pic: Houston Venue for Championship 2017

[Kevin Leonard]

Originally Posted by Cory

Hopefully FIRST springs for some with seatbacks this time around.

This. There is nothing worse than sitting the entire day in the stands scouting without seat backs.

Please, dear FIRST, give me seat backs.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Richard Wallace

If each field has 100 ft of 15 row bleachers on each side, about 1200 per field could be seated. Each field would occupy about 16,000 sq.ft. This would be much larger than the pit-area fields that St. Louis used a few years ago, but I think it is necessary to provide enough seating in subdivisions. Einstein will be another matter -- not sure how that is going to fit in a convention hall.

So if the fields take up 64K SqF, that would leave about 440K SqF on the first floor for pits etc. Which is 150K SqF more than was allotted to FRC pits this year for 600 teams. Provided there is enough rentable seating available in Houston, I think FIRST can manage to have enough seating available around the fields.

Originally Posted by Tim Sharp

"Bleachers" and "Comfortable" are oxymorons

Xavier is referring to the pullout seating on the 3rd floor of GRB. It's made of individual molded, padded seats with armrests and everything:

I can assure you it is indeed quite comfortable, but I don't know if it's the seating that will be used on the 1st floor where FRC is bound to land.

Originally Posted by Xavbro

The convention center is very large and has 3 different floors. If they only have 4 divisions, I can see it all fitting nicely in the convention center. Maybe two divisions on the first and second floor with Einstein being on the 3rd floor. FLL and FTC could be on the third floor all together.

Xavier, there's 3 floors but only 1st and 3rd have actual floor space. 2nd floor is a long hallway, a few conference room, and some windows staring out into the 35' of ceiling space on 1st floor.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Sounds like a cool setup. I had far less problems with the pit fields in 2011 than most of my peers. Any idea on the logistics of moving robots and pits from the convention center to Minute Maid for Einstein? How far is this walk?

Google says 0.2mi from the nearest corner of GRB to the near side of Minute Maid. Convolutions to get down to the field would add some time and distance to this. IF* they do it this way, there's obviously going to be a fair bit of traffic to get field crew, etc. down there. They'd probably close down the roads, though I don't know that they'd provide covering as well. I would actually hope for a solution like rolling everything into a 15 foot UHaul and making a short drive over. If we're talking about pit fields, then it's not like you're dragging your entire pit onto the field for division elims again like this year, so it'd only be one giant move between Division Finals and Einstein for 16 teams.

Originally Posted by Cory

I didn't mind the pit fields that much in 2011, other than the bleachers being very uncomfortable. Hopefully FIRST springs for some with seatbacks this time around.

Originally Posted by Kevin Leonard

This. There is nothing worse than sitting the entire day in the stands scouting without seat backs.

Please, dear FIRST, give me seat backs.

I will certainly pass that request along. I can see that seating with seat backs is rentable, so I'm going to assume that it'd come down to cost vs. benefit thing. I'll try to explain the benefit as clearly as possible to Lucia.

*Caveat that the event is a year off and my information is from a single member of the board.

[Greg Needel]

The thing that I want to know is how many fields will there be at each event.

This year we had 8 for 600 teams at ~75 teams per division. This was nice because everyone got 10 matches and for the most part didn't seem rushed. The negative is that is spread the team talent out.

Assuming that each Championship gets 400 teams, are we going to see 4 ~100 team divisions (like the 2014 champs) meaning we will likely see 8 matches per division or are we going to see 8 divisions with 50 teams? (which seems like a bad idea from robot strength but fun when you get to play 12 matches). Could 6 fields work? How would eliminations work on Einstein in that case?


Has this been announced anywhere?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

The thing that I want to know is how many fields will there be at each event.

This year we had 8 for 600 teams at ~75 teams per division. This was nice because everyone got 10 matches and for the most part didn't seem rushed. The negative is that is spread the team talent out.

Assuming that each Championship gets 400 teams, are we going to see 4 ~100 team divisions (like the 2014 champs) meaning we will likely see 8 matches per division or are we going to see 8 divisions with 50 teams? (which seems like a bad idea from robot strength but fun when you get to play 12 matches). Could 6 fields work? How would eliminations work on Einstein in that case?


Has this been announced anywhere?

6 fields would work just fine with Recycle Rush's points based quarter-finals. *ducks*

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

The thing that I want to know is how many fields will there be at each event.

This year we had 8 for 600 teams at ~75 teams per division. This was nice because everyone got 10 matches and for the most part didn't seem rushed. The negative is that is spread the team talent out.

Assuming that each Championship gets 400 teams, are we going to see 4 ~100 team divisions (like the 2014 champs) meaning we will likely see 8 matches per division or are we going to see 8 divisions with 50 teams? (which seems like a bad idea from robot strength but fun when you get to play 12 matches). Could 6 fields work? How would eliminations work on Einstein in that case?


Has this been announced anywhere?

EricH and I hashed out the math here. With a 6-minute cycle time (so either a really fast reset game and/or dual fields), you can get 10 plays out of the 2016 schedule with four 100-team divisions.

Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik

6 fields would work just fine with Recycle Rush's points based quarter-finals. *ducks*

And people said will.i.am used dirty words...

[AllenGregoryIV]

I propose we take a page out the VEX playbook.

5 Divisions each with 80 teams and a full round robin for Einstein. Everyone plays every other division once and the best 2 records play a best 2 out 3 finals.

[Koko Ed]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

The thing that I want to know is how many fields will there be at each event.

This year we had 8 for 600 teams at ~75 teams per division. This was nice because everyone got 10 matches and for the most part didn't seem rushed. The negative is that is spread the team talent out.

Assuming that each Championship gets 400 teams, are we going to see 4 ~100 team divisions (like the 2014 champs) meaning we will likely see 8 matches per division or are we going to see 8 divisions with 50 teams? (which seems like a bad idea from robot strength but fun when you get to play 12 matches). Could 6 fields work? How would eliminations work on Einstein in that case?


Has this been announced anywhere?

They could do it MSC style and have each division have tow fields and bounce back and forth between even and odd matches and do a dozen matches for each team like like MSC does.

[Bkeeneykid]

Originally Posted by Greg Needel

The thing that I want to know is how many fields will there be at each event.

This year we had 8 for 600 teams at ~75 teams per division. This was nice because everyone got 10 matches and for the most part didn't seem rushed. The negative is that is spread the team talent out.

Assuming that each Championship gets 400 teams, are we going to see 4 ~100 team divisions (like the 2014 champs) meaning we will likely see 8 matches per division or are we going to see 8 divisions with 50 teams? (which seems like a bad idea from robot strength but fun when you get to play 12 matches). Could 6 fields work? How would eliminations work on Einstein in that case?


Has this been announced anywhere?

I decided to work on a 6 alliance elimination schedule. This is probably a crazy idea, but it'll probably work.

Match    Blue   Red
TF1       1        6
TF2       2        5
TF3       3        4

SF1       TF1    TF2
SF2       TF2    TF3
SF3       TF2    TF3

F1          SF1     SF3

(repeat each match, then do tie breakers, like normal eliminations)

To explain this, the Tri-Finals (for lack of a better name) would be the equivalent of the current Quarters. The Semi-Finals is where it gets weird. They get split up into two Semi finals, one with TF1 and TF2 winners, and one with TF2 and TF3 winners. The big caveat of this is that TF2 winners have to play two semi final matches instead of one like everyone else, unless they win both of their matches (both SF1 and SF2),in which case, they do a tiebreaker for the two losers. The two winning alliances then go onto regular finals.

With only six alliances, there's a potential maximum of 27 rounds for eliminations, assuming each round goes to a tiebreaker. There's a minimum of 14, so I could see the wide variety of times to plan for an issue. But it proves that six alliance playoffs are possible.

EDIT: Made a quick flowchart of how this proposed flow would go:

[PayneTrain]

I find the idea of shifting from the Championship event with 4 fields at 100 teams in 2014 to 16 fields between the 2 postseason expos at 50 in 2017 intriguing. Coupling that with the knowledge we have only had a 15.6% increase in the global team, it's a very thought provoking scenario. The thought: why not just save tens of thousands of dollars and go to a mid-tier out-of district event?

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid

(Explanation)

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid

(Further Explanantion with Examples)

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid

(Yet More Explanation)

I'm starting to get worried that if this thread goes any farther, Bkeeney might stumble upon the forbidden words and summon the Elimination Bracket of Doom.

[ATannahill]

Originally Posted by Bkeeneykid

I decided to work on a 6 alliance elimination schedule. This is probably a crazy idea, but it'll probably work.

Match    Blue   Red
TF1       1        6
TF2       2        5
TF3       3        4

SF1       TF1    TF2
SF2       TF1    TF3
SF3       TF2    TF3

F          SF1     SF3

(repeat each match, then do tie breakers, like normal eliminations)

To explain this, the Tri-Finals (for lack of a better name) would be the equivalent of the current Quarters. The Semi-Finals is where it gets weird. The winners of each Tri-final go on to do two matches (Technically 4-6, with tiebreakers). If they win both semi-finals, they go onto regular finals, proceeding like normal finals. If they loose one of them, they'll replay the match between the two (again, with second round & tiebreaker). Then that winning alliance goes onto regular finals.

With only six alliances, there's a potential maximum of 27 rounds for eliminations, assuming each round goes to a tiebreaker. There's a minimum of 14, so I could see the wide variety of times to plan for an issue. But it proves that six alliance playoffs are possible.

EDIT: Made a quick flowchart of how this proposed flow would go:

I am confused how you get your two finalists, can you explain it again?

As I understand each round proceeds normally, there are two matches played, if each match goes to a different alliance than a third is played hopefully generating a winner. The winner of the TF1 round moves on, the winner of the TF2 round moves on and the winner of the TF3 moves on.

I do not understand how you narrow down from the three Tri-final winners to the two finalists.

Edit: The flowchart makes it easier to understand, I would suggest switching the names of SF2 and SF3. How do you even out the fact that TF2 has played twice as many matches as TF1 or TF3 if SF2(3) is not needed?

[Bkeeneykid]

Originally Posted by rtfgnow

I am confused how you get your two finalists, can you explain it again?

As I understand each round proceeds normally, there are two matches played, if each match goes to a different alliance than a third is played hopefully generating a winner. The winner of the TF1 round moves on, the winner of the TF2 round moves on and the winner of the TF3 moves on.

I do not understand how you narrow down from the three Tri-final winners to the two finalists.

Edit: The flowchart makes it easier to understand, I would suggest switching the names of SF2 and SF3. How do you even out the fact that TF2 has played twice as many matches as TF1 or TF3 if SF2(3) is not needed?

I just did another edit to make it more clear again. The basic idea is that the winners of TF2 play both matches. If they loose both of them, TF1 and TF3 go onto finals. If they loose one, the one they lost against and the winner of the other Tri-Final go onto finals. If the win both, SM3 (or 5, numbering is hard here), is a Tie-Breaker between the winners of TF1 and TF2 to go onto finals with TF2.