it would have been nice to give the wild card to 935, the finalist captain. They later went on to win the Dallas West regional and qualify for champs anyway... but would have then created a wild card opportunity at the Dallas West which would have gone to 2468 I believe.

Wild Card slots are filled in the order of Finalist Alliance Captain, Finalist First Pick, Finalist Second Pick, and Finalist Backup Team. Wild Card slots are passed to the next team in order only if the team occupying that Wild Card slot has, itself, already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013.

Last year a great team could have avoided the coop bridge, affecting the rankings of their partners and opponents, and be content to be another team's top pick. The wildcard system gives preference to the finalist captain over the finalist first pick and could encourage teams to fight more for that captain's spot.

At some regionals the top alliance is considered so dominant that other teams might perceive they are fighting for the finalist captain position, and the wild card spot. This could lead to top 8 teams declining invitations to be someone's top pick if there is likely only one wild card spot up for grabs at a regional instead of two. I'm thinking in particular of the team slated to be the #6 alliance captain refusing the #4.

Looking forward to hearing the details of this system.

PS. It would be interesting to have someone post a list of all the multiple qualifiers from last year and track who the wildcards would have been.

[Alpha Beta]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

PS. It would be interesting to have someone post a list of all the multiple qualifiers from last year and track who the wildcards would have been.

30 Teams were multi-qualifiers for champs in 2012 according to the 1114 database. 2056 alone qualified 4 times and would have created 3 (edit = 2) wild cards. In total these 30 teams took 69 slots (or in other words an additional 39 slots.)

Not every multi-qualifier would have created a wild card since several people double qualified in their first event. (Maybe the GDC will have those create a wild card as well.) What seems odd at the moment is that a team who double qualifies in their first event and then wins a 2nd event only generates one wild card (1986), while a team who qualifies at an early event and double qualifies at a second event would generate two wild cards (340). Instead of 39 wild cards, this group would have only generated 22. Edit: Ignore the gray. Only 19 wild cards. Still odd that a team who earns RCA at their first regional and is a part of the winning alliance in their second regional generates a wild card, but the reverse order would not.

Below are all the multi-qualifiers.

16	KC (RW), IL (RW), DA (RW)	
48	PIT (RW), PIT (RCA), WI (RW)	
148	IL (RW), DA (RW)		
181	MD (RW), CT (RW)		
233	FL (RW), FL (RCA), MA (RW)	
234	TN (RW), TN (RCA)		
246	MA (RW), MA (RCA)		
281	SC (RW), SC (RCA)		
340	ROC (RCA), OH (RW), OH (RCA)	
359	HI (RW), TX (RW)		
384	VA (RW), VA (EI)		
971	SAC (RW), SJ (RW)		
987	CA (RW), NV (RW)		
1114	ON (RW), ON (RCA), WAT (RW)	
1311	GA (RCA), NC (RW)		
1477	STX (RW), LA (RW), LA (EI)	
1507	ROC (RW), OH (RW)		
1540	OK (RW), OK (RCA)		
1592	FL (RW), SFL (RW)		
1714	DMN (RW), DMN (EI)		
1717	CA (RW), CAF (RW)		
1983	WAS (RW), WAS (RCA)		
1985	MO (RW), MO (RCA)		
1986	KC (RW), KC (EI), MO (RW)	
2046	WA2 (RW), WA2 (RCA)		
2056	ON (RW), WAT (RW), WAT (RCA), ON2 (RW)
2169	DMN (RW), DMN (RCA)		
3990	QC (RW), QC (RAS)		
4001	ON2 (RW), ON2 (RAS)		
4226	MN2 (RW), MN2 (RAS)

Now to go figure out who the wildcards would have been.

[Patrick Flynn]

Originally Posted by Alpha Beta

What seems odd at the moment is that a team who double qualifies in their first event and then wins a 2nd event only generates one wild card (1986), while a team who qualifies at an early event and double qualifies at a second event would generate two wild cards (340). Instead of 39 wild cards, this group would have only generated 22.

It is my understanding that a team like 340 would have only created one wildcard slot, this is because they won both EI and regional win at their second regional after already qualifying at their first regional. And only the RW spot would have become a wild card.

If a team who wins a Regional in 2013 – in other words, if a team who is a member of the Winning Alliance – has already qualified for Championship at an earlier Regional in 2013, a ‘Wild Card’ slot is created at the Regional which they just won.

It appears that EI and RCA would not create wild card slots even if the teams that are receiving them at their second regional had already qualified. This also means that a team that receives RW, RCA, RW in that order at three different regional would create one wild card slot while a team winning in the order of RCA, RW, RW would create 2.
I believe that this also means that the numbers you provided for total wild card slots should be lower because 2056 and 1114... would only have created 2 wild card slots because you have to exclude their RCA